BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Michael Richards, Borat and the Limits of Shock Comedy

 
 
PatrickMM
19:16 / 22.11.06
Over the past couple of days, Seinfeld star Michael Richards has gotten into a lot of the trouble for his racial invective filled rant at a comedy club. All the info is here, including videos of both the moment itself and the incredibly awkward six minute apology on Letterman. Obviously he said some really awful things, and I doubt he'll ever be able to shake the stigma of this, nor should he. If you're a public figure, no matter what you actually feel, you just don't say this stuff in public.

When I first heard about the story, I saw it as just another Mel Gibson type situation. The quotes from articles were horrible, and at first, his apology is a fairly standard "I didn't mean it" kind of thing. However, as he goes on, he talks about what led him to say these things. Basically, as a performer, he uses a lot of free association to move deep into character. His comedy is entirely based on stripping off self consciousness and getting lost in the material.

If you watch the video, it becomes more clear that what he's saying is to some extent a performance. After the initial comments, he steps back and says something like "Ooh, this shocks you?" After this, he goes even further and loses the audience in the process. The whole thing raises the question of where performance ends and where actual racism begins. If he's trying to maintain authority as a performer, he's going to want to prey on his hecklers and use their comments to his advantage. So, he plays on the easiest target, their race. The question is, is he entering into the character of a racist at this moment or is it is his own beliefs coming out?

I can't say for sure, but I think it's interesting that this controversy occurs only a few weeks after everyone is lauding Borat for supposedly exposing the below the surface intolerance of Americans. With Borat, Baron Cohen enters into a character and utters a consistent stream of hate speech, directed at blacks, Jews and others. To the people in the film, there's no indication that Borat is a construction, or that his beliefs are any less than genuine, he is using this character to create a safe space for people to express their hate.

But, at the same time, he is saying very hateful things. What makes his constant jokes about Jews different than what Richards does here? The obvious answer is the distinction between Borat and Cohen. Every review seems to mention the film's antisemitism, qualified with a remark about Cohen's own Orthodox background. It's easy for us to laugh at Borat because we're aware that he is poking fun at this point of view. The actual man is far removed from the character.

However, with Richards, there's no clear line between the character and the performer. It's quite possible that in that moment, he saw entering this racist persona as the best way to grab the crowd's attention and counter the hecklers. At first, he seems to enjoy the fact that his words have created such shock, and only after does the crowd turn on him. If you read Borat without the distance of knowing he's a fictional character, it'd be very easy to have the same reaction.

In the end, I think the difference in reaction comes down to three things. One is insider status. Seinfeld itself actually commented on this phenomenon when they had Tim Whatley convert to Judaism for the jokes. An oppressed group can make fun of themselves without consequence, but it's a lot tougher for someone outside the group to make those same jokes. Richards crosses an unacceptable social line by invoking actual hate speech.

The second major difference is the tone. Borat gets away with a lot of what he does because he's such a genial guy. There doesn't seem to be genuine malice behind what he's saying, whereas Richards, by his own admission, is fueled with rage and as a result, stops being funny. On Seinfeld, Kramer could get away with a lot of insensitive things because there was an innate innocence/naivete to the character, and Richards had none of that on stage.

I'm not going to pass judgment on Richards, but it's clear he crossed a line in the performance. I suppose that's the danger of being such a free performer, that you'll channel something you don't want out into the world, and I'd imagine we're not going to see him doing standup again.

But, so much of what is hailed about today's great comedies are their willingness to tackle taboo subjects. Shows like Arrested Development and The Office frequently use race in their humor, and it's notable that at first the audience on Letterman treats Richards' apology as a bit, with sporadic laughter until Jerry says "Stop laughing, it's not funny." Apparently, the show was taped before the scandal broke, and if you didn't know it was real, it'd be pretty easy to think that Richards' apology was a gag, pushing awkward comedy to its limits.
 
 
*
19:33 / 22.11.06
It's not a bit. None of it was a bit. Richards lost it and he's making excuses. I don't buy it, and I am sick of hearing people on the interwebs making his excuses for him. I don't care much that he has anger problems; lots of people have anger problems. Some people manage to fucking take some responsibility for it. Richards is refusing to actually deal with the fact that he actually has racist problems as well. By this mechanism we all let racism continue. And unfortunately, it's growing in America; I don't know about the UK.

This is not a new problem with Seinfeld and the people involved with it.

