Now that Jason Alexander's TV Show has bit the dust and sure doesn't bode well for Julia Louis-dryfus's proposed series in which she is slotted to play a singer. When Seinfeld went off the air Jerry Seinfeld announced that he would do more series because anything else would be downhill. and didn't Julia herself say that the show would be the best she could ever have?
However there may not be a "Seinfeld" after all. After "Our Miss Brooks "went off the air it seemed that anyone connected with the show couldn't as the asaying goes"get arrested." However as it turned out Eve Arden went out to a newer fame as a star of the show"The Mothers-inlas." Perhaps Julia Louis-Dryfus will share the same good fortune?
On 21 Nov 2001 13:23:56 -0800, [email] (david Tharp) wrote:
I think Richard Crenna and Gale Gordon did okay after that too.
The problem with these other shows is the WRITING not the characters. Some other "Seinfeld" crew who went on to other things. . . and failed ================================================== Michael Richards - "The Michael Richards Show" - too silly Jason Alexander - "Bob Patterson" - an embarrassment Carol Leifer - "Alright Already" - stunk up the place Andy Ackerman, Peter Mehlman - "It's Like You Know" - no connection to the audience ================================================== Writing is not just telling jokes and creating funny situations - Larry David really understood the concept of classical writing and developed the characters in very traditional styles. This "grabbed" the audience. We could relate to their personalities, their conflicts, the tensions that arose among them. [Read Joseph Campbell and CC Jung, for example, and their influence on George Lucas's Star Wars characters and themes] On top of that we had Jerry's brilliant observational humour. Like the icing on the cake. A good foundation with engaging themes.
Umm, Mike. Character development? Themes? It's a show about nothing, you know this. There's no underlying message (well I suppose there is in anything if you try to twist the text enough). The element that the audience can relate to is the situations (which aren't themes, they're just the bit that helps with the comedy, sit-com if you like :) ) and the character quirks. A good example of the latter is Kramer "feeling" Tuesdays and Thursdays. The audience can relate to the other characters "feeling" Monday, Friday, and Saturday (or was it Sunday? cos I feel both), and it made perfect sense that Kramer would be the opposite.
If there is one single idea at all behind the show, it's this: "Hey, what's the deal with <blank>?". The entire show is one big observational humour routine, and it deals with this is many ways.
As for character development - I liked the characters in season 1, 2, 3, and 4 more than I did in the later seasons. Jerry was always passively unimpressed, but towards the end, he was *aggressively* unimpressed, IYSWIM. Can the audience relate to shaving with butter and then frying on a roof? It was funny, but the moustaches at the beginning of that episode were even funnier, simply because we know exactly what our favourite characters have been "doing" while we have been on holiday.
That is the essence of Seinfeld for me, identification. Each of them is a little part of life. Jerry is trying to be a normal guy, trying to make his life about nothing, but he has all of these distractions - George the guy who always messes up, Elaine the sidetrack, in so many different ways :), and Kramer, the bit of life you can never quite understand. Identification, not themes or messages. Or can you tell I'm not a film student? :)
On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 23:30:27 -0000, "Andrew Cameron" wrote: <snip> . . .
Okay, so we agree but use different words, not themes, situations.
Yes, that is why I said Jery's additons were the icing on the cake. These little life's mysteries and idiocycracies are what we all experience in one way or another and usually don't talk about them. To see them come to life through our fabulous foursome gives our feelings validity.
Right. But it is also A LOT more than that. The relationship humour and the tensions between characters adds a lot to our enjoyment. The use of culture, sports, music, celebrities, so much of our "common collective conciousness" helps weave a reality into what could be unbelievable.
Yes, he was the "anchor" for the other characters around him. (this is one of Larry David's classical constructs - there are many more - check out CC Jung's archetypes )
No, absolutely NOT, and that was done after Larry David left. In seasons 8 and 9 the characters left the tracks and the show became a collection of sketches without the brilliant intertwining of meaningfully connected plots.
Yes,, and like many great stories each character represents a different part of "life" or aspect human character.
I never meant that a "theme" was a "message" - There are NO "messages" in Seinfeld - at least no politically correct ones or traditional comfortable ones.