"The Junk Mail" = Potential stifled by luckluster writing.

S09E05 The Junk MailliveOct 31, 1997the next day9 posts by 6 posters
😐 Mixed

The episode had promising ideas but suffered from poor execution; Kramer's character has become too cartoonish and unrealistic compared to earlier seasons, with contrived plots that don't make sense.

9 posts
Justin Tribble

"The Junk Mail"

After watching this episode I felt a bit of sympathy towards the show. This episode is probably the best this season (but that isn't saying much). The *ideas* behind this episode had potential, but they simply weren't executed very well in many departments. There were deficiencies in the writing, directing, and acting realms.

Kramer's plot line was contrived and ill-conceived. It is as if the writers have this image of what the Kramer character is: a man who endlessly involves himself in outrageous situations that make little or no sense whatsoever. But is this the Kramer we all grew to love and adore in the first 7 seasons? I think on the *surface*, Kramer *is* a "hipster-dufus", a character that could easily be exploited by elementary writers who fail to realize that Kramer isn't a cartoon, but rather a character who's originality is exhibited by the fact that his eccentricities are realistic. In other words, we are astounded by Kramer because he *isn't* a cartoon; he amazes us becuase his exsistence is plausible and realistic. But in the last two seasons, and most prominately this season, Kramer has become a cartoon. The delicate balance between maintaining realism and plausibility while keeping the audience laughing has been exploited by turning the Kramer character into a laugh-a-minute, prat-fall machine. The writers are taking Kramer's eccentricity too far; his ideas don't make *sense* anymore. What is interesting in "The Junk Mail" episode is that the writers seemed to have realized how cartoonish Kramer was becoming, and they seemed to have made an effort to bring back some sensibility to the character.

The idea behind Kramer's plot in "The Junk Mail" is a good one, but it fails to recongize the simplest factors of Kramer's personallity. Would Kramer really become so offended by a few catalogs? It seems to me that the plot was simply a "prop" of sorts. We know Kramer is going to do something weird, and writers are also well aware of this. It seems that what Kramer does isn't really much of an issue with the writers as long as it is eccentric, rediculous, or weird. The writers don't take into account the complexity of the Kramer character. What is happening is that the writers are exploiting Kramer's "hipster dufus" persona for cheap laughs. They aren't using his deep intelligence and eccentricity to pave new roads of comedic excellence.

There were some funny moments within the Kramer/Newman plot line. Unfortunately, the writers once again drifted into rediculous, cartoonish realms towards the end of the show. Wilford Brimley's appearance looked promising, but it was so poorly executed that any possibility of a good laugh was stifled. Think about the directing and the acting in the scene where Kramer was being interrogated by the Post Master General - Why was Kramer getting so worked up? Why was he on the verge of tears? Brimley wasn't really being that harsh at all. It was another contrived scene where the director, the actor, and the writers tried so hard to conjure up a few laughs while trying to get by without any *substance*.

I think the most lackluster plot in the show was Elaine's infatuation with the "Wiz" guy. It's not that it was a horrible idea, but couldn't these so-called "top quality" writers come up with something more interesting (and funny)? The Elaine chacter in this episode was lacking wit, charm, and *sense*. When I look at her I see an empty, contrived character. Her purpose now is simply to provide the American television viewing audience with a female character in a show populated with male characters. She lacks originality and *purpose*. Her plot lines revolve around sex, men, and cheap jokes. In the past, the topics of sex and boyfriends were covered with *class*, unlike in today's episodes. In fact, she bearly spends any time with George, Jerry, and Kramer. And this leads me to my next point...

None of the characters spend any time with each other. They are so busy with their plot lines that none of them have time to sit down at Monks and talk about *nothing*. The show has become very fast-moving and it has become over-loaded with plots, yet it is becoming more and more lackluster. Watching Jerry, Elaine, Kramer, and George rush around in their little worlds endlessly trying to fullfill their plot-line agendas reminds me of an army of ants as they scurry around trying to prepare for the coming winter. The difference between ants and Seinfeld is that the ants have a purpose. On Seinfeld, I wonder at times why the characters bother themselves with such asinine chores (which we call "plot lines"). In the Larry David Years things seemed more settled down, more laid-back and calm. In an effort to produce laughs, the writers have resorted to pumping the show full of "fluff" in search of a "holy-grail" of originality and intelligence that will hopefully reinvigorate the show.