Racial humor can be used to attack and reveal racism, or it can be used to reinforce it. People need to realize there is a difference and learn to tell the difference. It's not that fucking hard.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
20:09 / 22.11.06
Well, I watched the apology first, and it seemed genuine. I was prepared to give the guy a little benefit of the doubt (as I couldn't get the link to the actual rant to work). Then I found it on YouTube, and I'm right with id on this one. That was utterly fucking appalling. I'd like to have seen the act leading up to it, to get some context, whether he was in character or whatever, but I'm still not sure I'd be convinced that that was anything other than really hateful shit.

I'd also like to have seen a bit more of the compere trying to salvage the evening as people were heading for the exits- I notice he started straight in with an apology, rather than trying to make excuses. I guess there wasn't really a lot else he could say after that bullshit.

(As someone said on the YouTube comments, "cocaine sure is a hell of a drug").
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
20:10 / 22.11.06
I'd also say the Borat comparison doesn't really hold- I'm still in two minds as to whether SBC's tactics actually work, but I'm fairly sure he is trying to do what he says he's trying to do, whether misguided or not.

This was just a bigoted rant, really.
 
 
PatrickMM
20:19 / 22.11.06
What Richards claims he's doing is something analagous to what SBC does, in going deep into character for a performance. However, I'd agree that that's a lot less likely than it just being a rant. In the video, he even says it's surprising what's just under the surface. I find the whole thing pretty depressing because it just reinforces the fact that so many people have racist beliefs hidden just below the surface, and all it takes is some kind of stimulus, be it alcohol or rage, to bring them out.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
20:22 / 22.11.06
CNN clip here.
 
 
miss wonderstarr
20:24 / 22.11.06
Yeah, I don't know if that can really be considered as part of a "performance", or as playing a "racist character", to any extent. There's some element there that he's drawing attention to taboos and claiming to reveal something about the audience ~ "ooh... that shocks you, it's all buried in you people" ~ but it's pretty desperate really. It just sounds like anger stemming from vanity and hurt, and a performance failing on its ass ~ racial slurs were the first weapon that came to Richards' mind and mouth, and to be honest I think that says something unfortunate about him. Someone with fewer genuine issues about African American people would respond with something like "I'm surprised you can even heckle with your mouth fulla buck-teeth" ~ some personal diss rather than an easy, crude insult about ethnicity.

It's also striking the way the black heckler, apart from calling Richards a cracker-ass and a white boy, mainly sounds quite polite and sad: "That was uncalled-for", again and again.
 
 
miss wonderstarr
20:25 / 22.11.06
Richards also seems pretty angry, and hurt (which I don't mean as an excuse) and mixed-up during the apology speech... his reference to Afro-Americans suggests to me that he's not quite comfortable with black people.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
20:28 / 22.11.06
I know it's missing the point somewhat, and a minor side issue, but did anyone else feel really sorry for Jerry Seinfeld during that Letterman clip? I'm guessing he had a few choice words of his own to say to Richards beforehand...
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
20:38 / 22.11.06
(or maybe not, after watching id's link...)
 
 
Elijah, Freelance Rabbi
21:27 / 22.11.06
That Danny Hoch clip is brilliant.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
21:40 / 22.11.06
his reference to Afro-Americans suggests to me that he's not quite comfortable with black people

To be fair, I don't think I'd be entirely comfortable with black people if I'd just come out with all that bollocks... but I do see what you mean.
 
 
PatrickMM
22:36 / 22.11.06
The weird thing about the whole apology clip is that it feels so uncoached by a publicist. The references to 'Afro-Americans' are a pretty obvious misstep, but more than that, it feels like he had no preparation and is just there spinning whatever excuse he can think of. Plus, the presentation makes it look like Richards is reporting in from prison. On the one hand, it does make it seem a bit more genuine than a coached statement, but it also makes him seem like even more of a nut.
 
 
miss wonderstarr
23:03 / 22.11.06
Yeah, I mean even at his best, when he's calm and being "himself" (without any possible excuse of getting into a comedy performance, putting on a role or whatever, which I don't think really stands anyway) he doesn't really seem cool with Black folks, if you see what I mean.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
23:25 / 22.11.06
Yeah, you could be right. I'm not overly familiar with the guy- I've seen Seinfeld here and there, but it's never been one of those shows that I *watch* (It's been one of those that I always mean to watch more often because I hear very good things about it)... Other than that and a couple of episodes of his own show, I know very little about the guy.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
11:35 / 23.11.06
The problem with comparing Borat and Michael Richards' racist tirade is that Richards' clearly wasn't being funny, in fact he doesn't seem to be trying to be funny. He was just insulting someone because he was angry. Even when SBC steps over a line it's obvious that he's not angry, he's just trying to be funny and make a social comment (even in a rubbish way).
 
 
Triplets
12:36 / 23.11.06
The "Ooooh, does this shock you?" sounds like every Barbetroll who's cryed reality tunnel maintenance.

"That's what you get when you interrupt the white man". Christ. That's not comedy, that's a man who can't (or won't) put the breaks on.



Richards could've at least started the apology by sliding in through a door though.

Too much of it sounded hollow. Didn't like how he spent as much, if not more, time talking about "hey isn't there a bit of a crazy fruit-shit racist in all of us?"
 
 
matthew.
16:00 / 23.11.06
If he had said something offensive, and then realized his mistake, and left immediately, I could try to forgive. However, he made it into a bit (Ooh, this shocks you) and then hired a PR with deep ties to the black community, as if this is going to fix everything. There's no way back from this. We're always going to remember him for this. At this point, it's unforgivable. I just wish it had been Ray Romano or that fucking King of Queens guy who had said it. OR better yet, Larry the fucking Cable Guy.
 
 
miss wonderstarr
16:20 / 23.11.06
Yeah, I wish Jude Law or Robbie Williams would dig themselves a hole like this, actually.
 
 
H3ct0r L1m4
16:46 / 23.11.06
there was maybe only one way out of this, if he hadn't tried to issue the weird apology on Letterman:

give the audience hecklers a truckload of money, a house each if necessary, and pull "an Andy Kauffman", pretend the whole thing was set up from the start and have them sign a contract as actors in this farse - TomCruise-wife style - in exchange for their silence. who wouldn't buy it in times like these?

the bad part about the hypotetical story is that we'd never really know if he was acting or simply showing what a plain disgusting racist he actually is. and that's a good thing, learn people's true inner inclinations.

he's pretty much done now as a performer and that's a shame. I still love the SEINFELD sitcom and the wacky Kramer character. I can take actors and characters apart, although the line blurs in the show's case.

and I'll love it for what it is no matter how right-wing Jerry and George and everybody else were. anyone also remembers the episode when people wondered if George and Jerry were gay? they were brilliant as themselves, conservative guys afraid to admit the possibility. the sitcom was also known for joking about stereotypes in the Jewish community they were part of themselves [Jerry's family and the SCHINDLER'S LIST incident, for example].

but I've watched the whole series 2 or 3 times and I can't remember any other black character apart from the lawyer that popped uo from time to time to help Kramer and the runner Jerry was supposed to wake up for the NY marathon...

I watched both of Richard's videos a couple of times and what I think it's tragic, as Patrick mentioned, is that we can see some of the thought proccess that led the guy to this shameful situation [and it doesn't take off the weight of what he said, let it be known].

it's an open-gate stream of conscience stuff. Kramer then and Richards now were a lot like the Joker from the comics, a mad fuck babbling or walking around while tapped into a chaotic flow of abstract thought. but you can't do that when trying to get control of your live audience. you may show yourself as a fucking racist after all...

he just made a fool of himself in front of millions and personified race relations in the USA of today. there are still ways of really "fixing" it [and not simply covering it up], but first he'll have to change and fix himself as a human being.

in light of the case, here's a video [sound's bad] for a stand up bit on Racism that Chris Rock took out of his set after a while.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
17:47 / 23.11.06
What Richards claims he's doing is something analagous to what SBC does, in going deep into character for a performance.

Most obviously, although you can call Baron Cohen a number of things, one of those things is not "deluded fantasist". He is not a person who believes himself to be an anti-Semitic Khazakh. He is a person who pretends to be an anti-Semitic Khazakh, in order to make comedy television and films that can be exchanged for money. If Michael Richards is so deep in his "character" that he is unable to muster a proportionate response to a heckler without racial abuse, then he probably shouldn't be doing stand-up, because, as has been demonstrated, it is not what people have paid for or what they are prepared to sit through, and so it's fairly fortuitous that he probably won't be.

Looking at the apology, it's actually not as incoherent as it's been depicted - he's saying that he lost his temper, that he's sorry, that he is concerned that what he has done will cause further damage to race relations in the US, that race relations have suffered in the wake of Katrina, that there is a tremendous amount of anger and rage in the US as a result of the wars that the nation has instigated (the reasoning is not clear - rage at the apparently unjustified deaths? A general sense of cultural violence)...

However, that doesn't alter the fact that he used a position of power (on a stage, with a microphone) to hurl racial abuse at someone who really couldn't be said to have signed up for that. I don't see how he can go back to stand-up, and I don't see why he should. Having said which, if Mel Gibson proved anything, it's that you can basically do whatever you like as long as you're making money for the studios and will continue to do so. We probably shouldn't think hounding a no-longer-profitable comedian out of business makes the industry in any way righteous.
 
 
PatrickMM
21:41 / 23.11.06
and I'll love it for what it is no matter how right-wing Jerry and George and everybody else were. anyone also remembers the episode when people wondered if George and Jerry were gay? they were brilliant as themselves, conservative guys afraid to admit the possibility. the sitcom was also known for joking about stereotypes in the Jewish community they were part of themselves [Jerry's family and the SCHINDLER'S LIST incident, for example].

This is one of the issues I have with the Hoch video, the show used a lot of pretty broad ethnic caricatures, be it the Italian barbers in the Barber Shop episode, or the absolutely ridiculous rabbi. Now, I'm not saying that these characters weren't offensive, and they weren't particularly funny, but you could just as easily take the Hoch video from the producers' perspective. They wanted to do a specific bit, the actor they brought in wouldn't do it, so they hired someone else. And, IIRC, the character didn't end up with a broad Spanish accent. He was played by Carlos Jacott, of Whedon trifecta fame, and he used something pretty close to his regular voice.

The difficult thing with the series is that it's unclear whether the values of the characters are presented as something positive. In the case of the episode you mentioned, with Jerry and George possibly outed, the show is making fun of their conservatism, and the Pool Guy episode is largely about the same thing, the fact that Jerry is so close minded he claims he doesn't want another friend. The Ramon character isn't made fun of, you actually end up feeling sorry for him, that he's so consistently reected. That's not to claim that Hoch was wrong, it's just that he tailored his story to make a specific point. He does a great job of making that point, but it's a rather biased report.

That said, I think the video raises a lot of questions about the difficulty minority actors experience in Hollywood. If you can play a Middle Eastern man, is it encouraging stereotype to play a terrorist? I'm offended by the fact that James Hong is constantly forced to do Karate Kid parodies in bad comedies, but if it's a choice between doing that parody and not working, what are you going to do?
 
 
John Octave
21:01 / 26.11.06
The difficult thing with the series is that it's unclear whether the values of the characters are presented as something positive.

I don't think it's that unclear. The characters are shallow, lying, manipulative and immature, and interviews with the creators affirm that this is intentional. The entire point of the series finale, while not a very good or funny episode, is that these people are unfit for society and must be expelled.

That is why the character of George, particularly, and the indignities he suffers are so funny, yes? Had we more sympathy for the character, we would be less inclined to laugh at his constant failure (which is usually well deserved and of his own making).

To that effect, I've no sympathy at all for Richards' career killer. Hurling racial epithets on stage out of anger and then saying "I'm sorry, but look, when you're a comedian..."
 
 
Mug Chum
05:17 / 27.11.06
>>>>> "that there is a tremendous amount of anger and rage in the US as a result of the wars that the nation has instigated (the reasoning is not clear - rage at the apparently unjustified deaths? A general sense of cultural violence)"

I think it may be in terms that soldiers are mostly from poor segments. War (well, like everything else really -- but war is like the foam on the cup of fucked-up things) is just another shaft fucking and abusing poor people. That always tends to create a divergence and separation of sorts. And, like you said, the general sense of cultural violence, unjustified deaths and the other things that seems to pop-up every two weeks or so...

---------------------------------------


I don't know.

But since we're giving opinions and judgments, here's my take.

I don't know, just substitute the heckler with a guy in a club (or whichever other social scenario) making regards about Michael Richards' girlfriend. And he starts to talk back until he ultimately explodes and unleashes the same very thing he did on stage. In my imagination it wouldn't play very differently from what happened at stage. That was no stage-play here in my mind. That was a pathetic and desperate Last Effort in making himself sound like a on-the-edge comedian and more ahead than his audience on the theme of race&racism, and even not being able to hold it right and snapping ("it shocks you... u see what's buried beneath you dumb mother fuckerrrrs!"). A racist guy who doesn't consider himself racist but would, can and will explode at any time and drop the n-bomb with furious intent and who knows what else if he wasn't on a less crowded place.

Simply put, it sounded like a racist joke some people in my high-school used to make inside their comfy houses, away from blacks or the real world. Where they would role-play dialogues as if they had slave-farms and "as if they were extremely racist", "so absurdly racist to nowadays it was fun", "it was okay because they weren't racists, and that's why it was funny". "All in good fun", "they're not racists", "they fucking hate racists motherfuckers and everything".

