New take on finale and show's critics

Seeing it again last night was  a revelation to me. I did not get at first why
so many people thought thatthey all got something they morally deserved. But
after a second viewing I realized something. These people just did NOT GET IT -
did not get the finale at all.  I wonder if these were people who never saw the
original show? It was not funny. I felt that again this time.  But it  WAS
satirizing the prosecution throughout.  Or attempting to satirize it.  If it
had been funnier, it would have worked better.  It was OBVIOUS they were
innocent victims who were being ludicrously charged. That IS the humor. I think
the creators' point in writing this, which was unsuccessful, was the old theme
of how much trouble they can get into when they are INNOCENT.   Examples are so
numerous.  Jerry tried to HELP Babu.  Kramer was NOT a pimp.  George never
murdered his fiancee.   I think one of the show's themes was this sense of
being misunderstood and the failure to communicate and
the characters being screwed in the end.  I also have never seen these 4 as
different from the rest of us.
Watching this show again it was so obvious that the attacks were satires. They
were emphasized by huge gasps in the courtroom about things that were total
distortions of what really happened. This is what was supposed to be funny.
Somehow the moral inquisition has gotten into the act and chosen to distort the
writers' script by implying that the writers saw that the characterswere
immoral and got what they should get.

I could go into details but I'd have to replay it and write at the same time. I can do that if anyone is interested. The gang was being pilloried for a lot of things that SEEMED like crimes but weren't. I think that's what they thought would be more humorous than it really was. It was just badly written as many have pointed out. It was so unfunny, actually, that people thought they were SERIOUS! - Thought it was a serious trial evaluating their despicable values. hahaha. Now THAT's FUNNY. The idea of people with no sense of humor watching this, not getting the joke, and instead finding it a vindication of what they knew all along, that there was something dangerous here. These people are not villains. They're not perfect, but they're the first to know it. Which is I think why so many identify with them and enjoy them, and certainly more winning if we compare this to the moral perfection of the characters that seem to come into this newsgroup spouting moral judgments. In a way part of their charm as people is that they do TRY to do good things and often get screwed for it. In court, the Bubble Boy looked like a victim. But remember the episode. They showed it to us again. Nothing is as it SEEMS in this courtroom scene. I guess that's funnier than I thought at first. Maybe I"ll have to see it again. C Campbell

Very insightful. I might add the following to your excellent points: the satire was not well-executed partly because there were too many plot directions, the story went on too long, most of the characters were playing it too straight for the average viewer to catch on to the satire, teasing the viewer (Elaine--" I love United"...) isn't funny, and worst of all, leaving the four main stars uncharacteristicly accepting a bad situation at the end when we will never see them again is beyond satire--it is cruel and unusual! alt showbiz gossip

[email] (RGINA) writes:

I agree, that is great insight and I agree with everything quoted above. The characters we knew would have plotted and argued and made observations! It was so uncharacteristic, and yes, played way too soberly and nonchalantly.

Elaborating a little on the original poster's theory, they were regularly getting looked down upon as morally abhorrent over things that were mistakes or ettiquette violations. Oo, what an outrage, George stupidly looked at Littlefield's teenage daughters' chest too long, he shouldn't get the series. Jerry is a very bad man for trying to help Babu but wasn't it Elaine who forgot to pick up the mail (and even so, it was an oversight, not a plot to bring down the poor immigrant). Elaine grabbed whatshername's chest because she was falling and, in a split-second impulse, acted on a curiosity Jerry aroused about whether they were real. The horror.

I wonder if the things they really did do that are in the morally wrong area (oh, kidnapping someone's dog, lying about who your dead fiancee was) were often partly due to unfairnesses perpetrated on them, and often responses to the unfair moral sneering I mentioned above--doing wrong things in response to disapproval for doing stupid things. (In the parenthesised examples: Elaine was operating in a sleep-deprived state, Kramer was trying to help her and I assume wasn't going to hurt the dog, and Newman, well, he *is* evil ;-) hee hee; George feels sneered at by beautiful women who all will not date bald men and he jumps at the chance to overcome this prejudice of theirs.) I suspect the series is uneven on this. But it's very important, grant money must be sought, studies done, reports published.

