I rewatched the final episode the other night, and the thing that stuck in my mind most this time around is what a horrible attorney Jackie really is. There were literally dozens of times he should have objected to testimony or lines of questioning and instead he just sat there and let his clients get destroyed one witness at a time. Surely he should have known that most of the witness testimony was inadmissable heresay.
It was obvious that Larry David didn't know much about legal procedings.
Never watched L.A. Law either, I'm assuming.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
[email]
(Hammer nail here--> <-- for a new monitor.)
Seinfeld FAQ http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/7217/faq.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
*NOTE* I am not responsible for equipment damage due to reeeeally
dumb children with no parental supervision, and access to a hammer.
That was a huge annoyance in the final episode. And the problem was, it wasn't even funny! I really wouldn't have minded it if it had been at least slighty amusing. Another part that sucked was the fade in, fade out things they did between witnesses. I thought that killed it too.
Not only was all the witness testimony inadmissable, but the arrest was a crock! According to the arresting officer, "The law requires you to help anyone in danger as long as it was reasonable to do so." Well, the carjacker looked as if he had a gun, and violently pulled the guy out of his car! If any of them had gone over to help, the could have been shot! (Actually, we never saw a gun, it was probably just his finger in his pocket).
If they had assisted, they could have put their own life in danger. That is not reasonable.
You are probably right about the objections Jackie missed. He could have made great cross examinations but they never showed the witnesses getting cross examined so we don't know. Jackie and the Sein 4 were passive observers for the most part and we watch a clip show as the witnesses testify. I don't think the last ep should have been a clip show especially since we had just seen "The Clip Show". The purpose of the finale was to show the characters were bad people and to punish them with a year in jail. Larry David wanted them stuck in place for one year to offer hope that after one season hiatus, Seinfeld might return to the NBC lineup or a theater movie, or a tv special, or something. But I think this was mostly if not entirely, to give people false hope to soothe their pain.By the time it would be obvious this was a false hope,(if that turned out to be the case) the hurt would be gone or diminished. Put another way, LD gave people hope to help with the pain (if not completely take it away) and then if it turned out to be a ruse, by the time people found out the pain would be greatly diminished or gone. But we knew the characters were bad (that is why we loved them) and we didn't need a trial to show that. LD wanted the characters convicted and wanted to emphasize how bad they were. So, the trial has all kinds of crap in it: Jackie Chiles not being more aggressive,they don't show cross examina- tions, the witnesses talk about stuff that were misunderstandings or minor offenses, and the bubble boy was the worst or one of the worst examples. He caused the trouble by choking George. The reporter (Jane Wells) outside the courtroom said the bubble boy was a tragic and sympathetic character. Give me a break! He is rude to everyone and chokes George over a game and makes life hell for his parents. The charges were ridiculous in the first place. It was not safe for them to intervene because it looked like the car jacker had a gun. Kramer, I think, might have laughed but was the only one who did not make a wisecrack. By filming the incident Kramer was putting his life in danger and the film could help convict the car jacker, although Kramer was filming the incident for amusement purposes. LD fixed the trial the whole way. He wanted to make sure there was a conviction. of the whole gang.I don't know if LD has lots of judicial knowledge, but I think he would not have used it anyway(except to further fix the trial). He thought punishing the characters is what people wanted to see. Non-fans maybe(although I don't know) but not the real fans! LD mis-read what the fans wanted or decided to pander to the non-fans for some reason (but why?!) Maybe it was to show the non-fans that Seinfeld is a good show and is justified because they punished the gang for their misdeeds. But the gang,at least for the most part had already been punished for their misdeeds. Jerry and George got tickets for public urination, George arrested for stealing medicine in The Stranded(although this is not mentioned in the finale). The gang had been punished over misunderstandings. Jerry loses Sidra because she thought Jerry had sent Elaine to stumble into her to check the authenticity of her breasts, for example.But screw the non-fans! Paul