Skip to main content

What is the big deal? We go in there. We’re in there for a while, then we come back out here.


Seinfeld
2.13 The Deal

The Premise

Jerry and Elaine resume an intimate relationship, but non-romantically. George scoffs at the idea that this can succeed…

Observational

Along with The Chinese Restaurant, The Deal marks the zenith of the second season. It’s also somewhat atypical of the series as a whole. Contained within are both serious exchanges between characters and heartfelt emotion, areas David and Seinfeld were sworn off (“No hugging, no learning” being the show’s mantra).

Larry David’s premise starts from a point not all that far from a Castle Rock (the production company that made Seinfeld) comedy released a couple of years earlier, When Harry Met Sally. In that movie, the question was posited “Can a man and a woman just be friends, or does sex always get in the way?” David pushes it one step further, and asks “Can a man and woman who are friends have sex and keep their relationship strictly on a friendship basis?” NBC had been making noises that they wanted Jerry and Elaine to get together, and David had no interest in bowing to their whims until he recalled an event in his life (doesn’t he always?) that gave the idea some mileage.

He’d tried the “friends who have sex” arrangement with an ex-girlfriend, and George’s ridiculing of the scheme (“Where do you get the ego? No one can do it. It can’t be done”) reflects a similar resignation to certain natural laws between the sexes as the Billy Crysal-Meg Ryan starrer. The result sees the series engaging male-female relationships with a new rigour. If Jason Alexander initially played George as a Woody Allen type, this is a plotline you could easily see that writer-director coming up with (some have accused When Harry Met Sally of being a fairly undisguised rip-off of Annie Hall, although I think that does it an injustice).

The episode concludes with Jerry and Elaine as an item (Kramer: Boy, I really liked the two of you much better when you weren’t a couple). David saw it as no big deal as he was convinced there would be no third season (he was scared enough at the prospect of coming up with the 13 episodes for this one, so the 23 commissioned provoked real tears of anguish). Seinfeld, ever the optimist, assumed that they would continue and therefore he and Elaine would remain an item. It was during the hiatus that he repeatedly heard audience feedback on the subject; a “resounding no”. Elaine and Jerry would have sex again, but under much less game-changing circumstances.

Rightly, the opening scene between the pair is regarded as one of the best pieces of scripting the series has seen. Discussion of a subject by omission would reach its most magnificent with the Season Four episode The Contest, where the wager revolves around the avoidance of self-gratification for as long as possible. Here Jerry and Elaine are channel surfing (Robert Vaughn in the fantastically titled The Helsinki Formula) when Jerry objects to watching naked people (Elaine: Been a while?) The trickle that begins the conversation (Elaine: What? What was that look?) soon becomes a torrent as the pair, having broached the subject (“We know the terrain. No big surprises”), interrogate the ins-and-outs of how they will make it work. They come up with a series of full-proof rules (no calls the day after, sleepover optional, no kiss goodnight), which quickly prove to be full of holes.

Jerry backpedals in the opposite direction from anything overt affection, such that he gives Elaine cash for her birthday (“What are you, my uncle?”) and writes an inappropriate greeting in her card (“Pal? You think I’m your pal?”).  Elaine in turn objects to Jerry up-and-leaving after intimacy. The resulting scene, where Elaine tells Jerry she can’t go back to just being friends, so forcing his hand, is distracting in its sincerity. It’s an anomaly for the show and, while it works, you can’t see this happening in anything other than a period when Seinfeld was finding its feet. Seinfeld and Louise-Dreyfus play both the comedy and heartfelt well (although the former has noted how out of his depth he felt, relieved that he wouldn’t have to go back there), but it can’t be denied that this is more the sort of breast-baring that you’d expect from, say, Friends.

Both George and Kramer are obviously less significant in this scenario, but they each get a great moment in the Sun. George’s vicarious interest in Jerry’s sex life is further indication of he hangs onto the coattails of his friend and covertly idolises him (as does his gift of money to Elaine, exactly half of Jerry’s present). This culminates in a furious outburst, demanding juicy details as he has nothing to live for.

Then there’s Kramer. For all his “pod” behaviour, he’s a lot quicker than his friend when it comes to crucial relationship details (“Cash? That’s like something her uncle would give her.”) Louise-Dreyfus singled out the Yeats quote (“Think where man's glory most begins and ends and say my glory was I had such a friend”) as summing up the show’s interactions but, like the ultimatum Elaine gives Jerry, this territory of earnestness is somewhat uncomfortable; in draw attention to such matters there’s the risk of negatively impacting the cynical exterior the series thrives on, and devolving towards the environment of that other show I just mentioned (I do like Friends, but they’re chalk and cheese on an emotional level). Fortunately, this would be a one-off.

Jerry doesn’t seem to suffer much of a setback from his root canal surgery, does he? I’m surprised they’d even throw dental problems at a character who prides himself on his personal hygiene and general finickitiness. This is the first appearance of Elaine’s flatmate Tina, who Kramer will have a memorable liaison with the following season. Siobhan Fallon does a great job of making her tremendously annoying, like nails on a blackboard.

Quotable

Jerry: Why shouldn’t we be able to do that once in a while if want to?
Elaine: I know!
Jerry: I mean, really. What is the big deal? We go in there. We’re in there for a while, then we come back out here. It’s not complicated.
Elaine: It’s almost stupid if we didn’t.
Jerry: It’s moronic!
Elaine: Absurd!

Jerry: The idea is to combine this, and add that.
Elaine: We just don’t want to take this and add that.

Jerry: And I don’t see why sleep got all tied up with that.

George: What’s the deal with Aquaman? Could he go on land, or is he just restricted to water?

Jerry: I slept with Elaine last night.
George: Oxygen! I need some oxygen! This is major!

George: You ask me here to have lunch, tell me you slept with Elaine, then you say you’re not in the mood for details? Now you listen to me. I want details and I want them now! I don’t have a job, I have no place to go. You’re not in the mood? Well you get in the mood!

Jerry: I may be getting too mature for details.

George: You see, you got greedy. I know less about women than anyone in the world, but one thing I do know is that they are not happy if you don’t spend the night.

Elaine: Cash? You got me cash?
Jerry: No good?
Elaine: What are you, my uncle?

Kramer: Cash? That’s like something her uncle would give her.

Jerry: What do you want?
Elaine: This, that and the other.

The Verdict:


Season Two Rankings:


1. The Chinese Restaurant

2. The Deal
3. The Statue
4. The Revenge
5. The Jacket
6. The Heart Attack
7. The Phone Message
8. The Baby Shower
9. The Busboy
10. The Pony Remark
11. The Ex-Girlfriend
12. The Apartment
13. The Stranded

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.