Well, I hardly ever watched Seinfeld. The first time I did was the next-to-last show. I turned it on (out of curiosity over what's all this hype about?) to observe some of his pals stomping on the Puerto Rican flag. Ha ha ha ha hah!!!
Then this last Saturday I watched Saturday Night Live and you know who was hosting (an old show from 1992). At the end of his opening monologue he went on about New York cabbies to much laughter. Talked much about one named "Abdul something with a last name without any vowels." Ha ha ha ha ha hah!!!! Barkley Rosser On Fri, 22 May 1998 17:35:29 +1000 Rob Schaap <rws at comserver.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
> G'day observers,
>
> Gary's post on Seinfeld is but one post of dozens I'd love to respond to on
> this list. Unfortunately, it's gonna be one of about two I'll have the
> time to respond to ...
>
> I'm not often in disagreement with Lou about these things but Seinfeld I
> love (though haven't seen for years as that's when I'm putting the little
> fellas to bed).
>
> Just 'coz stuff is about superficial trivia doesn't mean it's superficial.
> A show about 'a show about nothing' is logically not a show about nothing.
> It could be about how much nothingness is about these days, for instance.
> You could argue the thinking of the protagonists reflects their being - and
> that the show gets this excoriatingly and eloquently right. And anyway,
> there ain't nothin' inherently superficial about sex, soup and
> embarrassment (salient Seinfeld themes and, to my mind, contra Gary,
> 'serious issues of life'). Sex and embarrassment are pretty funny
> precisely 'coz they inhabit territory that is both very important to us and
> just outside our sphere of personal control - in the zone of the
> constitutive social is what I would have said if I were a pompous wanker
> ... oops. And to make soup funny is to prove you're a funny person indeed.
>
>
> Seinfeld leaves you plenty of room to do your ruminating if you're so
> inclined - no Bill Cosby-style moral-of-the-story summary lectures, no
> Family Ties-style this-is-the-funny-bit-and-that's-an-ethical-statement
> cues, and no Mash-style this-is-today's-issue explications. We're left to
> make of the show, its protagonists, and their approximation to
> otherwise-unreflected-upon moments in our own generally privileged but
> always alienated existences, what we will. And, as one of the
> manifestations of life in the nineties is that we're all generally
> knackered and a bit depressed by prime time, we may well want to make
> nothing but some therapeutic braying noises - a whole new province for the
> cultural critics to dwell in, eh?
>
> The Simpsons is better, but Seinfeld will do very nicely, I reckon.
> Perhaps a sign (along with Northern Exposure and a few others) that the big
> boys have suddenly realised the US audience is just a bit more
> sophisticated than their ilk have always thought it was (who said 'you can
> never go broke underestimating the American audience?).
>
> I reckon the Americans have been funnier than the Poms of late. And I
> certainly never had any good reason to think that before - even if F-Troop
> and Get Smart used to make me spill my Milo quite a bit in their day.
>
> Right. That was my spontaneous chat post. If I'm quick I can get in a
> quick effort on Habermas.
>
> Cheers,
> Rob.
>
> Gary had written:
>
> >Yet I feel watching it is an exercise in self mockery. The underlying
> >assumption is that humanity is une merde- a piece of shit beyond
> >redemption. However this is a series which instead of grieving over this
> >seems to revel in that realisation.
> >
> >But it is also so carefully written. The "satire" such as it is never
> >strays beyond a very narrow range. Most shows, as the show itself has
> >pointed out, are about almost nothing. It is the very trivial nature of
> >the show, its minimalism, its adherence to the micro-structures of feelings
> >that ensure it does not alienate any significant number of people while
> >making fun of all of them.
> >
> >The absolute key for me is that this is a very modern version of nihilism.
> >This is the petty bourgeoisie trapped between the classes with no way
> >forward. Its response is a determination to cling to the notion that
> >nothing matters. Everything is to be made fun of.
> >
> >Recently I saw Martin Ritt's film The Front and watching Zero Mostel in
> >action I thought that this was an interesting benchmark by which to judge
> >the Seinfeld show. Mostel was a truly great artist and by all accounts a
> >brave man. I have been told stories of how he used to roll his eyes up so
> >that only the white would show and he would then go up and down the
> >underground pretending to be a blind beggar.
> >
> >By comparison with Mostel, Jerry Seinfeld is profoundly shallow and we are
> >still trapped in the era when that is marketable. Nevertheless we are
> >inexorably approaching a time when the serious issues of life and the
> >possibility of human flourishing will be back on the agenda and the very
> >awfulness of most television, its remorseless trivialisation of life, will
> >be apparent to all. Then when some clown goes "Yada, yada, yada" he or she
> >will be just so uncool.
>
>
>
-- Rosser Jr, John Barkley rosserjb at jmu.edu