The Metamorphosis Of Seinfeld

Jan 2, 199812 posts by 11 posters
😐 Mixed🔥 Controversial
12 posts
Justin Tribble

The Metamorphosis Of Seinfeld

By Justin Tribble [email]

Back about four years ago I recall that Seinfeld was one of those shows that attracted a large audience, yet was utterly ignored by mainstream pop-culture. The forces which mold our trends and fashions in speech and thought had skipped past Seinfeld in search of something less complex, and, well, less intelligent. Thus, when you told someone that you "loved" Seinfeld, you were usually granted a semi-sincere shrug. People looked at you in bewilderment, "Why the heck does he like that un-cool show?", they would think. Seinfeld, at the time, was not "cool", or, in other words, it had yet to be accepted into the clique of pop-culture royalty.

In the time between 1990 and 1995, the show had a following, but it was a quiet following. Seinfeld was a different kind of comedy - a comedy with intelligence, and a sheer comic genius that could only be comprehended by those who understood the essence of comedy. Pop-culture does not understand good comedy, rather, it understands simple comedy. But slowly, with the beginning of the 95/96 season, a very subtle and slow metamorphosis began within the show. This is evidenced by....

The slow change in character Elaine Benes' attitude was apparent at the begining of 96/97 season. For something to be accepted into the pop-culture world, it must first and foremost contain a sharp meanness and wickedness. Hence, we have many shows today which must contain a sharp-tongued character. But Seinfeld, for all those years, did not contain a character which remotely appealed to the pop-culture mantras...until the "Elaine Change" began. Elaine's clothing attire changed, her attitude changed, her voice even changed. These changes were all in the direction of pop-culture savvy. She became mean, cold, and heartless towards her friends - and the pop-culture machine ate it up with a spoon. But there were still three more characters that needed to be revamped before Seinfeld could enter the reigns of pop-culture idolism.

Jerry, before his transformation, wasn't a guy that pop-culture could exhalt as a "cool guy". Soon, he, like Elaine, developed a sour tongue, and a tendency for lame comedy and lame wise-cracks. Pop-culture couldn't wait to get it's hands on the "new" Jerry Seinfeld. Then there was George, the most non-"cool" guy on a network sitcom. George once exemplified everything that pop-culture was against: insecurity combined with intelligence. And, as the pop-culture barons who control things "behind the scenes" would have it, George would also need to be changed as well. And thus, he was. Although his change was slower than the other characters, he now reflects the very shallow qualities that pop-culture can't get enough of: arrogance, brashness, and idiocy.

Then there is Cosmo Kramer - his metamorphosis would need not be as severe as the other characters, for he already contained a trait that pop-culture endorses: eccentricity. But the genius Seinfeld writers of yesteryear had done a good job of keeping Kramer's eccentricity in perspective - in other words, what Kramer did always maintained a believability to it. Now, that would need to be changed if Kramer were to become a profitable pop-culture icon. Thus, Kramer's character began to endorse ludicrousness rather than eccentricity. He became an idiot savant - a departure from his previous character style. Ahh, the pop-culture barons who control every facet of our world were pleased. The intelligence level of Seinfeld had successfully been severely reduced.

Within 6 months after the 95/96 season had began, Seinfeld began to take a role in daily "office talk". Remember "The Sponge" episode? The programmed and brainwashed masses of our culture were overwhelmed by it. Never mind that the show was now endorsing the sitcom topics that all of the other pop-culture icon sitcoms of the day endorsed. Never mind that the show now had Kramer supporting an AIDS charity, and Elaine scolding Jerry for taking a woman's name off an AIDS walk list. See, these are the kinds of plot lines one would expect in one of these "cool" sitcoms - one of these repetitious, predictable sitcoms that society adores. The day after "The Sponge" aired, office buildings, grocery stores, and salons were bustling with chatter about how "funny" and "cool" last night's episode of Seinfeld was. In the past, this praise of Seinfeld episodes did not take place openly in public, for Seinfeld had not yet been introduced into the pop-culture generator. But now that these "status-quo", politically correct topics were being endorsed by Seinfeld, everyone began to notice the show.

What we saw was not only a change in the characters, but also a change in plot styles, and in production quality. Plot lines became more and more jumbled, goofy, and abrupt. The subtle and sophisticated plot lines of yeasteryear had vanished. We saw beloved George dragging the Yankee's pennant trophy around in a parking lot in his ridiculous effort to get fired. We saw Kramer drop a ball of oil on a woman walking down a street. We saw Jerry become a lunatic (and a bad actor) as he expressed his "emotions" for the first time. We saw every kind of ridiculous plot one could conjure up. The problem with this is that Seinfeld isn't about knee-jerk prat-falls - that never was the show's purpose. Fortunately for NBC, wacky, mindless prat-fall comedy is what the majority of America's television viewing audience savors.

The departure of co-creator and head writer Larry David is not a suprise. He could see what was happening. He knew the show was falling apart. He was right. What we have today is a sitcom that churns out poor writing, poor acting, and the kind of comedy that pop-culture gobbles up in one bite.

Not only has Seinfeld changed, so have the fans. This metamorphosis brought in millions of the programmed and brainwashed unthinking serfs which usually spend their hours watching other pop-culturally endorsed sitcoms, like Caroline In The City, or Friends. What we have now are fans who couldn't tell good writing from bad writing like a cockroach couldn't tell a clean toilet from a dirty one. There is no use in trying to explain what has happened to Seinfeld in recent years to the show's new fan base. None of these people would understand.

