The Jamie Kennedy Experiment: The Complete Third Season

Nikki Tranter

It's not clear why Jamie Kennedy holds back with some marks and pushes others completely over the edge.

The Jamie Kennedy Experiment

Cast: Jamie Kennedy, Tennille Villagomez, Ryan Thomas Brockington, Tyler Marks
Subtitle: The Complete Third Season
Network: Paramount
First date: 2003
US Release Date: 2005-01-25
Last date: 2004

Imagine you've been hired to work as a mortician's assistant for the day. It's your profession and you're used to much of the workaday details that go along with it, only at this particular funeral parlor, the boss replaces corpses with plastic dummies, in order to sell extracted organs on the black market. What would you do? Would you politely nod your head and go about your business as Porfinio does in a skit on Jamie Kennedy's hidden camera show, The Jamie Kennedy Experiment? Not only does Porfinio show no sign of distress, he also makes no move to get the hell out of the place when an angry, grieving mob boss discovers at his grandmother's wake that the body in her coffin is a mannequin.

Featured in Episode Five of JKX's third season, just out on DVD, this sketch is one of the series' most bizarre, but is a perfect example of its sadistic appeal. What's actually going on -- with Kennedy in creepy yet completely realistic weird-old-guy make-up -- is both appalling and screamingly funny. Because it's ridiculous and because it's happening to someone else, but more than that, it's unpredictable. Kennedy and company know that, as viewers, in order to be shocked, we need to feel for the marks (as Kennedy calls them). The assumption behind JKX, as with Candid Camera and Punk'd, is that people unaware of the camera will react honestly to any situation. On the surface, it seems the ultimate in reality television. His marks, unlike the captives on Survivor or the Big Brother housemates, react "naturally," without fear of recrimination or public humiliation.

Closer inspection, however, reveals that in order for Kennedy and company to get the kinds of reactions they want -- funny or disturbing -- they need to do more than place someone in a bizarre situation. Porfinio, for example, has no reaction at all, choosing to go with the flow. But put a mark like Tamara from Episode Seven's "Smoking Police" segment, and the whole thing would have gone differently. Tamara, a newcomer to New York City, refuses to back down from a policeman (Kennedy) who writes her a $250 fine for "illegally" smoking in Battery Park. "I had more freedom," she says tersely, "when I lived in the Middle East." For my taste, Tamara is a model mark. She's intelligent and feisty, and not about to accept the word of an authority figure.

The question is, how are the scenarios structured? For the first "experiment" to work, Porfinio needed to be patient, or passive, enough to last through the black market revelation and then the mob boss section. And if he had been asked to extinguish his cigarette or face a steep penalty, it's doubtful he'd get as uppity as the forthright Tamara. So, "reality" here is skewed in more ways than one. While the marks' reactions are unpredictable for us, they've got to be partly predictable for Kennedy and his band of actors. Otherwise, you get situations in which an elaborate prank falls flat, failing to elicit any real reaction from the mark.

Non-reactions occur often throughout this season. In Episode 18, a busboy stands in as ambassador for a country that doesn't exist, instructed to comment to reporters in a language he doesn't know, on his country's slave trading. It's a great gag, and the mark is terrific, barely cracking a smile when chattering away in obvious gibberish. Yet, when Kennedy sends the "real" ambassador in to confront his impersonator, nothing really happens. The mark assumes that, because he's acting on instruction from the ambassador's "handlers" (Kennedy and his team), he hasn't done anything wrong, and so isn't afraid of retribution. It's a tremendous build-up with an unsatisfying pay-off.

Usually, Kennedy "ups the ante" to get bigger and better reactions. He and his actors rely on their improvisational skills, summing up their marks almost instantly and playing on their weaknesses. (Tamara's sketch is a good example of this, as Kennedy learns straight away that she doesn't like to be told what to do and so he goads her: "Go back to the Middle East, then!") Sometimes, these skills aren't enough. "Losing Hand," in Episode 10, has Kennedy and crew (including guest Artie Lange) pretend to swindle a kid out of $5000, leaving the mark -- the kid's dad -- with the tab. There's no screaming and no one is particularly embarrassed. We eventually see a family banding together as dad promptly offers to pay what his son owes, no questions asked. Here it seems as though Kennedy's show, unlike the more aggressive Punk'd and Boiling Points, pursues something other than screaming diva fits. That said, it's not clear why Kennedy holds back with some marks and pushes others completely over the edge.

Experiments can also fail when the company pushes certain marks too far. Take Josh, in Episode Seven's "Stripper Mom" sketch. He finds out his mother is a stripper when he spots her onstage, mid-act, during a boy's night out with his friends (who've obviously overestimated his ability to take a joke). Seeing his busty mom in a revealing school uniform leaves him crazed pretty much from beginning to end. He's so furious that, though Kennedy (playing the seedy club owner) tries, there's no need to up his ante; he's so stressed that he almost physically assaults an older stripper Kennedy sends to calm him down. Even when Josh is finally apprised of the joke, he looks a blink away from hitting someone. For him, the manipulation is too much. In a controlled, "reality TV" environment, no amount of anger or embarrassment will lead to violence, but when the marks are so upset, viewer anxiety becomes almost too much to bear.

So far J. J. Abrams and Rian Johnson resemble children at play, remaking the films they fell in love with. As an audience, however, we desire a fuller experience.

As recently as the lackluster episodes I-III of the Star Wars saga, the embossed gold logo followed by scrolling prologue text was cause for excitement. In the approach to the release of any of the then new prequel installments, the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare, followed by the Lucas Film logo, teased one's impulsive excitement at a glimpse into the next installment's narrative. Then sat in the movie theatre on the anticipated day of release, the sight and sound of the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare signalled the end of fevered anticipation. Whatever happened to those times? For some of us, is it a product of youth in which age now denies us the ability to lose ourselves within such adolescent pleasure? There's no answer to this question -- only the realisation that this sensation is missing and it has been since the summer of 2005. Star Wars is now a movie to tick off your to-watch list, no longer a spark in the dreary reality of the everyday. The magic has disappeared… Star Wars is spiritually dead.

Keep reading... Show less

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.