What is up with that Seinfeld guy?

Jerry stood out like a sore thumb. While I chuckled at his random jokes against the expensive movie-going experience, it was a very left-field moment. But then again, so were Ellen as a host, the shadow dancers, all the montages, and the Will Ferrell, Jack Black, John C. Reilly song.

Trim all that, the show could possibly be a reasonable length.

could it be that seinfeld was echoing through mockery the inattention the doc category receives from voters (many of whom don't bother to see any of them) and the virtual disdain much of the public in general shows to them?

also, we're in vast disagreement as to the docs being better than the best picture winners, but, then again, i loved "the departed", so perhaps it's natural that a rift exists there.

Wow. To hear that dude rant, you'd almost think he takes the Academy Awards seriously.

I guess he has a point. The Oscars have awarded so many worthy films in their history. The four-hour, comedy-focused, ad-infested show really *is* the yardstick by which we should measure Great Filmmaking in our society.

Isn't this all a bit silly? A comedian presented an award and made a few jokes. That's all. The idea that it's somehow an insult to all documentary makers is a bit insane. If a serious presenter had made these comments then I could understand why it would ruffle a few feathers. But Seinfeld is a comedian, his comments were obviously tongue-in-cheek. The words 'mountain' and 'mole-hill' leap to mind.

Also, I think Seinfeld's bit was one of the few entertaining moments of the night. Dull songs. Dull montages. Outside of a few deserving winners, and the classic moment where Marty Scorsese finally got his Oscar, Seinfeld and Downey Jr were about the only entertaining parts of the evening.

I totally agree about this
being nothing but a self serving distraction to what most people were already impatient for, The
the last 5 or 6 awards.
Jerry has always tried to find the line between over and under exposure. Afraid of fading from the limelight or getting too much press.
We have had many conversations about this.

Hrm. I actually came away kind of liking Comedian, and don't recall ever thinking it was self-glorifying. He had his part, but so did a few other comedians (some pleasant, one not so much). Seeing how Seinfeld worked through his process was interesting. Like him or not, he's a titan of modern stand-up.

Sinno has a valid complaint about Seinfeld's closing comment about the nominees being "incredibly depressing," but the rest of his complaint is just a wee too sensitive. What was Seinfeld doing speaking for that category? I have no idea. But saying his presence was an affront worthy of Open Letter status is just kind of silly.

I was starting to think I was the only one who hated his appearance at the Oscars. Not only was it disrespectful of the nominees, the content of his "jokes" was not at all funny. Only jerks leave their sticky trash on the floor for the underpaid ushers to clean.

If it's between his candor and the solemn piety that normally accompanies the documentary category, I'd choose Seinfeld without question.

All: If Seinfeld had chosen to denigrate the self-important nominees in some of the over-hyped categories (like, say, Best Picture, or one of the acting categories) that would be one thing. But Sinno has a good point: Why pick on little under-funded docs that most people avoid anyway, and that could use the Oscar publicity to attract a wider audience? (If Seinfeld was making fun of the attitude many moviegoers -- and Academy members -- have about docs, it didn't play.) And why throw in the whole digression about litter and theater employees?

I don't think he would ever have had the guts to publicly denigrate the best-known doc nominee, the well-intentioned but too Al-Gore-hagiographical winner in the category -- which was also less of a movie (and more of a powerful PowerPoint presentation) than the others. So he picks on the whole doc category -- the only one besides Foreign Language Film where the voters actually have to see the movies -- and teenagers who work at movie houses? To me, that's like picking on Chelsea Clinton back in the '90s when Bill or Hillary were fair game. If you're gonna invite Jerry Seinfeld to present an award, why not something more appropriate -- like sound editing? (Carson made the late Alan Splet a running gag one year...)

I still like him anyways! And hey, if you only tell jokes that have no risk of offending anyone, you won't get too far as a comedian!

Forget Jerry Seinfeld. What was with the random shot of Larry David at one point during the show? I think I laughed more at that than anything else throughout the night. Talk about out of the blue. I mean, what is the deal with reaction shots?

Jim, Jim: I defend Jerry's right to make a joke at the Oscars. I defend his audacious attempt to remember that his first job is to entertain me, not some humorless nominee. It's not like Seinfeld was the opening act for the Nobel Prize ceremony.

