Comments on: Oscar non-winner gets mad at Jerry Seinfeld

By: Patrick

Patrick — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 22:34:58 +0000

I’m increasingly finding, in general, that J. Seinfeld seems to be laughing at others rather than with others. He does have a sharp knack for isolating the humor in life. However, he also behaves in an arrogant manner that’s continued to stay increasingly distatesful to me.

He appears to feel above the masses that he discusses, and has slipped beyond the bounds of basic manners in many areas.

I saw a moment of his interview w/Larry King (also rather ego inflated). His response to a simple question regarding the show ending by Jerry’s choice rather than a cancellation was rude, demaning, and incredibly transparent as to how fragile and inflated J.S.’ self importance is. I was almost embarrased for him rather than Larry.

His destruction of the former Billy Joel property he purchased, acting as if beyond the reach of local codes and prior aggreements, fits the pattern.

His ‘bride’s” book (that truthfully only puts into print what many, many parents have been doing for years) and their ongoing dismissal of the first authors issues, again fits pattern. The bride herself is a twin replacement of the first armpiece he married.

I’ve seen him in public as well as on air; the look is similar. He consistently walks with a haughty, bored, dismissive look on his face. When he does smile or laugh, his eyes are flat. That’s very telling.

Recently he appeared on the Today show to push the new Bee movie. His strut into the show and dismissive look to most in the building reeks of his boredom with people not of his realm.

Anyone can relish the man and his shows who wish to. I find he’s consistently left a bad taste in my mouth and I don’t wish to join his kingdom of followers.

He fits the standards of the personality disorder known as Narcissisum. How about this; look it up, and see if I’m far off base.

By: Sharell

Sharell — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 03:00:09 +0000

I watched it. I laughed. And I laughed even though it seems a bit unfair to punish movie theater employees (by dropping your trash on the floor) for something over which they have no control (the prices of tickets and concessions). However, I felt no desire to write an angry letter, then or now.
I did feel as though Jerry Seinfeld was auditioning, in a way. “See this, members of the Academy? See what I can do? When do I get to host the Academy Awards?”

By: Susie

Susie — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 12:24:21 +0000

I saw it and enjoyed it because of his irony about judging quality through this absurd process – especially in relation to documentaries. Its entertainment. Its not about quality. Ask Peter Weir.

By: Cafe Au Lait

Cafe Au Lait — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 03:33:00 +0000

I think from the presentation and the fact that it was coming from Jerry Seinfeld (almost) anyone could have figured that he was kidding when he said they were all “incredibly depressing” films. It’s silly to get worked up about it. But I do have a minor comment on the jokes about having to clean up after oneself in the theater. Not because it wasn’t funny, but because it was funny, and because it was funny there are probably going to be dolts out there thinking it will be really hilarious to take him at his word.

By: stupidramblings

stupidramblings — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 23:24:26 +0000

I found JS’s “Incredibly depressing” line to be in poor taste when presenting for the best documentary only because he did minimize the genre in the genre’s moment in the sun. Any other time in the broadcast would have been fine with me, but not while giving that award. His speech was a fine bit and very well delivered. If he was presenting an award for “Best Hunk of Smelly Cheese” and said, “Of the smelly cheeses, Limburger is the least disgusting. Here are the nominees for the foul substance known as cheese,” I would have the same reaction: poor timing on a great joke.

In no way would his comments have merited a scathing retort like Mr. Sinno’s though.

By: whome

whome — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 20:13:52 +0000

If the purpose of a documentary film is to educate the masses, then it had better reach the masses or it is not doing its job and fails as a documentary. Mr. Sinno seems to want it both ways, though, having both no audience and simultaneously being a successful documentary. I suspect that they have to up the number of required theaters to insure that enough of the voters have the opportunity to see the films in question.

If education is a requirement for a documentary’s success, you could argue thus: What made the Columbine documentary superior to Winged Migration or Spellbound (two better made and more interesting/beautiful documentaries that were nominated that year) was its reach. Tons of people saw it. It was more successful as a documentary.

This seems to be the way the academy votes in many cases (ti-cough-nic).

At least that’s the way it seems to me.

By: BeeDub

BeeDub — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 18:27:54 +0000

Ian Says:

March 5th, 2007 at 3:48 am
Check out the second comment below this Seattlest post.

This is very likely legit as James Longley lives in Seattle.

That’s awesome. Way to go, James, for being the bigger man.

By: Andrew D

Andrew D — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 15:36:58 +0000

“Unfortunately there is more than just one inconvenient truth in this world.”

Zing!

By: Ian

Ian — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 10:48:15 +0000

Check out the second comment below this Seattlest post. This is very likely legit as James Longley lives in Seattle.

By: corned_beef

corned_beef — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 02:29:23 +0000

I didn’t watch the Oscars, but still, the transcript itself was hilarious. Wish I had seen him do it live.