5/7 Episode Analysis*

The penultimate episode of SEINFELD exhibited some nasty characteristics of a true nadir in their comedy quotient; to put it in Wall Street parlance, the show experienced a severe correction with the Puerto Rican parade episode.

One theory which has been proposed to explain away the fundamental mediocrity at work is the supposition that the primary purpose of this episode was to invoke such tepid response so as to serve as a hedge against overexpectations of the climax to the SEINFELD juggernaut; purposeful application of a bad episode to contrast with the last episode does justify the logic of such a protocol if you stop and ponder such a move. Another theory which has been proffered is the 'too many cooks' theory; this one is a comment on the obvious vanity ploy of allowing a plethora of scribes to contribute material to the last few episodes so as to score a credit for posterity sake (apparently, a lot of favors are being called in). I'm not so sure about this; after all, if it's being done for purposes of vanity, then I'd assume the producers of the show would basically have processed the glut of material to eliminate any illegitimate/ill-conceived comedy, thereby still allowing their cronies access to the mantle while maintaining the quality of the show.

Well, I can't really say why the show was so bad, but allow me to give my reasons why I didn't like it. I think the first thing to point out is the obvious debt the style of the show owed to earlier SEINFELDs, when the show was truly about 'nothing' (i.e., a compendium of true-life observations minus any sort of energetic plot structure). That's certainly what I got; in fact, one of the episodes I can't stand, the one in the Chinese restaurant, was a stylistic doppelganger to this one in certain respects (i.e., four friends in a car stuck in a traffic-jam quagmire as complemented by three friends stuck in a restaurant waiting for a table). That show was indeed about nothing, and it's a fallacy to believe that it is truly exemplary or entertaining; when the show worked best, when it fired on all cylinders with optimal grace, it was about 'nothing' plus 'something'... something being the eneregetic plot structure I mentioned earlier (a good illustration would be the masturbation episode; the 'nothing' was the whole cultural concept/idea about sexual self-gratification, the 'something' was making those static observations dynamic by throwing them in a contest device). The Puerto Rican episode was, for the most part, nothing with nothing else (glaring exception would be the George subplot; here you had 'nothing' [saying things aloud in a movie theater to be funny] with 'something' [plot of George vs. Laser-Boy competitor]).

Another reason why the episode was lacking was the all-too prevalent as of late uninhibited use of cornball material; there was a lot of this present in the episode. The apartment-for-sale used by the Seinfeld gang for their various agendas...Indiana Elaine and the Bleacher Of Doom...the battle between Black Saab and the maroon vehicle...all of it silly and very non-Seinfeldish. In fact, think of the scene where Kramer plays Carter-like negotiator and tries to intervene on the behalf of Seinfeld/Joyner; didn't you find it silly when he told Seinfeld that Joyner wanted an auto-apology-gesture? Yes, people do that in real life, but I found it a self-conscious employment of formula which fizzled right before my eyes.

There's been a lot of talk about the episode (maybe too much talk) being insensitive to the Puerto Rican community. I didn't really find it offensive, but I'd like to ask those in the newsgroup if you're getting sick of the following as much as I am: purposely trying to be politically incorrect to show how non-PC you are. Yes, PC is irritating, but so is forcing the issue as well. You know how they could have been really politically incorrect if they'd wanted to (and funnier in the bargain)? They missed a perfect opportunity to parody the whole TITANIC phenom with the Blimp movie; George could have said he was going to see the Blimp movie because it was a hit with young girls so as to score...even though he ostensibly was going for 18 year old girls, he could have been busted (by his friends and the law) on incorrect suspicions of being a stalking pedophile. That would have been funny, I think, and ceratinly not too correct for a sitcom.

In conclusion, this was bad SEINFELD. I'm hoping/praying for the finale...

[email] (Xtcr7) wrote:

Beautifully written and said, XTCR. Though I doubt that was the writers intent (to me, this episode represents a clear effort by the writers to return "classic Seinfeld", albeit failing miserably).

Besides, everbody loved this episode anyway.

Which clearly represents an effort by the writers to return to "classic" material - they've done this before in the past two seasons and they always fail in their attempts (hence, "The Pothole"; NBC brazenly called it "...in the tradition of 'The Soup Nazi', etc, etc...." even though it stunk to high heaven).

I've been saying it for years - since the writers have neglected to keep the integrity of the characters intact, they must now resort to silliness and fantasy to produce laughs; they simply can't count on the characters to carry an entire episode.

Not only that, it was a glaring example of Plot Propellment. If "Golf" hadn't let him by, the confrontation between Jerry and Elaine's Taxi would not have occured - with this confrontation, plot devices were propelled throughout the episode. Remember how Jerry made a sort of mocking gesture after asked to admit he was the one who cut off "Golf"? Well, after Jerry did that I figure there was no way "Golf" would let him by (and he normally would not have), but with Plot Propellment being part of the equation, "Golf" uncharacteristically let him by anyway - simply so Jerry could call him a "jackass" and run into Elaine's Taxi, etc, etc... Just the basic plot movement we see in mediocre sitcoms.

But could the writers pull something this delicate off? I doubt it. The above plot suggestion would have given Silly George a perfect opportunity to create his usual silly, unrealistic, confident banter we've seen for the past three years.

I say, bring George back down to reality and give him his brain back before you give him a risky plot line such as the one above.

So am I.

Justin T.

I thought this episode was one for the time capsule. While it lacked true "ha ha" laughter, it was very weird and surrealistic. It mimicked the "real time" aspect of "The Parking Garage"; brought back Kramer's nemesises (nemisi?) in a credible way; gave George a Kafka-esque cross to bear; and Elaine leading the doomed caravan under the seats was a brilliant satire of every "escape" movie. The final "confrontation" between "Pennypacker, Varnsen, and Vandelay" was also classic, like an Old West showdown.

The most poignant part was the beginning of the second half of the show with its establishing shot of the outside of Jerry's building and then the shot of the unpopulated interior; almost as if to say, "This is what this will look like in two weeks."

This was a very Pirandellian, self-aware episode--"Four Characters In Search Of Something."

Lee Salem wrote:

In other words, this whole episode was about SOMETHING *else*. It was clogged with silly plot lines, all of them completely un-Seinfeldish.

Ohh it was pure geniusness!

I gotta agree. I just watched this episode for the 2nd time, and tho I may not have laughed out loud at some scenes (tho I did let loose at the reappearance of Bob and Ray and the Pennypacker, Vandelay and Varnsen face off), to me, it was one of the best so far this season. Some may not agree, but hey, I was never really a fan of The Boyfriend (tho the JFK parody was inspired loopiness), so I guess it's just a matter of taste.

Erin.