Skip to main content

Let me be the architect. I can do it.


Seinfeld
1.3: The Stakeout

The Premise

Jerry “stakes out” the lobby of an office building in order to contact a woman he met at a birthday dinner.

Observational

It’s true to say that Seinfeld only hits its stride during Season Three. There are a couple of standouts before that but the standard is mostly agreeable but not quite “gold dust”; it’s always watchable for the characters but rarely hits high notes in plotting.

The Stakeout features the first classic conversation between George and Jerry. Waiting in the lobby, George attempts to confabulate a narrative that will explain their presence, so giving birth to one of the series great aliases; Art Vanderlay (“He’s an importer-exporter, okay?”). His desire to pass himself off as an architect also makes its first of many appearances, and Alexander is always at his best conveying George’s childish excitement/frustration/exasperation.

The dinner party establishes Jerry’s affable social breeziness (“I didn’t bring anything”), which operates distinctly to Kramer’s straight-up lack of awareness. Jerry’s unruffled self-confidence is regularly used to reap comic dividends through commenting on behavioural norms. Unlike Kramer, Jerry is only selectively free from embarrassments or faux pas, but he still tends to emerge unconcerned by his encounters by the end credits (because he’s the optimist, things work out); this will even be the subject of an episode in a later season (The Opposite).

Louise-Dreyfus is a wonder, and the scene where she recounts her bizarre dream to a disinterested Jerry is a highlight of the episode. The dinner party scene was based on Larry David’s experience of going to a party with an ex- and not feeling comfortable hitting on a woman there whom he found attractive. At this point the emphasis on Jerry and Elaine as exs is more “current”, with Jerry concerned about what she will hear and his parents going on about her (although they will continue to do so). Their small talk during the opening video store scene takes in porno movies, but as ever with the series does so buy not directly stating them as such.

Liz Sheridan is the familiar face of Jerry’s Mom but Ron Steelman plays Artie for one time only. You can see why they recast the part, as he’s entirely affable with no edge at all. Jerry’s forthright way of changing the subject of Elaine is amusing (“And there was a little problem of physical chemistry”).

Not a great Kramer episode, but his inventive approach to Scrabble gets a few laughs (“No, we need a medical dictionary”). Lynn Clark shows great comic timing, so its little surprise that she returns a couple of episodes later (David has noted that he’s a strong advocate of continuity, which goes to explain the revisions of errors or casting changes in some of the earlier episodes to make them more unified).

Quotable:

Vanessa: What do you design?
George: Railroads.

Jerry: Do you date immature men?
Vanessa: Almost exclusively.

Elaine: You were you, but you weren’t you… You turned around, but you had these wooden teeth.

Jerry: (internal monologue, repeating the name of Vanessa’s law firm in order to remember it) Sagman, Bennett, Robbins, Oppenheim and Taft. Sagman, Bennett, Robbins, Oppenheim and Taft. Sagman, Bennett, Robbins, Oppenheim and Taft.

Verdict: 




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

There are times when I miss the darkness. It is hard to live always in the light.

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

I had that Christopher Marlowe in my boat once.

Shakespeare in Love (1998)
(SPOILERS) You see? Sometimes Oscar can get it right. Not that the backlash post-announcement would have you crediting any such. No, Saving Private Ryan had the rug unscrupulously pulled from under it by Harvey Weinstein essentially buying Shakespeare in Love’s Best Picture through a lavish promotional campaign. So unfair! It is, of course, nothing of the sort. If the rest of Private Ryan were of the same quality as its opening sequence, the Spielberg camp might have had a reasonable beef, but Shakespeare in Love was simply in another league, quality wise, first and foremost thanks to a screenplay that sang like no other in recent memory. And secondly thanks to Gwyneth Paltrow, so good and pure, before she showered us with goop.

The Statue of Liberty is kaput.

Saving Private Ryan (1998)
(SPOILERS) William Goldman said of Saving Private Ryan, referencing the film’s titular objective in Which Lie Did I Tell? that it “becomes, once he is found, a disgrace”. “Hollywood horseshit” he emphasised, lest you were in doubt as to his feelings. While I had my misgivings about the picture on first viewing, I was mostly, as many were, impacted by its visceral prowess (which is really what it is, brandishing it like only a director who’s just seen Starship Troopers but took away none of its intent could). So I thought, yeah Goldman’s onto something here, if possibly slightly exaggerating for effect. But no, he’s actually spot-on. If Saving Private Ryan had been a twenty-minute short, it would rightly muster all due praise for its war-porn aesthetic, but unfortunately there’s a phoney, sentimental, hokey tale attached to that opening, replete with clichéd characters, horribly earnest, honorific music and “exciting!” action to engage your interest. There are…

What you do is very baller. You're very anarchist.

Lady Bird (2017)
(SPOILERS) You can see the Noah Baumbach influence on Lady Bird, Greta Gerwig’s directorial debut, with whom she collaborated on Frances Ha; an intimate, lo-fi, post-Woody Allen (as in, post-feted, respected Woody Allen) dramedy canvas that has traditionally been the New Yorker’s milieu. But as an adopted, spiritual New Yorker, I suspect Gerwig honourably qualifies, even as Lady Bird is a love letter/ nostalgia trip to her home city of Sacramento.

Why would I turn into a filing cabinet?

Captain Marvel (2019)
(SPOILERS) All superhero movies are formulaic to a greater or lesser degree. Mostly greater. The key to an actually great one – or just a pretty good one – is making that a virtue, rather than something you’re conscious of limiting the whole exercise. The irony of the last two stand-alone MCU pictures is that, while attempting to bring somewhat down-the-line progressive cachet to the series, they’ve delivered rather pedestrian results. Of course, that didn’t dim Black Panther’s cultural cachet (and what do I know, swathes of people also profess to loving it), and Captain Marvel has hit half a billion in its first few days – it seems that, unless you’re poor unloved Ant-Man, an easy $1bn is the new $700m for the MCU – but neither’s protagonist really made that all-important iconic impact.

Move away from the jams.

Aladdin (2019)
(SPOILERS) I was never overly enamoured by the early ‘90s renaissance of Disney animation, so the raves over Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin left me fairly unphased. On the plus side, that means I came to this live action version fairly fresh (prince); not quite a whole new world but sufficiently unversed in the legend to appreciate it as its own thing. And for the most part, Aladdin can be considered a moderate success. There may not be a whole lot of competition for that crown (I’d give the prize to Pete’s Dragon, except that it was always part-live action), but this one sits fairly comfortably in the lead.

I’m the spoiled toff who lives in the manor.

Robin Hood (2018)
(SPOILERS) Good grief. I took the disdain that greeted Otto Bathurst’s big screen debut with a pinch of salt, on the basis that Guy Ritchie’s similarly-inclined lads-in-duds retelling of King Arthur was also lambasted, and that one turned out to be pretty good fun for the most part. But a passing resemblance is as close as these two would-be franchises get (that, and both singularly failed to start their respective franchises). Robin Hood could, but it definitely didn’t.

I should have mailed it to the Marx Brothers.

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989)
When your hero(es) ride off into the sunset at the end of a film, it’s usually a pretty clear indication that a line is being drawn under their adventures. Sure, rumours surfaced during the ‘90s of various prospective screenplays for a fourth outing for the whip-cracking archeologist. But I’m dubious anyone really expected it to happen. There seemed to be a natural finality to Last Crusade that made the announcement of his 2007 return nostalgically welcome but otherwise unwarranted. That it turned out so tepid merely seemed like confirmation of what we already knew; Indy’s time was past.

I take Quaaludes 10-15 times a day for my "back pain", Adderall to stay focused, Xanax to take the edge off, part to mellow me out, cocaine to wake me back up again, and morphine... Well, because it's awesome.

The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)
Along with Pain & Gain and The Great Gatsby, The Wolf of Wall Street might be viewed as the completion of a loose 2013 trilogy on the subject of success and excess; the American Dream gone awry. It’s the superior picture to its fellows, by turns enthralling, absurd, outrageous and hilarious. This is the fieriest, most deliriously vibrant picture from the director since the millennium turned. Nevertheless, stood in the company of Goodfellas, the Martin Scorsese film from which The Wolf of Wall Street consciously takes many of its cues, it is found wanting.

I was vaguely familiar with the title, not because I knew much about Jordan Belfort but because the script had been in development for such a long time (Ridley Scott was attached at one time). So part of the pleasure of the film is discovering how widely the story diverges from the Wall Street template. “The Wolf of Wall Street” suggests one who towers over the city like a behemoth, rather than a guy …