Legend or Loser, or both

To commemorate the Seinfeld series finale's tenth anniversary, Newsweek ran two pieces this week discussing the relative merits, and lasting appeal, of the entire series. I thought I'd weigh in.

On the pro side, David Noonan points out much of the obvious: the way Jerry and the gang elevated the minutia of everyday life into high comedy, the way the cast of supporting characters reinforce the sense of complete lunacy that defines Jerry's world, the way Seinfeld and co-author Larry David play off one another to create "the tension that gives the show its unique character." He also loves the sets.


But Marc Peyser, having drawn the short stick, I assume, has the more difficult job of cutting the behemoth down to size....and, what do you know, he raised some good points. "The problem is, we've changed, and the Seinfeld gang hasn't." Instead of penetrating with serious character study, or using comedy to make colorful social (or political) commentary, Seinfeld was content to fill its episodes with "an awful lot of clothes jokes. And food jokes. And car jokes."

The change critique, here, is essential. Change is not only the essence of all good characters, its the essence of all good drama, of all good entertainment. The careful TV and film-makers construct stories that are essentially always of a trifold nature: the introduction of a character and an obstacle; the increasingly escalating stakes of the conflict between the character and his or her enemies; and finally the resolution of said conflict, often resulting in a lesson learned for the character, the audience, or both. But even within that blueprint, TV and film must break down their characters and their worlds even further, often constructing each of those three dramatic elements into scenes that follow the same pattern, and breaking those scenes into beats that do the same, and then breaking those beats down further into three separate pieces in which an element is introduced, challenged, and changed. The best TV shows and films can change character in three simple lines of dialogue. Or in two lines and an action. Or in a line, an action, and a music cue.


Anyway, the point is that drama -- and comedy, in different ways -- is focused on conflict, and conflict necessitates change. But thats what the Seinfeld gang never did, and although their hijinks were always hilarious, it is interesting and informative to evaluate their impact on current TV. Take, for example, my two favorite shows: 30 Rock and The Office. Now both shows have the zaniness of Seinfeld, so in that respect Seinfeld is influential, but both shows allow their characters a level of humanization that make Seinfeld's look like caricatures. In just about every episode, Liz and/or Michael are forced to rise to some occasion, and their success or failure teaches them something about theirselves, or their coworkers, or the Source Awards ("Oprah was right: people just want to love each other and get free stuff."

I don't think, therefore, that it's ridiculous to both love Seinfeld and question its methods, to wonder if its influence is not as far ranging as it could have been. And that's my two cents.