Masaryk University Faculty of Arts

Department of English and American Studies

English Language and Literature

Šárka Tripesová

The Anatomy of Humour in the Situation Comedy Seinfeld

Bachelor‟s Diploma Thesis

Supervisor: Mgr. Pavel Drábek, Ph.D.

2010

I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently, using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography.

……………………………………………..

Šárka Tripesová

ii

Acknowledgement

I would like to thank Mgr. Pavel Drábek, Ph.D. for the invaluable guidance he provided me as a supervisor. Also, my special thanks go to my boyfriend and friends for their helpful discussions and to my family for their support.

iii Table of Contents

1 INTRODUCTION 1

2 SEINFELD AS A SITUATION COMEDY 3

2.1 SEINFELD SERIES: THE REALITY AND THE SHOW 3

2.2 SITUATION COMEDY 6

2.3 THE PROCESS OF CREATING A SEINFELD EPISODE 8

2.4 METATHEATRICAL APPROACH 9

2.5 THE DEPICTION OF CHARACTERS 10

3 THE TECHNIQUES OF HUMOUR DELIVERY 12

3.1 VERBAL TECHNIQUES 12

3.1.1 DIALOGUES 12

3.1.2 MONOLOGUES 17

3.2 NON-VERBAL TECHNIQUES 20

3.2.1 PHYSICAL COMEDY AND PANTOMIMIC FEATURES 20

3.2.2 MONTAGE 24

3.3 COMBINED TECHNIQUES 27

3.3.1 GAG 27

4 THE METHODS CAUSING COMICAL EFFECT 30

4.1 SEINFELD LANGUAGE 30

4.2 METAPHORICAL EXPRESSION 32

4.3 THE TWIST OF PERSPECTIVE 35

4.4 CONTRAST 40

iv 4.5 EXAGGERATION AND CARICATURE 43

4.6 STAND-UP 47

4.7 RUNNING GAG 49

4.8 RIDICULE AND SELF-RIDICULE 50

5 CONCLUSION 59

6 SUMMARY 60

7 SHRNUTÍ 61

8 PRIMARY SOURCES 62

9 REFERENCES 70

v 1 Introduction

Everyone as a member of society experiences everyday routine and recurring events. As everybody has his or her place in the world and acts different kinds of social roles in life, human existence creates a chain of repetitive situations we appear in.

Sooner of later these situations are considered stereotypical and automatic, and people stop noticing them. Such everyday topics have served as the main subject for the writers who created the Seinfeld series. They made a “show about nothing”1 but their aim was to draw attention to these ordinary aspects of life in an original way. They focused on unimportant details giving them high importance and thereby making them unusual and comical.

This thesis deals with the structure of humour in the Seinfeld episodes, concentrating predominantly on the main characters. It will demonstrate that despite the subjectivity of humour in general (various social factors such as age, gender, knowledge, personal experience, preferences and others), it is possible to find components which are repeatedly used in the series, bound together in variations and therefore creating a structure of humour.

First, the thesis provides an introduction to the Seinfeld series and situation comedy, illustrates Seinfeld’s specificity and describes the process of making and shooting a Seinfeld episode. Afterwards, it focuses on verbal, non-verbal and combined techniques of humour delivery and methods causing comical effect (used throughout all nine seasons of the show) and presents specific examples. As the corpus of analyzed material is extensive (180 episodes), not all of the episodes are quoted; instead, I quote

1 This expression is used in the fourth season of the series when Jerry (one of the main characters) gets an offer from NBC to write a pilot for his show. His friend George comes to offer his idea of a “show about nothing,” which actually mirrors what had happened in reality to Jerry and concisely summarizes the subjects on which a situation comedy is based. 1 from about fifty episodes (listed at the end of the thesis). The criterion for the choice was purposeful – to be as representative and suitable as possible in terms of the analyzed methods and techniques. The results of the analysis are summarized in conclusion.

In the introduction, it is necessary to explain the division into the techniques and methods which is determined by whether the categories are form-based or content- based. A content-based category is called a method and can be defined as a group of elements and aspects of the series to deliver humour with regard to the content they express. That is to say, with methods, it is essential to keep in mind what is said, what is expressed or what is happening. On the contrary, a form-based category is called a technique and can be defined as a group of elements and aspects creating how something (an idea, a thought, a feeling etc.) is expressed. It means that we focus on how something is said, expressed or done. Every single method is then realized by one of the techniques. Moreover, sometimes there are multiple possible techniques to give shape to a thought (for instance, self-parody, as a particular realization of self-ridicule, can be delivered verbally by means of a monologue or non-verbally by means of physical comedy).