George's plot also had potential. Here his parents essentially become tired of him. This is a plausible, funny idea. Yet it is very poorly executed by the writers. Things become overly complex while remaining unrealistic and unsensible. George goes to great lengths to regain his parents attention to the point where things become confusing and unrealistic. In the end, the plot line is simply a generator of soulless laughs. We end up with scenes of George's parents having sex, and George running through the forest yelling inaudible lines with his cousin chasing after him, and more of George's parents simply acting weird and out of character. In the last line spoken on Thursday's episode, George yells, "Make it stop!" I second that notion.

Jerry's plot also had potential. But due to the overload of plot lines in the show, Jerry's plot never gained much substance. It is as if the writers had trouble fitting it into the show since there was so much other stuff going on. Jerry's old boyhood friend was another contrived character. It was a set-up from the beggining. Jerry explains to us that his friend is very sensitive, we then encounter scene where Jerry's friend's insensitivity is to be tested. In these scenes, we are supposed to laugh when we see the formula taking place. Jerry can't get rid of the van because Jerry's friend is overly-sensitive. This design never produces many laughs because it survives on a formula, not good acting or writing.

If there is a bright spot in Thursday's episode it would have to be Jerry's acting. This is the best I've seen him this season. He was relaxed, sensible, and he also had a few good lines that tickled my funny bone. This is the way Jerry *ought* to act.

Strangely, Kramer's acting seems to be on a sort of "roller coaster" ride of unpredictability. This past season Kramer has reverted more and more into a child-like state. Yet, in Thursday's episode, he is more serious and troubled. Kramer is at his best when he is confident, eccentric, and sensible, like he was in such episodes as, "The Hamptons", "The Parking Garage", and "The Chaperone". We haven't seen that kind of Kramer in a long time...

At this point, I don't think that things are really going to turn around. Hopefully, Jerry will gain some momentum in the coming weeks as evidenced by his performance on Thursday. The writers still don't seem to have a good grasp on the Kramer character. Their view of what Kramer is about is too simplistic and shallow to produce anything but cheap laughs, cartoonish plots, and goofish acting. The writers also don't seem to have much of a grasp on Elaine. She is a prop. A loose end that needs to be cleaned up or repaired. And George has simply *lost* his intelligence and ability to show us new, paranoid ways of viewing life.

Another annoying little thing that I continue to notice is the poor lighting effects that are used on the show. If you will recall the scene where George is in his parents kitchen you might have noticed how *bright* everthing seemed. It is as if there are a couple of hundred flourescent lights installed above every set. I simply find the *look* of the show this season to be more unrealistic than ever. When I watch the *old* episodes I notice that the lighting in each set is very realistic and the coloring of the film is very warm and real. Doesn't anyone on the Seinfeld production team even notice this?

For now I'll keep watching...and hoping.

Justin Tribble Sedona, Az.

[email] wrote:

Isn't it "The Van"?

Nice going, Justin. Pretty good content, and some good points made. Well worth the effort.

<snip...>

But haven't they always been? Yet he makes them work.

I think the references to The Firm are pretty obvious. If you didn't get the reference, then part of the setup was missing.

showed promise, but ended up being a throwaway.

<snip>

Isn't this a result of her pregnancy? The Puddy plot line seems designed to keep her busy without a need for significant interaction with the rest of the cast. And that's bad, I agree.

<snip>

Fair comment.

I thought this worked pretty well, although I've never liked the Costanza parents much. But this was much better than the Serentiy Now computer selling gig. The notion of adult children having to deal with the idea that their parents may actually engage in sex is a topic that harks back to classic taboo Seinfelds.

<snip>

Making Jerry become a used car salesman to sell the van to Kramer was pretty good.

<snip>

I really miss George working for the Yankees. I think that was a big mistake to cut him loose. I guess they may have run out of ideas for him there.