JE: No, that's not at all what I'm saying, TLRHB (as you probably know from my many comments here about the frivolousness and sanctimony of the Oscar speeches and ceremonies.) I agree: It's just an entertainment show. But if there's one category of underrated films that could benefit from the big audience the Oscar broadcast gets, it's the docs. Why not entertainingly puncture the overinflated egos of the stars or the studio execs or the directors or even the writers in the crowd? All Seinfeld did was make tired old jokes (delivered quite smoothly) about not picking up his trash in movie theaters and how docs are "depressing." My criticism is not of the attempt at humor, but of the chosen target. To use another analogy: You make fun of the bullies, not the bullied; the powerful, not the powerless. Go ahead and take down the rich and famous and powerful (of whom Seinfeld is one) -- they can take it. But don't get up in front of a rich and famous and powerful in the Kodak Theatre and denigrate the "little guy" who (except for Al Gore) has no money, power or fame and is just trying to make a movie about something he or she cares about.

Pardon me for stating the obvious, but Seinfeld was on the Oscarcast as part of his year-long resurfacing campaign. The Oscar producers were playing along, helping to generate "buzz" for "Bee Movie."

jim, an answer which i'm sure you'll find lame (as in, without a leg to stand on) but the only one which makes sense to me is: because it was a joke. a stand up comic's routine. he went up and did his bit about the category they chose him to present. as to why they chose him for that one, who knows? in bad taste? ok. something deeper and more sinister? i kinda doubt it.

America: Too disrespectful? or Too sensitive? My answer for the last few years has been both and this is a good example. I thought, as Jim said, that Seinfeld was picking on little guys for whom this show was likely a once in a lifetime thing. I also thought the letter from Sinno came across as pretty whiny. It just makes me yearn for an America that is too easy-going. Of course I'm a wishy-washy flip-flopper who avoids most Xtreme things so I should probably be living somewhere else.

zac said: "could it be that seinfeld was echoing through mockery the inattention the doc category receives from voters (many of whom don't bother to see any of them) and the virtual disdain much of the public in general shows to them?"

If this was Seinfeld's intention, he was so subtle that none of the people he was supposedly targeting could tell. He basically said, "Everything you think about these depressing films is true, so don't bother seeing them." Since the Academy Awards ceremony is the only time many people will even hear of these movies, it was a sad time to enforce their pre-conceived notions. Past years have shown comedians provide humorous introductions to costume design, special effects and more without undermining the categories.

Also, I find that it's all too common and easy for people to attack "An Inconvenient Truth" for being hagiographical. An open-minded viewing that doesn't immediately shun the use of Gore's background will reveal that the biographical information is there to shed parallels on the Global Warming issue. The story of how Gore's family's tobacco farm indirectly lead to the death of his sister by lung cancer doesn't really have anything to do with turning Gore into a saint. It's about how people ignore an issue until they see how it directly affects them.

I guess, ultimately, it comes down to subjective judgement. I do not consider one throwaway line about the nominees being "depressing" to be "picking on" the category as a whole. He's just making a semi-lame joke based on existing stereotypes... unfortunate for a comedian of that caliber, but not exactly uncommon in any branch of comedy.

Taking a bit of a different tack here: what's so inherently insulting about the word "depressing?" Because, frankly, the nominated films WERE depressing. But so were Babel, Letters from Iwo Jima, Blood Diamond, and United 93. Does it mean they're bad? God no. I'm not seeing how an accurate adjective is inherently dismissive or insulting.

Will: You're right, "incredibly depressing" is not inherently an insult. It's Seinfeld's expressed opinion, and he may or may not know what he's talking about. But nobody on the Oscarcast described any of the Best Picture noms as "incredibly depressing." Only the docs -- which, I'd argue, aren't so much depressing as engaging and outraging -- the way good exposé can be. I had so much adrenalin pumping through my veins after "Jesus Camp" and "Deliver Us from Evil" (which convinced me that Cardinal Roger Mahoney is worse than just the sleazy politician he's always been; he's the Eichmann of the Catholic Church pedophilia scandal) that I couldn't get to sleep the nights I saw them. Not because they were depressing, but because they got me riled (and engagement is pretty much the opposite of depressing, which implies disengagement and despair).

As I said, I know this was just part of his Philistine putz act: "Everyone avoids documentaries because they're so depressing." To him, it's probably one of those "rules" like the one about "double dipping." But, I'd argue, it's not. And the way Seinfeld said the phrase "incredibly depressing" implied "boring" and "unappealing." That's the easy stereotype and he passed it off as his opinion, but why put him on the Oscars to say it? And how many of this year's nominees has he seen? I'd love to know the answer to that one. Not that it matters whether his opinion is an informed one or not -- he's just a comedian. But I am kind of curious.

Honestly, I thought Seinfeld was quite funny and didn't even think anyone could get offended by that, though I must say I'm a huge Seinfeld fan, so I'm a bit biased.

What rubbed me the wrong way was the fact that one of the documentary nominees came out and said this. Don't get me wrong, he has the right to be upset, and I recognize that, but to me, he's coming across as tacky. He seems even more stuffy and "depressing" when he comes out and "whines" about his category not being taken seriously. I have a feeling that the general public is saying, "Lighten up!"

It would be different if someone like you, Jim, or A.O. Scott, or some critic came out and wrote a letter like this. I think that would make people respect it and take it a little more seriously. But when an actual nominee -- one that didn't win -- comes out like this, it makes him look stuck up.

Again, I'm not saying he IS stuffy or stuck up, and I can certainly see his point, but I feel that he kind of went about it the wrong way. You may say, "If he hadn't written the open letter, no one would have brought attention to it," which makes me wonder if anyone really noticed before he said anything, or if anyone cared enough to say anything.

Forget Jerry Seinfeld. What was with the random shot of Larry David at one point during the show? I think I laughed more at that than anything else throughout the night. Talk about out of the blue. I mean, what is the deal with reaction shots?

His wife was one of the producers of An Inconvenient Truth, the reaction shot was when they were onstage getting the Best Documentary award.

It seems to me, from the presentation, and the way in which he delivered the lines, is that it was oozing with sarcasm.

And while certainly the big wigs in the room deserve to be taken down a notch, wouldn't that have been just as punctuated by cliche as calling out the movie theater employees and documentaries, which to be quite honest with you, I've never seen happen at an Oscar telecast. It would be like calling Sarah Silverman a racist, and complaining about her new show, or complaining about Borat. Obviously, it's not to be taken seriously, and the people who are the joke are the ones who take it too seriously. I also feel that those who make documentaries are sometimes just as self-important as other filmmakers; living in the dredges of underground filmmaking, they're here to say something!!! Obviously a stereotype (one that we know doesn't extend across the board) but if that ruffles your feathers then go complain about Silverman or Cohen and their characters as well.

Sinno has a point, Jim; but I thought the year they had all the nominees on stage at the same time was even more disrespectful.

Phillip: The way the director of "Inconvenient Truth" groped Al Gore in a manner the Secret Service would never have allowed demonstrates that, yes, documentarians can be just as self-important as anyone. But Seinfeld didn't make fun of them for being self-important, just for not making money and for being depressing.

My point is simply that if there's one batch of films (besides the foreign language noms) that could really used the hype of the Oscars, it's the docs. They could have benefited from the publicity, and that would have been a good thing.

I think the comparisons to Sarah Silverman and Borat are not quite apt, though. Silverman has hosted the Independent Spirit Awards, and is irreverent all the way through -- not just in one category. And neither she nor Borat (Sacha Baron Cohen was asked to present an Oscar in character, but turned it down) adopt the "I'm just sayin'"/Everyman character Seinfeld does. They make fun of the kind of observational humor, where you're supposed to relate to the comedian. When Silverman or Borat say something wrong or offensive it's supposed to be inappropriate. That's an essential part of the humor -- that they're playing dumb.

Seinfeld is too slick and old school for that; he wants you to identify with him and go: "Yeah, what is the deal with that?!" He's too concerned with appearing likable even when he's being smug or self-righteous or petty (as on his sitcom). I admit I don't much like Seinfeld as a comedian, but if the Academy wanted to hire him to host the entire Oscar broadcast and do the same thing to ALL the nominees it would still be hacky, but it might be funny.

I didn't actually see Seinfeld as that slick; he seemed genuinely bummed to be out on stage, almost playing a parody of himself ("what's the deal with...") without the kind of glee he used to have. I am a Seinfeld fan (especially of his show, but also of his previous routines) but didn't like really anything about his appearance and was surprised when others did.

I don't quite know what to make of him. Defeated sounds like the right word; maybe some part of him realizes that his return to the limelight after going out on a high note is going to go badly for him, and that he really is just being hacky, because that's what people (he/the Academy) thinks wants to see. Just a thought.