2 2 Seinfeld as a Situation Comedy

2.1 Seinfeld Series: The Reality and the Show

The Seinfeld series, shot predominantly in New York, was first aired in 1989 on the American commercial network NBC and remained on television until 1998. By and large, the Seinfeld crew filmed one hundred and eighty 22-minute episodes over nine seasons. However, considering the television genre of situation comedy itself, this

“half-hour comedy” created by “filming in front of a live audience and shooting with three cameras simultaneously” was introduced to the public in the early sixties (Monaco

1977: 368-71).

To explain how the show itself was conceived and its relation to reality, I paraphrase the comments of the shooting crew, which are added to every DVD throughout all nine seasons of Seinfeld (in “Extras,” mostly under the “Inside Looks” or

“Yada, Yada, Yada”), as they are a crucial source of information to clarify the essence of the reality of the show. 2

Young Jerry Seinfeld was doing stand-up comedy in clubs and on night shows.

George Shapiro, a show-business manager, wrote to NBC about his talent.3 The network then called him to make an appointment with him (Seinfeld asked his friend Larry

David, his later Seinfeld co-creator, to join him) where he was made an offer to have his own show on television.4 Seinfeld himself says that after the meeting they went to do some shopping with Larry who came up with the idea to base the show on everyday life

2 The comments in this section are all taken from the additional part called “How It Began” (season 2). Therefore, there are only the names of the speakers mentioned in the following footnotes, full information on “How It Began” is provided in the section “References” under “DVD Supplements”. 3 George Shapiro 4 Rick Ludwin 3 conventions (later in the show material explicitly uttered as the “show about nothing”).5

The show comprises Seinfeld‟s original artistic form of stand-up and “the story” of every episode.

The creators wrote the pilot episode with three main characters in it: Jerry

Seinfeld played by real-life Jerry Seinfeld, George Costanza (Jason Alexander) and

Cosmo Kramer (Michael Richards). The pilot was aired on television on 5th July 19896 as “The Seinfeld Chronicles” and was not received very well by NBC.7 Fortunately,

NBC Executive Rick Ludwin became their supporter and provided money for another four shows.8 The only requirement was to add a female protagonist9 – Julia Louis-

Dreyfus was cast as Elaine Benes. The casting of these four main characters remains unchanged throughout all nine seasons of the show.

Among the recurring characters, it is inevitable to mention Wayne Knight, who plays Newman (Kramer‟s friend) and who is one of the crucial side characters as he highly contributes to create the comical atmosphere (to find out more about Newman, see section 4.4). The other minor characters who appear in the episodes more frequently are Jerry‟s parents Helen and Morty Seinfeld (played by Liz Sheridan and Phil Bruns, who was soon replaced by Barney Martin), George‟s parents Frank and Estelle

Costanza played by Jerry Stiller (replacing John Randolph) and Estelle Harris, and

George‟s fiancée Susan Ross (Heidi Swedberg).

As the show was getting more intensive, more and more writers were hired to contribute with their ideas (see section 2.3 for details). Larry David became the

5 Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld 6 Rick Ludwin 7 Warren Littlefield, Rick Ludwin and Jerry Seinfeld 8 Warren Littlefield, Rick Ludwin and Robert Wright 9 Warren Littlefield 4 executive producer10 and occupied this position for the first seven seasons of the series.

He does not appear in the series as any of the regular characters; nevertheless, George‟s part is based on his own personality.11 David often writes out George‟s lines as he himself would behave and react. Moreover, Larry David acted many minor parts in the show and so appears in the series for negligible moments (such as when he occurs in the episode “The Gum” of season 7 playing a tobacconist). His voice is used on many occasions, above all as George‟s boss‟s voice. Then he decided to leave the Seinfeld crew12 and Jerry Seinfeld continued as the executive producer for the final two seasons, giving up the filming of the stand-up parts. Other people involved in the production of

Seinfeld are directors Andy Ackerman, Jason Alexander, Tom Cherones, David

Steinberg and producers Thomas Azzari, Fred Barron, Andrew Scheinman, George

Shapiro, Howard West and others.

Apart from George‟s part based on Larry David‟s personality and Jerry Seinfeld playing himself, there are many other examples of their real life influencing the show scripts. To extend these examples, Kramer‟s character is inspired by David‟s real-life neighbour called Kenny Kramer. Real-life Kramer was freely coming in and out of

Larry David‟s apartment where he and Seinfeld were creating the scripts, as the character Kramer does in the show, entering character-Jerry‟s flat on a daily basis.13 It was not only the birth of the show which was self-referential and used for “The Pilot” episode (season 4), but also the writers‟ and actors‟ real-life personal experience, public events, issues and places.14

10 Warren Littlefield 11 Larry David 12 He only returned as a writer when he was invited to participate in the creating of the very last episode. 13 Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld 14 Ibid. 5 2.2 Situation Comedy

To classify the types of comedy, it is important to consider which of the essential structural component for making a dramatic or film performance (such as the plot, characters, speech and situation) is dominant (Hořínek 1992: 26). Although other aspects appear in the Seinfeld series as well, the situation is the dominant part. The situations change and serve the characters by showing their fixed personalities. Without the situations, the audience could not identify these changeless traits. Nevertheless, the situation could not work without the device of dialogues which will be discussed later.