And the show, Seinfeld... I loved it when I was 13-14. I still think is very well done, but c'mon... it appeals at the most prejudicious places inside us. It's funny, ok. And I'm sure many black, hispanics, gay people and other minorities thought it was funny too (others, not so much. From memory alone, I can spot the Puerto Rican Day episode controversy). It's funny because it mentioned things out loud that were unspoken social taboos. It's like when you see the first person in your life to say "doo-doo" and "shitface" in public when you're 6 (or how just by including the word "fuck"/ "this fucking _______" and talking about his dick, a stand-up comedian would double his laughs), it's a stupid knee-jerk laugh reaction on something that wasn't usually commented. In Seinfeld (and Curb Your Enthusiasm) it's people's dislikes in being in subways, taxis(!), public spaces, socializing with the help mostly. At most parts, the social scenarios with lower classes folks (sure, you could put some poor white people in the mix, as well -- sure, "they rub us in the wrong way too, no?").

And of course, there were all sorts of social dislikes -- Close-Talkers (just a bizarre-fantasy replacement for/ two degrees separate from "goddamn it, this guy makes me look like a fucking fag when we're together! Goddamn queer! What does he want, to kiss me?!"),

Some could say it's just generalized misanthropy and social discomfort. But c'mon... it's a white-male-straight thing mostly, no matter how spread the butter is on the bread.

"Curb Your Enthusiasm" tries to put itself in a safe spot by stating itself out loud many times that it's just misanthropic in general and that blacks (in-show) have the wrong impression of Larry David, Seinfeld and the shows. There's one episode where Larry is trying to be nice, funny and likable to a black dermatologist he just met (he's Richard Lewis' doctor) and says "oh, he's your doctor? Wow, even with all the Affirmative Action thing?" and the episode is about the social discomfort of Larry feeling threatened amidst black people. In the show (and I think in real life) Larry is a liberal. "He's not a racist", everyone and the show keeps trying to tell us and the black people at the living room. It seems simple to me, Larry David (and Richards) doesn't consider himself racist, he sees no traces of racism in him and when he says inappropriate things "was by accident and he didn't mean them". Ok then, so go on and speak racists things at any time, now that we know you don't really mean them.

They seem like people that racism for them is just bad etiquette on the dinner table. The only thing from keeping them from saying things like that is social and professional exclusion, and a racist fear of retaliation. It's just a new form of racism and separation, "I don't even want to get near that guy, I might say something stupid" (which, really, wasn't it the entire point of Seinfeld? That ).

And Michael Richards' apologies? He was too creepy in his paused-2-think pace and incoherent ramblings. But, still... I don't know. He said some things that if I had READ them I'd taken as some nice soundbites of apologies and awareness of the significance of what he's done. But there's something there that's just weird (but again, I would be nervous and weird alone for being in national tv, even more if I had just unleashed those things). I already made too many judgments from very few evidence.

And the scary thing: when Richards says the "50 years ago we'd had you upside down with a fork up your ass", the audience laughs -- not like the few that later just seems to be laughing at a man on stage having a complete nervous breakdown as if he was those sidejokes from Simpsons of celebrities going nuts or fucking themselves up to a point of absurdity. They actually laugh at the "humorous" remark.

And Wonderstar said it best in my opnion, without judgments and too much opnions (unlike myself): "racial slurs were the first weapon that came to Richards' mind and mouth, and to be honest I think that says something unfortunate about him."
 
 
John Octave
18:27 / 27.11.06
I still think is very well done, but c'mon... it appeals at the most prejudicious places inside us.

That's true (especially the parts about voicing taboos on primetime television), but I don't think these "prejudicious places" are necessarily endorsed, is all. When Jerry dumps a woman with "man hands," I don't think we're supposed to think "Yeah, dump her, Jerry; you don't want it to feel like a dude's giving you a handjob!" It's more seeing how ridiculous it is that Jerry ends a relationship with a perfectly nice woman just because he's uncomfortable with her hands (or any one of a hundred other reasons). Certainly, the characters would all be happier if they didn't have such hang-ups.