In the end, the "new" Seinfeld isn't about "nothing", rather it merely amounts to nothing. It will soon drift amongst the forgotten pile of predictable sitcoms that have become so very prevalent in recent years. 50 years from now, predicting that society may have evolved by then, people will look back on Seinfeld and see a classic case of intelligence being snuffed out by stupidity.

I leave you with the prophetic words of George Costanza - "It's all just slipping away, and your letting it happen!!!"

<large snip>

Justin, I'm not sure about things in Arizona, but here in Iowa (a place usually regarded as several years behind the times), Seinfeld was part of "office talk" at least as far back as '92 or '93, and was certainly part of the pop culture back then as well.

Sheldon Levin, [email]

Justin Tribble wrote:

This is first time I've seen an interesting message by you. I don't think people stay the same all the time. Everyone changes and it shows in their work. It doesn't mean "Seinfeld" got better or worse, it just changed somewhat. "Seinfeld" is one of the shows I've watched from day one and still love it. I don't blame Jerry for wanting to appeal to the mainstream. Every comedian loves to be loved by as many people as possible. So what is wrong with that? Just remember, television shows are for entertainment only. If it annoys you, turn it off and do something else. I do that a lot.

maro

Ahh...dear Justin...."If they will not visit your website, bring it to them." Let our beloved show end in peace.

Are you sure you don't mean EIGHT years ago??? Seinfeld was very "cool" four years ago.

Milan GokhaleJustin Tribble

[email] (Justin Tribble) wrote:

What the hell? What do you base all of this on? In your essay, you point out that Seinfeld went from intelligent to stupid. Justin, have you seen the early episodes? Have you seen those *tiny* off-to-the-side George Costanza routines?

The tone in the character's voices, the fingers together as George pitched the idea to Seinfeld, the time Jerry snapped his fingers all around...they were all Larry David's doing. But to create "nothingisms" like that must have taken it's toll on Larry David. To not only write the show, but to also produce it and take shot after shot after shot in the hopes to get it better the next time was certainly a factor in David's decision to quit.

But no one, NO ONE, knows for sure why he left. I personally feel my explanation for his leaving the show is much more reasonable than your assumption, but no one knows for sure. Thus, I suggest you stick to the facts when writing an essay.

And FWIW, I don't agree with a word of your writing, but I respect your opinion (is that a broken record?) and I hope you will do the same for fans of the old and NEW Seinfeld.

Milan Gokhale

That might be partly true, but syndication can also be attributed to the show's so-called downfall. Too many of us (including myself) compare the new episodes to classic reruns and deem Seinfeld as slipping. Syndication was one of the five reasons given in Entertainment Weekly for the show's alleged decline.

DaveBraveHeels

That's like saying that 'growing old' is a major contributing factor in death. Syndication is a natural part of the sitcom life cycle.

And just for the record, I've never liked the way EW covered the show.
Don't get me wrong, plenty of exposure, especially over the past few
years, but something tells me the higher ups at Entertainment Weekly
have an agenda that involves a dislike of something Seinfeld related.
--------------------------------------------
             [email]
(Hammer nail here--> <-- for a new monitor.)
          (Remove XXXX to reply)

No offense, but, why don't WebTV'ers ever quote what they're refering to?

e-mail? change .gov to .com
DaveDogmaratt

In , Dogmaratt writes:

I think that as a group, WebTV folks have minimal Usenet experience.
I've found that a quick e-mail to the individual, explaining the importance
of including the parts of the previous post that they are responding to
in their responses, so that future readers know what they're referring
to, and that usually does the trick.
--------------------------------------------
             [email]
(Hammer nail here--> <-- for a new monitor.)
          (Remove XXXX to reply)

Below is the JT post that I'm responding to - uncut to leave him with enough rope.

While I might agree with the conclusion that this year's episodes are sub par, I don't agree with JT's explanations why. Indeed it's remarkable how often he's just plain wrong, IMHO of course.

To respond to a few of his points:

Yes, George and Elaine's personalities are changing. Not to feed some imagined pop culture machine as JT believes but to reflect the aging of the characters. As George gets older he becomes more impatient and his temper becomes more explosive. In short, he's becoming more like Frank. Elaine's disgusted with being in the singles scene too long but she's becoming less tolerant of potential suitors' idiosyncrasies. I may be the only one who thought that Elaine's breaking up with Puddy over his being content to stare into space in this season's premiere was not only funny but well observed.

JT suggests that the show's producers deliberately changed the characters' behaviour to commercialize the show. This is absurd. Making George & Elaine more obnoxious should hardly charm the show's audience. In fact, I think this is a risky way to go. Often, when sitcoms reach the end of their run they get sloppy sentimental. Check out late period MASH episodes where Sherman Potter bawls like a baby at the end of each show. I didn't have a problem with these late MASH shows because I thought it worked better in its Norman Rockwell nostalgic Americana mode than in its early unfunny comedy mode. Seinfeld, though, has remained stubbornly unsentimental 'til the end.

Also, JT is flat wrong that Seinfeld became a big water cooler topic in the last couple of years. Ever since the Outing and the Contest the show has been part of our collective unconscious- ness. The words Master Of Your Domain are recognised by anyone who knows what the f is going on.

Also, the suggestion that the show has gotten more PC is ridiculous. The AID's walk episode had Kramer flouting convention by refusing to wear an AID's ribbon. That's hardly PC. Check out all the hate posts in this group that claim Seinfeld's "The Most Racist...".

If the show is weaker this year it's probably for the simple reason that they're running out of funny ideas. This was inevitable.

Finally, I think JT's apparent hatred for the masses is at least a little Nietzschean and more than a little scary.