Jim,

Yeah, you're probably right. Though I did find "An Inconvenient Truth" depressing - in all the right ways. Sometimes depressing gets us off our butts to do something (no need to comment about his delivery again).

And I don't think, say if you're meaning to make fun of a self-important documentary, you don't have to necessarily reference it's self-importance - though it might help.

Still though. The films in the documentary section aren't like the blockbusters of the year. If one wins an Oscar the audience Sinno hopes to attract still probably won't see it, and a silly joke won't turn off the people who are going to see it just for being nominated, likewise if Seinfeld had said something amazing about documentaries, unless he died and rose three days later, the audience would still be the same, so what's wrong with a little harmless (albeit not terribly funny) poking. It did make me chuckle. I thought to myself, "Finally, someone is being sardonic!" And normally when they have the sarcastic hosts they pick on the big stars only - yawn!

Jim is a gutless coward. I commend Jerry for making fun of the poor and powerless. Rich people are often much nicer than poor people. Jerry's jokes were brave and refreshing. To balm Mr. Sinno’s wounds I think the Academy should consider introducing a yearly John Sinno Award to “recognize those in the industry whose pretentious, obnoxious stupidity makes the rest of us look good."

His comments on not throwing away theater garbage were ridiculous as well. I get paid $6.00/hr. to run projection as well as clean theaters at a small town cinema. I often have 10 minutes to clean up after 120 people and thread a movie. His comments won't change the way theater chains operate, they will just change the public's already ridiculous behavior and get people like me written up for not fully cleaning theaters. Theaters are meant to work like McDonald's, you throw your stuff away. When no one is watching them as in a theater, people don't like to do that. Everyone taking their private garbage is much more efficient than one person cleaning up after all of them alone. If concession prices drop, ticket prices will rise... it will all come out the same. That is, unless chains DO hire more cleanup crew in which case prices will rise even higher to cover their pay. 50% of what I clean up is already things we don't even sell, no one paid for us to pick that up. I made $6.00/hr no matter what, you'll just make my job more miserable. He definitely lost the respect of many theater employees as well as their friends and family, and perhaps anyone that doesn't get paid very much to do a job that is dirty enough without encouragement.

What's up with that Seinfeld guy?... What's up with you. I think Jerry Seinfeld's appereance in the Oscasr was one of the highlights of the evening, and as someone already said, it was a way to forget the annoying and dull moments between the, not so well known categories. The guy is one of the greatest comedians alive, and actually, he would be great hosting the Oscars in the future.

Oh for Christ's sake...get a sense of humor.

Documentary films will continue on just fine despite Seinfeld's comments. It's this sort of self-important, "we're doing something *important* here, documentaries aren't just silly pointless *entertainment*...huff huff" attitude that documentary film makers and fans have that open them up to mockery by people like Seinfeld in the first place.

Is it just me, or is anyone else surprised that this Seinfeld thing was considered an issue, but there was no mention of Steve Carell & Greg Kinnear's poking fun at sound techs?
I'm assuming they were referencing the reaction to Mike Myers' joke when presenting at the 2001 Oscars. I actually thought the broadcast might have been censored when I was watching - but upon rewatching (thanks to youtube) it seems that the sound guy turned off the microphone on Greg Kinnear as a joke. Anyway, I thought the whole thing was funny and kind of interesting...

I don't know, it just bugs me when the rich fatcats get up in front of the glitterati to bitch about the serfs: "You just can't get good help these days..."

Jim, if Bee Movie flops, you may not see Seinfeld may become one such serf. And isn't a person richer when he's able to do what he loves, even if people make bully-like jokes at their expense?

This is all pretty ridiculous. First, people complain about how the Oscars were too long and unfunny, now one of the few funny parts wasn't serious enough? Jim, do you seriously think that if Seinfeld had gone up and said, "Everyone go out and rent these movies right now!" it would have made any difference? I thought his bit was hilarious (and I used to work in a movie theater picking up that shit, and I actually agree with him, it's like busing your own table at a restaurant, although simply dropping your drink when you're done is a bit much). And yes, the nominated movies tend to be incredibly depressing. It seemed for while there as though making a Holocaust documentary would ensure you a nomination.
Besides, any "Best Documentary" category without The Devil and Daniel Johnston is a f**king joke anyway.