Skip to main content

Just make love to that wall, pervert!


Seinfeld
2.10: The Statue

The Premise

Jerry employs a cleaner, the boyfriend of an author whose book Elaine is editing. He leaves the apartment spotless, but Jerry is convinced he has made off with a statue.

Observational

A dazzling return to form, and one of the best episodes of the season. It also, as Michael Richards has noted, gives us a Kramer in full creative flow, so setting the tone for many of his later exploits. This should be no surprise, as the script comes from the more offbeat sensibilities of Larry Charles; there’s usually something slightly cartoonish about his scripts, which may be why they’re often my favourites.

Something we’ve seen little of so far are memorable supporting characters. Most have been other halves of the week, but here we have not one but two and both are very funny. Michael D. Conway’s Ray is an effusive English grad student so theatrical that you know something must be wrong somewhere. And sure enough, we see him return to his girlfriend’s apartment, grumbling and kicking his heels; the façade has fallen away.

Rava (Nurit Koppel) is a ravishing misery with a somewhere-in-the-vicinity Finnish accent and a commentary that can kill a convivial atmosphere stone dead. Koppel was apparently an ex of Richard Lewis, which caused a bit of tension on set with Jerry (as he had naturally been on Lewis’ side through the break-up). Both Koppel and Conway spark off the regulars and Charles seems charged by the creative possibilities; you could imagine an episode of double the length.

The best of Rava’s interplay comes with Elaine, although Jerry gets in the occasional glancing blow at her less than sunny outlook (“So what do you, write children’s books?”) Inevitably Rava and Elaine discuss the brouhaha over Ray, and inevitably they take sides. Tom Cherones stages this sequence with consummate skill, as their argument rages unseen when they enter a lift. Rava, smoking away, is causing distress to the fellow passengers and Elaine is never one to bite her tongue, even if it costs her the much-wanted editing role.

Rava: You are jealous of our love and you want to destroy us.
Elaine: Shouldn’t you be out on a ledge somewhere?

Jerry, very into his cleanliness, is incredibly impressed by Ray’s work (“He Windexed the little peephole!”), although his upbeat manner gives him pause (“Shouldn’t you be out on a ledge somewhere?”). While it’s Jerry who initiates the quest for justice against Ray, the full impassioned force comes form George and Kramer.

George, who has been studying new words to introduce into conversation (“It’s anathema”) has a vested interest; the statue (which Kramer discovered in a box of items left to Jerry by his grandfather) is identical to one he broke as a child (while pretending it was a microphone). By this point we have a clear picture of his not-yet-introduced parents (“My mother’s making her roast potatoes”), and we can all too easily see the likelihood of the sight of Frank Costanza’s naked frame scarring George for life.

But it’s George’s bout of indignant rage, directed at Ray in the diner, that really scores. As with the lift scene, the staging is superlative. George sits with his back to Jerry, who is failing to extract a confession from Ray. To each response from Ray George mutters invective, while dismissing Jerry’s attempts (“Did you call me a wuss?”) Finally, he gets up to confront Ray and his turning worm is both impressive and amusing. Until Ray starts to get angry, at which point he wilts.

The very finest scene comes right at the end, however. Kramer came away with most of Jerry’s grandfather’s items (mainly clothes, including a pair of knee socks and a hat like Joe Friday’s from Dragnet). But after his squabble with George over possession of the statue (resolved by a game of Inka-Dink, in which Jerry bends the rules so George wins) he is given to sporadic suggestions that justice should be served (“Let’s go get him”). With only three or four minutes left, Ray answers the door and finds Kramer posing as a police detective and demanding to search the premises (he accuses Ray of grand larceny, possession of stolen goods and “murder!”). Richards is a tour de force, a whirlwind of energy and limbs as he pushes Ray into the corner (“Just make love to that wall, pervert!”) and makes off with the statue.

I’m not sure Kramer ever actually ends up making things better for anyone, as well meaning as he is. So it’s no surprise that the final scene sees George show eternal gratitude, only for Cosmo (not yet known by that name) to pat him on the back. Which sends the statue flying out of George’s hands to fall to the floor, shattering.

Quotable

George: My parents looked at me like I smashed the Ten Commandments. It was the single most damaging experience of my life. Aside from seeing my father naked.

Ray: Greetings. I beg your forgiveness. My tardiness was unavoidable.

Jerry: Shouldn’t you be out on a ledge somewhere?

Jerry: Kramer, it’s Jerry. Jerry. Jerry. From next door. Jerry Seinfeld. Never mind where I am. Just dip the bread in the batter and put it in the pan. Okay, bye. My mother. She forgot how to make French Toast. You know hoe mothers are.
Rava: My mother left us when I was six years old. All seven of us. We never heard from her again. I hope she’s rotting in an alley somewhere.
Jerry: My mother’s down in Florida.

Ray: How about dinner?
Jerry: No, I can’t eat dinner. Dinner’s for suckers.

George: Who is this? I’m the judge and the jury, pal. An the verdict is, “Guilty!”

Ray: You are starting to make me angry.
George: Well… That was bound to happen eventually.

Elaine: Did you go out last night?
Rava: No, we made love on the floor like two animals. Ray is insatiable.