At any rate, they were oten reacting to and anxious about social disapproval. That was a big part of the fabric of the show. But the law wasn't usually brought in. The law is very clear--technical, but lines are drawn and made clear. The things this series looked at were the subtle nuances and questions that are so hard to answer but aren't ultimately very important like morality or the law, but still feel very weighty and consequential to the people involved.

(The law on Seinfeld as I recall, until the finale, was never really part of the story. Because the things they dealt with weren't of that level of social concern. Some I remember: the policeman who could only hand Jerry a slip of paper when he got robbed, the policeman who found him with a hooker due to his friend, the guard when they urinated in the parking garage. Jackie Chiles looking for money in rather frivolous lawsuits. The visit to Babu in detention. The policemen driving Jerry and George in L.A. The visit to Kramer in jail when he was the Smog Strangler suspect. In fact, the most graphic example of the law I can think of was a fantasy of Jerry's that the law would be so concerned about his getting an illegal cable hookup that they'd resort to shooting to kill if he fled!)

The things the characters were concerned and anxious about are things that we all find very important but it's very personal, not exactly moral or of the law. It's the sort of thing I think Jerry said it in his book: we all want to be well-liked by a wide circle of people we don't care for or think much of. We care a great deal about this. The finale treating them like unliked, immoral, lawbreakers, and in a courtroom, was way over the top and unsubtle--for me, it wasn't Seinfeld.

The theory makes me wonder about alternatives. If the finale was them running into one person after another in a few days who didn't like them, they'd characteristically have gotten very concerned and upset about this. They could have shown clips to highlight why these people didn't like them. Jerry could call his mother and she'd say, "How could anyone not like you?!" :-) Jerry Seinfeld still could have had his preferred ending scene (assuming that that was his doing standup comedy in prison): it would be a daydream that even if he were so disapproved as to be locked up with murderers and rapists, he'd bounce back up and do comedy for them. He is Even Steven, after all! :0)

Thanks for the thought-provoking idea!

My enjoyment of the series came out of the fact that they were four selfish people who rarely cared about anyone or anything beyond their own little world. I didn't see them as "four lovable social misfits." They were self-absorbed jerks. On a regular basis, Jerry derived pleasure from the failures of George (he would at times encourage behavior that he knew wold lead to disaster). A basic building block of the show was their observations of how OTHER people break the unwritten laws of society, while they act without any reguard for the people around them (the closest thing to sympathy is an occasional "that's a shame").

Seinfeld may be the sitcom wih the best-written characters in the history of TV. But that does not make them lovable, or even likable. The parade of (lack-of) character witnesses during the finale (most of whom were certainly more innocent than the NY4 in their intial run-ins with Jerry & Co) prove that. Fred Allen said that with TV we invite people into our living rooms who we would never have in our homes.

comedy--which seems to be Larry David's preferred genre--works best when bad things happen around the protagonists but don't ultimately triumph over them.

Raingluttn wrote:

<snip>

Right - Like The Puerto Ricans that misunderstood the Parade episode, The American Lung Association 1-800-732-9339 that insulted Seinfeld with a non-smoking Phlem award, etc... It is epidemic in our (Canada is included here) Politically Correct society that truth takes a back seat to some people's senistivities.

Mike

Excellent observations. I think the ending had a lot to do with cynicism. They wanted to end it horribly and inventively. They couldn't drive off a cliff like Thelma and Louise, because it's been done.

I thought the worst thing about the finale was the way it *was* repetitive. We'd seen a show like this before, where all the people they've hurt berate them: The Pilot. Even Sidra bashed them in that episode. It was funny to see it once. But not again. And then Jackie Chiles saying "They're real, and they're spectacular." Ummm, nice repetitive punchline for the end of the series.

Another poor choice was taking the 4 out of the show for the entire trial. They didn't interact with the witnesses, really, and that's the fun of the show. They mostly sat there.

And the crime was way out of character. Usually when the gang does something inconsiderate, there's a reason behind it, or they didn't know something. (Jerry not kissing his girlfriend because her toothbrush fell in the toilet.) So the viewers identify with gang.

Here, they just acted mean toward the robbery victim, even as a gun is pulled, cracking zingers at an overweight man being robbed. Really callous.

But the standup in prison was nice. Too bad they didn't show Elaine getting into some snakepit prison and having to wear a potato-sack dress!

[email] (art vandelay) writes:

I found them witty and likeable (except George and Newman). Loveable isn't a word that springs to my mind. They were people I'd like to be aquainted with (yes, hope I didn't get on their bad side). And I'd not want to get to know them very well because of the cavilier attitude that sometimes surfaced. But, to me, describing them as selfish, wouldn't-want- to-ever-have-them-in-my-home, jerks who enjoy others problems, that describes some other comedies in history, but not really Seinfeld. Sanford and Son, for some reason springs to mind, but I don't remember that very well. There have been (and are) comedies that relied on audience pleasure of watching arrogant people or watching people play tricks on each other and be mean to each other, but that wasn't Seinfeld. Standup comics often cross the line into simply laughing at others problems, which I don't find funny.

Basically, I disagree with the description of Seinfeld as being along those lines. The gang on Seinfeld were *most* of the time *in* life and it's frustrations, not standing on the sidelines, laughing and pointing like heartless jerks.

And, often in a comedy, it's so clear who you aren't supposed to like and who you are supposed to like and what you're supposed to think of everyone. It's so boring. Except for Newman, who was not a main character, the Seinfeld gang were individuals who were multi-faceted without getting into the arena of drama--keeping it a comedy. They were people I felt I knew. They weren't overdrawn. You got the sense that this could happen. (And indeed many of the stories were from real life.) In the case of Newman, the way we were told to dislike him was so obvious it might have been a poke at overdrawn characterizations in comedies. But to go along those lines for every character, that would have made Seinfeld a cartoon. (Of course, toward the end, they did start doing this. Oh, George is only a skinflint with a short temper and nothing more.)

Seinfeld at it's best was like The Mary Tyler Moore Show in the multi- faceted, fairly believable characters. I wonder if Seinfeld has had an influence on other comedies to remember to not go for the broad-brushed characterizations. I was going to mention that the boss in Just Shoot Me as an example of someone we're clearly not supposed to like, but then I realized, no, he's rather sympathetically drawn. I find I don't dislike him.

My $0.02.

Seinfeld may be the sitcom wih the best-written characters in the

Hmm, any examples of these exemplary victims? The bubble boy perhaps? Is he one you had in mind? (He was a victim of his own wild temper.

Mrs. Choate. Jerry stole the marble rye from her right there on the street. That was undoubtedly a prosecutable crime. Sure she was being an asshole by not selling him the $6 bread for his $50 offer, and sure he was stealing it for a very altruistic reason (His only concern was getting his best friend out of the trouble caused by Frank stealing back the rye that the Rosses neglected to put out for them during dinner), but it was still a criminal act.

Having said that, I'll agree that a vast majority of the 'victims' were
only victims from their own point of view.  Since we got to see both
sides of each 'crime', we are better able to determine that most of them
had no malicious component whatsoever.  The Fab 4 are not criminals.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
            [email]  replace EYE with I
          (Hammer nail here--> <-- for a new monitor.)
Seinfeld FAQ http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/7217/faq.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------

SInce I dont have quotes, I left Art's letter with arrows and put Suzanne's comments in quotes, below. [email] (art vandelay) writes:

I disagree with this reading of their relationship. He knew his friend's foibles and accepted him as he was. He did not try to change him. Art: A basic building block of

Several people have told me one of the things they like about the show is the sense of camaraderie these 4 have, that they are like a family. Unlike many families, they are accepted for exactly who they are. The one episode I found disturbing was where Jerry turns George in for stealing the book, which I can make no defense of, but it was not for selfish reasons he did this, it was for his uncle. In any case, I love the show for the often brilliant writing, the working of many plots all interrelated into one short show. Pure genius. Examples: Marine biologist. I once showed this to a class and had to show it 3 times before they got it. How many TV shows can you say that about - that there are so many layers and things happening quickly that you'll miss something the first time around. LIttle subtleties of humor. THis has to be a first for TV comedy. Someone actually designed the whole for comic effect.

The finale was misleading to everyone because the scene of the four standing together watching the theft was not in character. Several people have pointed this out. This was perhaps just a device to get to the courtroom scene, in which the testimony of the witnesses was not the truth. They told it as they saw it, but it was a distortion. Whereas the scene out watching the theft was not a distortion. I think this might be the reason the satire of the trial scene was missed. People actually took the testimony to be true, because the scene watching the robbery was true. I wonder how many of these viewers had not seen most of the episodes. Is this poster a regular viewer? I assume Art Vandelay is a screen name just being used for this newsgroup? Rather than a fan who took the name for fun.

As Suzanne pointed out so well in response to this letter ( I still have trouble wtih aol's quotes system, on mac): "The gang on Seinfeld were *most* of the time *in* life and it's frustrations, not standing on the sidelines, laughing and pointing likeheartless jerks. " All this was interesting commentary, thanks: Suzanne: "And, often in a comedy, it's so clear who you aren't supposed to like and who you are supposed to like and what you're supposed to think of everyone. It's so boring. Except for Newman, who was not a main character, the Seinfeld gang were individuals who were multi-faceted without getting into the arena of drama--keeping it a comedy. They were people I felt I knew. They weren't overdrawn. You got the sense that this could happen. (And indeed many of the stories were from real life.) In the case of Newman, the way we were told to dislike him was so obvious it might have been a poke at overdrawn characterizations in comedies. But to go along those lines for every character, that would have made Seinfeld a cartoon. (Of course, toward the end, they did start doing this. Oh, George is only a skinflint with a short temper and nothing more.)

Seinfeld at it's best was like The Mary Tyler Moore Show in the multi- faceted, fairly believable characters. I wonder if Seinfeld has had an influence on other comedies to remember to not go for the broad-brushed characterizations. I was going to mention that the boss in Just Shoot Me as an example of someone we're clearly not supposed to like, but then I realized, no, he's rather sympathetically drawn. I find I don't dislike him.

My $0.02."

The finale was like some other bunch of people doing a bad parody of Seinfeld. An example - Kramer lurching around trying to get the water out of his ear. It wasn't Kramer and it wasn't funny. Maybe Larry David came back with different ideas about what the characters were like, and for some reason nobody stopped him from going ahead with those ideas?

Graham Hughes "Any man can be 62, but you have to be a bus to be 62a." - Spike Milligan.

On Sun, 13 Sep 1998, art vandelay wrote:

What about how George is really concerned that the security guard has to stand up all day? It also really stresses him that he accidently got the busboy fired. Jerry worrys that Babu's restaurant isn't succeeding. Kramer adopts a piece of highway(his heart was in the right place at least), and he does the AIDS walk. So they do sometimes show concern for others.

Tim

Tim wrote:

Well, of course. Nobody is *pure* evil - not even Newman (he tried to warn Kramer during his anti-mail campaigne).

Jaclyn

Yea, where did all this nonsense about the characters being these evil sociopaths start anyway--the Christian Right? They have a good and bad side just like real people and that is why the show is interesting. There have been many times when they have tried to help others and they have often supported each other through rough times by providing a relatively stable and non-judgmental peer group. Most of the "accusations" against them were based on misuderstandings and misinterpretations on the part of the witnesses.

