One thing Andy never learned..

Comedy is a slippery slope to nastiness and evil.

Andy wasn't aware of this, apparently - he just let himself go totally, and ended up being hated by a lot of people, and worshipped and revered by others, who 'got it'.

He didn't understand that you have to be very careful to remain good and humble and treat others well (especially if they haven't done anything to deserve otherwise), when you do comedy.

That means no cheap shots, no making others feel bad, no joking in such a way that your audience feels bad about it, no matter how funny you selfishly think it is, and all that.

He had great genius, talent and potential, but he let it get too nasty (the 'Tony Clifton' character is proof of that), and although he was on the right track speaking and acting against feminism, and making feminist morons prove their ludicrous claims about being equal to or better than men (obviously they aren't or Andy wouldn't have had a CHANCE in the wrestling ring), he lost it, when he started insulting people (and secretly 'not being serious about it'), and then laughing, when he was able to troll a lot of great, angry responses.

Also, a lot of time, his craft was simply .. boring. And then there were the endless Elvis-impersonations. Sure, he was very good at impersonating Elvis - I am sure that many Elvis-fans agree (even Elvis himself did!), but in the long run, that's not really all that entertaining - or funny.

Of course, he didn't consider himself a 'comedian', which conveniently got him a loophole that he could mercilessly abuse; he didn't have to conform to ANY standards in ANY way, form or shape, because he wasn't a 'comedian' - he was a "song and dance man"..

.. who liked to make fun of other singers or dancers or entertainers.

He became the boy, who cried wolf. No one knew what to think of him anymore, no one knew if he was serious or not - and he got OFF on that, instead of being on the level. I am not sure he even HAD a level by the end.

And when he WAS serious, and wanted to complain about a 'rude audience', he didn't realize that he was reaping what he had sown, and everyone thought it was just another skit.

He became a victim of his own downfalls of not being able to balance the comedy with being a good human being. He became a nasty human being and sacrificed his good self to the altar of 'being funny', or 'being a song and dance man'. Absurd humor is one thing (some get it, some don't, some don't care), but being nasty should never be a part of comedy.

It's very easy to go down that slippery slope, though. I have been there - I have noticed, how easy it is to just keep going downwards, and before you know it, you are in a situation where you can't get back up again. When you try to use your environment and other people for your own amusement, without caring about their feelings or giving them human dignity, it can only end badly.

The thing is, if you are, for example, playing a fool convincingly, and people start thinking you ARE a fool, you are soon in a situation, where it's hard to just stop playing it and say: "Hey, I am not actually a fool, it was just an act!", especially because they would get angry at you for fooling them for so long. So you have to keep going way after the limit has been reached, and it can get messy.

You mean to start it only as a joke, but when the audience suddenly doesn't get it, you are trapped - there's no 'straight man' to relieve you and reveal to all that it was just a funny joke, and you could all laugh. When the audience doesn't get your joke, it can create a situation where there's no relief for you, and you just dig yourself deeper, hoping that maybe then they'll get it and relieve you..

You are thinking: "You are not supposed to take this seriously, you are supposed to laugh, and KNOW that really, I have normal intelligence, and perhaps admire at my skill of playing the fool so convincingly!", while the audience believes every foolish thing you do.

I think something similar happened to Andy, but he didn't even want the 'relief', but he just wanted to keep going to see what would happen, and nothing that happened was ever enough to justify him coming out from the 'character', so it ended up consuming him, in a way.

I think he should have realized the balance between 'funny' and 'being good and humble'. But the temptation to make ANY situation into a 'surreal theatre joke that only he gets' was too big, I suppose. So soon no one could be completely sure, whether he was ever actually his true self, or not. Or maybe his true self was, had become, or changed into a constant, all-the-time-prankster that never let the audience off the hook, just like no one ever let him off the hook. No one eve told him to stop acting and be real for a few seconds - everyone just went with it, and didn't know how to react to him (when he wasn't being funny, that is - of course, he could easily be tremendously funny and entertaining, and had many talents and skills, like the bongo drum scenes prove).

But did he even expect the audience to 'get it'? How could he expect the audience to NOT be 'rude', if he never let them know what was real and what wasn't? Maybe the audience thought being 'rude' was part of the show? And who could blame the audience for that?

If he had figured out and maintained the balance between 'comedy' and 'goodness', his figure wouldn't have been so irritating and tragic at the same time.

Maybe it's true that comedy is used as a mask to hide the pain, as Martin Short once put it (in Conan O'Brien) - and honestly, I wasn't sure, whether he was serious at that moment, either.

In other words, if he could have found a limit to the 'nasty side', and kept the limit despite the temptations, he could have found a better path, and be more respected.

Honestly, anyone can create confusion in audiences - but to be funny, that is difficult and takes talent and skill. Kaufman had the talent and the ability, but he wasted it, because he let it become nasty, and he didn't know the balance.

The problem with comedy is that 'good' is considered boring, and 'nasty' is considered funny. But instead of being nasty just as a character or to characters, he was actually nasty to actual people, audiences, friends, co-workers, family and so on. And that's just proof of having lost the balance.

And when he became 'nasty' as a character, he couldn't break that character, because that would also destroy the joke. So he had to remain 'nasty' to be able to maintain the humor.

Well, I am sure he has learned from this experience, and will be incarnated as a funny comedian some day.