Like I said, excellent job. This is the kind of stuff that should generate some intelligent discussion, hopefully, rather than the Tastes Great/Less Filling we've been doing for weeks.

d.a.v.e.

[email] (Dave Paisley) wrote:

George and the Yankees was classic. But in the past year George's involvment with the franchise simply became so outlandish and unrealistic that it became tirsome. Remember how George, in an idiotic effort to get himself fired, dragged the Yankees World Series trophy around in the parking lot? I think the whole Yankees idea had simply been ruined by the end of last season and it was time to move on. But if the writers hadn't taken things to such unrealistic lengths, there certainly may have been some life left in the Yankess/Steinbrenner/Wilhelm legacy.

Now that the Yankees are finished, George has stumbled into more plot lines involving himself trying to get a job - and this will continue. George will get job - something outlandish will happen - George will loose job. And the cycle will go on and on if the writers can't get their heads on straight and decide to stick with one, continuing plot line involving George's occupation. Hopefully, the writers will get smart and starting using George's paranoia and selfish nature in *realistic* plot lines involving a *realistic* work place. When this happens, things will really take off.

Justin T.

Hi...

Well I have just read a quite long and detailed post by Justin Tribble, and while I may not agree with it all, I think the man is entitled to his opinion and there is nothing wrong with expressing it as he did... I think people who like to reply to him should either post their own distinct critiques and let readers decide, or comment item by item without being rude or profane to the person himself.

In the meantime relax on both sides, but mainly on mine which is for the most part positive...

Incidentally my vote for the best of the season is Kramer's intern and the worst is the blood (titles?)...

Josh Newhouse [email] 20, in Boston and a psychic err Psychotic err perhaps that's Psychology major...

"It's better to be a smarta** than a dumba**." - Some smarta**

A thoughtful post I enjoyed reading. I take issue with a few things, natch.

I'm not disagreeing here, but amplifying. To me the beauty of Kramer's character is that he's the only one on stage who's not trying to play every line for a laught. Think of it; Jerry, George and Elaine are always competing for witty put-downs of each other; they don't even try with Kramer, knowing that it'll wiz right by him. (They still do it, when they can't resist it, but Kramer never seems affected.) The core of Kramer's character is simply that he's still an adolescent. He has a certainty that whatever he thinks is "cool" is cool. With a typical adolescent world view, it doesn't bother him that very few other people think the same way. So he's the only one wearing vintage 50's clothes; Kramer thinks it's cool even if no-one else does, he has absolute confidence in himself, (which is one definition of "cool") and how he sees life. Richards plays Kramer so sincerely that in playing Kramer straight, he makes him funny. What irony, the funniest character on stage is the straight man. It also doesn't hurt that he is a gifted physical actor.

I don't buy that the writers are leading Kramer astray. Having been around actors and been onstage a few times myself, I can tell you that most good actors (and I wasn't one) obsess about their characters constantly. So having spent the better part of 9 years living with Cosmo Kramer, I have no doubt that Seinfeld, the writers and Michael Richards can talk for hours on precisely what Kramer would say, think and do in any given situation at any point in time of Kramer's fictional life, past present or future. Same for all the other main characters. You have to expect that the writers for Seinfeld are pretty much at the top of the comedy writing food chain; they're pros.

One example of how much in synch the writers and Richards are is the line a few episodes ago where Kramer says; (something like) "Jerry, for you I'd rip my kidney out right here and put it right on this table!" and gestures doing just that. In and of itself, that's not as funny a line as Kramer ended up making it. I'm certain the writers had no idea exactly just how Richards would end up physicalizing that line when they wrote it, (you do not write stage directions for Michael Richards, that would be insulting) but they knew it would fit Kramer's character and were confident that Richards would pull the line off beautifully and get the laught that he did. To me that's good writing.

One concept I think you might be missing is how much of a collaboration among the writers, Seinfeld, the director and the actors, the show must be at this point. And how with the gifted actors Seinfeld has, the process of rehearsal improves a script far beyond what it started out as. So to trash the writers for what you don't like about the recent episodes misses the mark, I think. If you have to blame, you have to blame all of them.