Elaine: There are degrees of coincidence.
Rava: No, there are only coincidences. (Turning to lift passengers) Are there big coincidences and small coincidences? Well? Well?

Man: Will you put that cigarette out?
Rava: Maybe I put it out in your face.

George: This experience has changed me. It has made me more bitter. More cynical. More jaded.
Jerry: Really?
George: Sure, why not?

Kramer: Just make love to that wall, pervert!

Ray: I think you’ve got me confused with someone else.
Kramer: Is your name Ray?
Ray: Yes.
Kramer: Yeah, you’re the punk I’m looking for.

Ray: Are you a cop?
Kramer: Yeah, I’m a cop. I’m a damn good cop. I’m a cop!

Verdict:


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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…

He mobilised the English language and sent it into battle.

Darkest Hour (2017)
(SPOILERS) Watching Joe Wright’s return to the rarefied plane of prestige – and heritage to boot – filmmaking following the execrable folly of the panned Pan, I was struck by the difference an engaged director, one who cares about his characters, makes to material. Only last week, Ridley Scott’s serviceable All the Money in the World made for a pointed illustration of strong material in the hands of someone with no such investment, unless they’re androids. Wright’s dedication to a relatable Winston Churchill ensures that, for the first hour-plus, Darkest Hour is a first-rate affair, a piece of myth-making that barely puts a foot wrong. It has that much in common with Wright’s earlier Word War II tale, Atonement. But then, like Atonement, it comes unstuck.

Dude, you're embarrassing me in front of the wizards.

Avengers: Infinity War (2018)
(SPOILERS) The cliffhanger sequel, as a phenomenon, is a relatively recent thing. Sure, we kind of saw it with The Empire Strikes Back – one of those "old" movies Peter Parker is so fond of – a consequence of George Lucas deliberately borrowing from the Republic serials of old, but he had no guarantee of being able to complete his trilogy; it was really Back to the Future that began the trend, and promptly drew a line under it for another decade. In more recent years, really starting with The MatrixThe Lord of the Rings stands apart as, post-Weinstein's involvement, fashioned that way from the ground up – shooting the second and third instalments back-to-back has become a thing, both more cost effective and ensuring audiences don’t have to endure an interminable wait for their anticipation to be sated. The flipside of not taking this path is an Allegiant, where greed gets the better of a studio (split a novel into two movie parts assuming a…

I think my mother put a curse on us.

Hereditary (2018)
(SPOILERS) Well, the Hereditary trailer's a very fine trailer, there's no doubt about that. The movie as a whole? Ari Aster's debut follows in the line of a number of recent lauded-to-the-heavens (or hells) horror movies that haven't quite lived up to their hype (The Babadook, for example). In Hereditary's case, there’s no doubting Ari Aster's talent as a director. Instead, I'd question his aptitude for horror.

Never compare me to the mayor in Jaws! Never!

Ghostbusters (2016)
(SPOILERS) Paul Feig is a better director than Ivan Reitman, or at very least he’s savvy enough to gather technicians around him who make his films look good, but that hasn’t helped make his Ghostbusters remake (or reboot) a better movie than the original, and that’s even with the original not even being that great a movie in the first place.

Along which lines, I’d lay no claims to the 1984 movie being some kind of auteurist gem, but it does make some capital from the polarising forces of Aykroyd’s ultra-geekiness on the subject of spooks and Murray’s “I’m just here for the asides” irreverence. In contrast, Feig’s picture is all about treating the subject as he does any other genre, be it cop, or spy, or romcom. There’s no great affection, merely a reliably professional approach, one minded to ensure that a generous quota of gags (on-topic not required) can be pumped out via abundant improv sessions.

So there’s nothing terribly wrong with Ghostbusters, but aside from …

There’s still one man out here some place.

Sole Survivor (1970)
(SPOILERS) I’m one for whom Sole Survivor remained a half-remembered, muddled dream of ‘70s television viewing. I see (from this site) the BBC showed it both in 1979 and 1981 but, like many it seems, in my veiled memory it was a black and white picture, probably made in the 1950s and probably turning up on a Saturday afternoon on BBC2. Since no other picture readily fits that bill, and my movie apparition shares the salient plot points, I’ve had to conclude Sole Survivor is indeed the hitherto nameless picture; a TV movie first broadcast by the ABC network in 1970 (a more famous ABC Movie of the Week was Spielberg’s Duel). Survivor may turn out to be no more than a classic of the mind, but it’s nevertheless an effective little piece, one that could quite happily function on the stage and which features several strong performances and a signature last scene that accounts for its haunting reputation.

Directed by TV guy Paul Stanley and written by Guerdon Trueblood (The…

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 …

It’s all Bertie Wooster’s fault!

Jeeves and Wooster 3.4: Right Ho, Jeeves  (aka Bertie Takes Gussie's Place at Deverill Hall)
A classic set-up of crossed identities as Bertie pretends to be Gussie and Gussie pretends to be Bertie. The only failing is that the actor pretending to be Gussie isn’t a patch on the original actor pretending to be Gussie. Although, the actress pretending to be Madeline is significantly superior than her predecessor(s).

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.