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

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…

Prepare the Heathen’s Stand! By order of purification!

Apostle (2018)
(SPOILERS) Another week, another undercooked Netflix flick from an undeniably talented director. What’s up with their quality control? Do they have any? Are they so set on attracting an embarrassment of creatives, they give them carte blanche, to hell with whether the results are any good or not? Apostle's an ungainly folk-horror mashup of The Wicker Man (most obviously, but without the remotest trace of that screenplay's finesse) and any cult-centric Brit horror movie you’d care to think of (including Ben Wheatley's, himself an exponent of similar influences-on-sleeve filmmaking with Kill List), taking in tropes from Hammer, torture porn, and pagan lore but revealing nothing much that's different or original beyond them.

You can’t just outsource your entire life.

Tully (2018)
(SPOILERS) A major twist is revealed in the last fifteen minutes of Tully, one I'll happily admit not to have seen coming, but it says something about the movie that it failed to affect my misgivings over the picture up to that point either way. About the worst thing you can say about a twist is that it leaves you shrugging.

There's something wrong with the sky.

Hold the Dark (2018)
(SPOILERS) Hold the Dark, an adaptation of William Giraldi's 2014 novel, is big on atmosphere, as you'd expect from director Jeremy Saulnier (Blue Ruin, Green Room) and actor-now-director (I Don’t Want to Live in This World Anymore) pal Macon Blair (furnishing the screenplay and appearing in one scene), but contrastingly low on satisfying resolutions. Being wilfully oblique can be a winner if you’re entirely sure what you're trying to achieve, but the effect here is rather that it’s "for the sake of it" than purposeful.

No one understands the lonely perfection of my dreams.

Ridley Scott Ridders Ranked
During the '80s, I anticipated few filmmakers' movies more than Ridley Scott's; those of his fellow xenomorph wrangler James Cameron, perhaps. In both cases, that eagerness for something equalling their early efforts receded as they studiously managed to avoid the heights they had once reached. Cameron's output dropped off a cliff after he won an Oscar. Contrastingly, Scott's surged like never before when his film took home gold. Which at least meant he occasionally delivered something interesting, but sadly, it was mostly quantity over quality. Here are the movies Scott has directed in his career thus far - and with his rate of  productivity, another 25 by the time he's 100 may well be feasible – ranked from worst to best.

Well, you did take advantage of a drunken sailor.

Tomb Raider (2018)
(SPOILERS) There's evidently an appetite out there for a decent Tomb Raider movie, given that the lousy 2001 incarnation was successful enough to spawn a (lousy) sequel, and that this lousier reboot, scarcely conceivably, may have attracted enough bums on seats to do likewise. If we're going to distinguish between order of demerits, we could characterise the Angelina Jolie movies as both pretty bad; Tomb Raider, in contrast, is unforgivably tedious.

This is it. This is the moment of my death.

Fearless (1993)
Hollywood tends to make a hash of any exploration of existential or spiritual themes. The urge towards the simplistic, the treacly or the mawkishly uplifting, without appropriate filtering or insight, usually overpowers even the best intentions. Rarely, a movie comes along that makes good on its potential and then, more than likely, it gets completely ignored. Such a fate befell Fearless, Peter Weir’s plane crash survivor-angst film, despite roundly positive critical notices. For some reason audiences were willing to see a rubgy team turn cannibal in Alive, but this was a turn-off? Yet invariably anyone who has seen Fearless speaks of it in glowing terms, and rightly so.

Weir’s pictures are often thematically rich, more anchored by narrative than those of, say, Terrence Malick but similarly preoccupied with big ideas and their expression. He has a rare grasp of poetry, symbolism and the mythic. Weir also displays an acute grasp of the subjective mind-set, and possesses …

If you want to have a staring contest with me, you will lose.

Phantom Thread (2017)
(SPOILERS) Perhaps surprisingly not the lowest grossing of last year's Best Picture Oscar nominees (that was Call Me by Your Name) but certainly the one with the least buzz as a genuine contender, subjected as Phantom Thread was to a range of views from masterpiece (the critics) to drudge (a fair selection of general viewers). The mixed reaction wasn’t so very far from Paul Thomas Anderson's earlier The Master, and one suspects the nomination was more to do with the golden glow of Daniel Day-Lewis in his first role in half a decade (and last ever, if he's to be believed) than mass Academy rapture with the picture. Which is ironic, as the relatively unknown Vicky Krieps steals the film from under him.

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

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.