I wish you'd have thought of an example to support the above ("in the last two seasons, and most prominately this season, Kramer has become a cartoon") cause I can't think of one episode where that's true. I do recall him looking somewhat cartoonish spazzing out to Mary Hart's (?) voice from Entertainment Tonight; that episode was from several years ago, wasn't it?

8.03 "Bizarro Jerry"; Kramer gets a job and plays it perfectly in character 8.04 "The Little Kicks"; Kramer gets involved in bootlegging movies; perfectly reasonable situation for Kramer to get involved in 8.06 "The Fatigues": Kramer talking Frank into cooking again was one of my favorite subplots 8.08 "The Chicken Roaster": Kramer trades personalities with Jerry? Halarious!

Well, yeah, he was carrying what looked liked 12 of them.. . .

If you think of Kramer as an over-aged adolescent, it makes perfect sense that he would be intimidated to the point of tears. Kramer's not that emotionally tough; recall in the "Soup Nazi" his line to Elaine after the thugs stole her armoire? "You should have heard the way they talked to me!!"

I think the idea of George's parents ditching him after putting up with him for 35 years was funny. That he should then switch and be affronted by their indifference to him after trying to achieve that for so long was great. Good comedy is made from abrupt reversals like this. His preparing a script before the ritual weekly phone call is something I wish I'd thought of, and being blown off by his parents using the same scam he'd pulled moments earlier was priceless. I just can't place where you say it got confusing and unrealistic. Dating his first cousin to get back at his parents for snubing him seems to be a reasonably George thing to do. . .

You win on that one, I didn't think that much of Jerry's friend or that whole subplot either except for trying to sell Kramer the van. They seemed to be forcing the plot to get the van into the park for a Holloween/Slasher takeoff and the intersection of all the characters. But it couldn't have been that bad if you thought. . .

Is that a reversal?

"That's too bad." <grin> (you know who I'm quoting. . .)

It's hard to refute opinion without any examples, so the point I'll make is just because the show has apparently gone in a direction you don't like doesn't mean the writers have lost their way. I get the impression that Seinfeld has enormous creative control over the show's writing and direction and it seems unlikely that he's suddenly just lost it. It's possible that he's under self-imposed pressure to justify the big bucks he's negotiated and I'll not argue that maybe that's showing up in the final result. But, I'd rather see Seinfeld try too hard and push the show too far, than rest on his laurels and count his money. For every bad bit there's more than a few great ones to make up for it.

God, you're picky! I only notice lighting when it's really horrible, or really incredible. I've never noticed the lighting on Seinfeld, not once, so in my book it's good lighting in that it's doing what it's supposed to do; light.

So in closing, I would like to suggest that from now on, no-one trashes the show until they watch it three times over the span of a week <grin> I think the current shows hold up pretty well with repeated viewings; you can appreciate more the fun stuff and forgive the bad. . .

IMHO JPM

>> This space intentionally left blank <<
DLeglerJPM

In article , [email] (JPM) writes:

Seinfeld has just recently(last year) gained this control. Prior to that, Larry David was the driving force behind the show. The change we have seen is at least partially due to this change.

[email] (Justin Tribble) wrote:

(snipped)

I remember thinking during the seventh season that the sets were too dark (although that was better than the brightness we have now). Maybe the lighting folks are overcompensating? Or perhaps they got new people who can't do it right.

Anyway, I totally agree about Kramer. I have no problem with an occasional over-the-top plot, but when there is nothing else, we lose a whole side of his character. I miss the confident and principled Kramer that fought a mugger and drove a bus to save a pinky toe in "The Fire." In addition to having wacky ideas that make no sense, Kramer seems to have become more cowardly. Kramer has cracked under pressure in interrogations before, although the cop in "The Trip" was considerably harsher than Wilford Brimley's Henry Atkins. I liked that scene, though, so I won't complain. Overall, though, Kramer has been more easily frightened of things ever since the foppish muggers scared him in "The Soup Nazi." At that time it was considered out of character for Kramer, which was what made it funny, but he's that way all the time now.

-Kenny

Right on, Kenny, right on.

Justin T.

[email] wrote: