Reductio ad absurdum

Hi,
	This is a continuation of my rant as to why the show used to be a lot
better, and has slipped dramtically in overall worthiness in the last few
years. Let me say I mean this totally constructively. I respect the show
immensely and think everybody on it is still just as talented as they used to
be. But here's the problem:
	Seinfeld is always touted as a show about nothing. This really has two
meanings. Partly it means that the show doesn't have a running theme or bizarre
premise (like, say, Quantum Leap) or a location that the show is intractibly
tied to (like Cheers). It's just about normal people living normal lives,
except that funny things keep happening. It's about the little funny things
that happen to all of us. But more importantly, the "show about nothing" really
refers to the fact that it COULD happen to any of us. Any of us could end up
being stuck at a Chinese Restaurant, or getting a crush on a friend, or being
mistaken for gay.
	Back when the show actually followed this model very closely, it was
the funniest thing on television. It was all about things that anybody can
relate to, that some of us HAVE experienced. The show never apologized for
itself. There was never a moral to the story. People weren't ultimately
generous, warm, fuzzy and kind. (Unlike some sickening episodes of Night Court
that ended in a group hug).
	But somewhere in the fourth or fifth season, they started leaning
toward the absurd. It started with the Junior Mint, (which was a great episode, don't get me wrong) and slowly grew into a trend.
	Absurd IS funny. But absurd is only absurd when it happens absurdly
seldom. Absurd every week is just bad. It's like a friend who always curses and a friend who never does. When the friend who always curses curses, you don't
care. But when the friend who never curses curses, you pay attention.
	When Seinfeld started to become consistently surreal and unrealistic
around season six, the funniness started to drain away. I used to identify
with the episodes, but how can I possibly laugh when the sanitation department
won't accept muffins as garbage? Or when a soup kitchen won't accept food
because the tastiest part is gone? That would never happen.
	"Well," you say, "That's why it's funny. Because it would never
happen." But the whole resaon the show was funny in the first place is because
the things that happened could and did happen.
	Occasionally, the absurd is quite funny. The soup nazi, Susan's death,
and the bizarro Jerry were all good for laughs. But why can't there be more
plots that are down to earth, and STILL hilarious. Kramer's antics used to
provide sharp contrast to the relatively normal lives of the other three.
Now Kramer really defines normalcy on the show.
	Bottom line: stop the impossible plotlines. It's completely unrealistic
that Jerry would have to replace a couch in the building where he agreed to
watch the door for a few minutes. It wasn't his responsibility. Who was being
paid to watch the door?
	If they would just go back to basics, where the four of them would
have smart, funny dialogue in real situations, without a dependence on a
million outsight characters and sight gags, you'd see a huge boost in
popularity.
	Okay, I'm done.
	-Matt

Jerry agreed to watch the door. He's a man of his word. This is an impossible plotline?

Dave ([email]) wrote:

: But it just wouldn't happen. Doormen in New York can't just "Pop off for a quick beer" and ask a complete stranger to do their job for them for a little while. Jerry was under no obligation to watch the door. He did the guy a favor and stayed for a while. When the doorman never came back, Jerry got fed up and left. Now whose fault was it that the couch got stolen? I say it was with the person who was being paid to make sure it stayed safe.

You're missing the point. This is not just a 'doorman in New York', this was Jerry's experience with the 'doorman from Hell'. You see, he's a NICE GUY. Can you watch the door? Sure! That's Jerry. I think they went a bit further last week, when George was asked to watch the suitcase, he said 'yes' without even thinging about it. He then asked the next guy to watch the same suitcase, but the guy said something like "Why? So you can walk away and leave me here looking like an idiot?".

While they are both strange incidents, I don't see either one as being 'outside the realm of possibility'. It was a plausible plotline.

Dave wrote:

The part that aggravated me was that, when something was stolen, *Jerry* was held responsible, and not the person whose *job* it was to watch the door!! That makes *no* sense at all! Sorry, but for some reason that grated me to the point that I couldn't enjoy that episode!

-Jen

Dave wrote:

But the doorman is being *paid* to watch the building, and he shirked his responsibilities. For example, I'm a teacher. If I called someone off the street to watch my class while I went shopping, don't you think my head would be on a platter if one of my kids got hurt or something while I was gone?

Sorry ... but that plot just irritated the hell out of me!

-Jen

I have to say I dont usually Diss on the show, b/c I still love it, but you are absolutely correct! I was wondering why the show wasnt quite as appealing as it used to be, & I knew it couldnt be the Larry David thing, that is such an old & tired excuse, but, that makes total sense. The show HAS lost touch with its reality. Like a star that gets big & forgets where they came from or something.

Frankly, I can't tell anything that different about this season specifically. To me, the show started getting bad during sixth season. That's the first season that has *some* shows I refuse to watch when they're on in syundication because they annoy me so much. Since then, it just hasn't been the same for me.

-Jen

I used to think the show changed only because of Larry David's departure. However, after reading the article in Entertainment Weekly, I see it has to do also with the new director. The old director focussed on the characters and what they were saying and didn't bother with visual effects and fake looking lighting.

In addition, even though they were crude and socially dysfunctional since day 1, they were somewhat human and worthy of us relating to them. Now, they're over the top (and frankly Elaine should've never lost the long skirt/bobby socks look in favor of her current retro-glam look).

Nevertheless, it's still the best show on network television.