Totally agree with the above as well as everything else you wrote. Would like to add that the ending was too rooted in an ugly reality (prison) for the loyal viewer, who had grown to love the four like their family, to see the slightest bit of humor--or even satire (humor turned on its head.) Black comedy--which seems to be Larry David's preferred genre--works best when bad things happen around the protagonists but don't ultimately triumph over them.

I agree with your view of the finale but the reason it was bad to me and I think most other BIG Seinfeld fans is we already GOT those points. We saw the satire in the orginal show. We knew George never murdered his fiance...etc. So to us it was just boring as we understood the concept long before that

®Mark

"This place sucks, I've chewed up the shoes and quite frankly I don't care if you ever get home." [if Toto could talk] "Shove me in a basket will ya."

Mark Skrbich wrote:

I agree with that.  We also had been watching all the syndicated episodes so
we were not impressed by the reappearence of all the guest characters since
we had been seeing them day after day.  But even beyond those points the
writing lacked the sharp edge that existed in Larry David's dialogue that
existed in the original episodes he wrote.
      -------------------------------------------------------------
         The News Guy (Mike)'s   -   Seinfeld Lists Site
         http://www.geocities.com/TelevisionCity/Studio/1955/
      -------------------------------------------------------------

Raingluttn wrote:

  in response to your letter,
    the part i can most agree with is when you stated about the people who didn't
get the joke
    my feelings on the finale:
i appreciated the fact that larry david and jerry seinfeld did not sell out
as you know, this was the most anticipated finale in TV history
and with that comes alot of pressure
along with an enormous group of people who have never watched the show
or who periodically watch the show
i was impressed with the fact that larry and jerry did not let this larger portion
of the viewing audience(those who wanted to see what all the comotion was about)
influence what they had been doing all along
Why change
in fact, it follows thier course perfectly

suppose that your favorite band after 20 years finally has an album that hits the charts certainly that is not what is most important to you, you love the band for thier best material, the stuff you grew up with so now you get tickets in anticipation of the best concert you could imagine to your dismay, the only thing they play at the concert is from thier new album they sold out on you and all of thier most loyal fans

i agree with you that the finale was not "the best" what i do know is that i appreciate that they did not sell out i really enjoyed waking up the morning after the finale and listening to everyone on the radio cutting it up, saying how bad it was, "why did i waste two hours of my life for that"

i have "wasted" much more than two hours of my life on seinfeld it wasn't completely about the show it was much deeper than that for me it was a way to relate to my friends, even my family we thoroughly enjoyed it together

it will be sadly missed

Thanks for listening

dan

Let's see, I think this was directed at my post (raingluttn - Cynthia)

I think maybe you misunderstood me. I knew all the original shows to and knew they did not do these things. I also found it not funny. But my real confusion started when I read all the criticisms - about how the cast deserved what they got. Not REMEMBERING the finale that well, I began to wonder if the show's creators had really been trying to send the message that they DID deserve this fate. It became clear to me when I viewed it again that in now way were they suggesting this. Does this make my position clearer? I think what caused so much confusion was the initial scene which was so uncharacteristic of the characters - the scene they were arrested for.

Mike wrote: "But even beyond those points the writing lacked the sharp edge that existed in Larry David's dialogue that existed in the original episodes he wrote."

Agreed. A real failure. Still, what began to appeal to me was this - the idea that he was satirizing the world's reaction to the show itself - that he had them in jail to show how far the critics would go in MISUNDERSTANDING what they were about. I dont know if I made this clear. I think the show is a satire on how the show is received by its critics. All the people who actually want to edit out "chinaman" because they didnt get the context, or who consider it pro smoking or anti-Puerto Rican. Them all going to jail is like a satire on all this public commotion and misunderstanding of the creators' intention. IF that was their intent, while I didnt enjoy it, I'm enjoying the IDEA of it now because I'm so mind boggled by these people editing out stuff and banning episodes, etc. I like the thought that their going to jail is kind of a statement that it's come to this - and this interpretation is made stronger by all the nuts who have condemned the characters for their immorality. See what I mean? Cynthia (raingluttn). ---------------------------------------