Of course, there's nothing preventing the viewer from thinking Jerry's entirely justified and that "man hands" are gross, so there you go. Circling back to Patrick's original point, I think it might at least be more accurate to say "The difficult thing with the series is that it's unclear whether the values of the characters are presented as something negative," as the show's attitudes toward the character's prejudices are neutral at best (worst?)
 
 
some guy
19:09 / 27.11.06
Close-Talkers (just a bizarre-fantasy replacement for/ two degrees separate from "goddamn it, this guy makes me look like a fucking fag when we're together! Goddamn queer! What does he want, to kiss me?!")

Nah. I know plenty of women and gay men who hate close talkers. It's a personal space issue, not a fear-of-sexuality thing.
 
 
Mug Chum
20:46 / 27.11.06
Agreed.

But the presentation of the situation was clearly on a different note, that did included the invasion of your own space but I believe the intention and mass-digestion was purely on guy-on-guy awkwardness (as I remember, they were close-up shots of the guy from Bervely Hills Cop awkwardly almost lip-to-lip with Jerry and Kramer. Don't remember they doing it with Elaine, maybe Jerry's mother -- I believe it's the Schindler's List episode Hector mentions up there).

The point it's that they were mostly on our most intolerant side on tidy-bits of bubbled wasp urban social nuances -- not wanting to chit-chat with the doorman for instance (hey, we all know this situation, don't we? It's kind of two different worlds and interests, and Seinfeld played on the aspects that really was the core of divergence and that consolidated all as being on different social "teams") or disgust towards personal hygiene of "others" (from memory, there was the B.O. episode, the one where Poppy-the-cook who didn't washed his hands and later on peed on Jerry's couch -- they were always exaggerated things that in real life would be, of course, not acceptable and we would team with Jerry's group -- but the show hooks us and press our buttons with exaggeration by experiences that lay vaguely in the back of our heads, we're hooked by little seeds of intolerance and annoyance, for instance, of disgust with people in subways or buses or whatever).

I still think it was pretty clever and quite progressive to U.S. (tv?) culture in the end, alone for doing some straight up and honest public laundry and bringing these up. I compare with tv culture and urban imaginarium here in Brazil, and we're waaay off just by not even having these sort of little taboos mentioned (for instance, we never had the phase of comedy based on "black people are like this; while white people are like that" -- as matter of fact, I think I know more about "black people" for my consumption of american and foreign culture than by native culture contact...)
 
 
PatrickMM
15:33 / 28.11.06
Sparrow, I'm definitely with you on the wway the show simultaneously condemns/approves the behavior of its characters. I think part of the reason the finale was disliked by so many people is because viewers had come to really like these characters, largely because of their egregious social flaws. The "no hugging, no learning" fit right in with the general ironic detachment a lot of people were feeling at the time, and I think the show was successful because it perfectly summed up a cultural movement that still exists today, the hyper-ironic, suspicious and cynical worldview.

So, taking an example like man hands, Jerry is aware of how shallow he is, and the others comment on it, but there's never an impulse to change. Throughout the series, we get the implication that lasting relationships don't produce real happiness. One of the funniest episodes of the series for me is the seventh season premiere, when Jerry dumps a woman for eating peas one at a time. This prompts him and George to reassess their lives, and George proposes to Susan. When discussing what happened, they say "We're not men," and that's a critical notion of the series, the idea that to get married and move to suburbs is to move off to some kind of adult hell. The refusal to let anyone get close to them is an attempt to avoid becoming their parents. Any sort of familial attachment is always treated in a negative way, and the same is true of lasting relationships.

Now, the last episode comes out and says, this is not the right way to view the world, but what lingers from the series is more the way that these chartacters who are living cool, fun lives stay above the din of human interaction through their cynical defense mechanisms. And even though the show is criticizing what the characters are doing, so many of the plots are taken from the writers' lives, there's bound to be a lot of affection for them as well.

It's the same thing as in an action movie. What lingers with you, two hours of the hero killing people or the final scene where he vows not to use violence again?
 
 
PatrickMM
15:36 / 28.11.06
And I'll just add that I don't think the show has a moral responsibility to say that Jerry is wrong for dumping manhands. It's primarily there to make people laugh, and it's very successful at that. I would agree that it wouldn't be too tough to have more diversity in the cast, without sacrificing humor, but there's a difference between being neutral and being actively negative. Seinfeld was never a show designed with social responsibility in mind, and one could argue that it actually did do diversity a service by bringing a Jewish voice to places where you don't usually find a lot of Jewish people.
 
 
H3ct0r L1m4
00:34 / 01.12.06
well, at least something funny was made from this sad story.
since Richards is almost genetically tied to Kramer now:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ydyq7IXk6a8

and it doesn't make things any better for him.
 
  
Add Your Reply