The principles of situation comedy were developed in Rome more than two thousand years ago in the works of Titus Maccius Plautus (Hořínek 1992: 27) and since then they have been in the process of development. To approach the situation comedy we know today, it is necessary to mention Oscar Wilde‟s The Importance of Being

Earnest because it is the language which is a very effective device in the play (Wilde

2004: 7). “It is not important what is said but how it is said”15 (ibid.). This is a key piece of knowledge relevant for the analysis of the Seinfeld series as a situation comedy because the latter is also highly focused on the language and written speeches and dialogues of the characters. Because Oscar Wilde‟s play and Seinfeld share these traits, it can be said that Oscar Wilde was a kind of a predecessor of situation and conversational comedy. The conversations are created by the principles of parallels and contrasts so that the truth first hidden under the paradoxes of utterances is gradually revealed (Hořínek 1992: 56-7).

A second dramatic aspect of language and dialogue is seen in the play Waiting for Godot by Samuel Beckett. We can reach a view that the realization of dialogues is contrastive to that used in the Seinfeld series. Beckett‟s dialogues break down the

15 The quotation is translated from the foreword of Wilde‟s The Importance of Being Earnest. The Czech original says: „Není důležité, co se říká, ale jak se to říká.“ 6 logical sequence of speech (they are non sequitur). They display a continuous flow of chaotic and absurd utterances which do not follow any meaningful order and lack the delivery of relevant information to the viewer. Simply, the dialogues reveal nonsense.

On the contrary, the dialogues in Seinfeld are written purposefully to be precise so that every word has its predetermined place in each utterance revealing well-considered structure. Although the structure of dialogues differs, both Beckett‟s dialogues and the ones in Seinfeld require a punch line delivered punctually timed so that its effect is not spoilt.

The situation comedy focuses on and is “dependent on the interaction of a small group of characters” (Konigsberg 1997: 365) reappearing in the series. In Seinfeld there are Jerry, George, Kramer and Elaine. The audience becomes familiar with them and can easily expect what their reactions will be under certain circumstances (i.e., in different situations). The spectators “share the emotions of many of the persons on the screen” (Grodal 2002: 81), sympathize with their problems, try to figure out the possible solutions of their conflicts.

This leads to a variety of situations which are typical of the Seinfeld series. All of them arise from various social roles (friend, partner, child, employee, etc.) which individuals occupy. The roles people play in society alternate and lead them to deal with certain situations connected to each of the roles.

The locations of the episodes are familiar everyday places such as home and the workplace, and public places like shopping areas, restaurants, cafés, pubs, cinemas and the theatre. Therefore, the audience gets familiar with them very quickly. Most of the scenes take place in Jerry‟s flat or the building where he and Kramer live, and in their favourite coffee shop. But Seinfeld was also shot in the exteriors very often, which was

7 not usual for most of the situation comedies in those days.16 After a couple of episodes, the spectators feel like they visit the places with the protagonists. Just as “emotional empathy and cognitive identification play a crucial role in the reception of visual fiction” (Grodal 2002: 81), so does suggestion. The process of identification with the characters is emphasized by all the means situation comedy is equipped with.

To sum up, owing to the fact that Seinfeld works with the situation as with the dominant structural component and that the series is based on reappearing characters, it meets the requirements of situation comedy. It can be also viewed as conversational comedy because it at the same time focuses on the means of language. The shooting in the exteriors distinguishes Seinfeld from many situation comedies of those days.

2.3 The Process of Creating a Seinfeld Episode17

There are only four days for each episode to be shot. Beside Jerry Seinfeld and

Larry David, there are other writers (such as Tom Leopold, Carol Leifer, Jeff Schaffer,

Alec Berg, Max Pross, Tom Gammill, Bruce Kirschbaum, Larry Charles, Fred Stoller et al.) who think of ideas for the show. However, it is exclusively Jerry Seinfeld and Larry

David who have the power to give them approval to use it in the material.

The phase when the ideas are being developed into a script is considered the most important one. After the pre-production, very quick casting follows so that the table readings can start during which the script undergoes improvements. Afterwards, the rehearsals provide space to the actors, who through their individual attitudes bring the characters to life. The rehearsing is followed by possible re-writing of the material and the production.

16 Taken from “Commentary on The Pilot” where Tom Cherones (director) and Thomas Azzari (production designer) comment on “The Pilot” episode (season 4). 17 The information on this section was taken from “Running with the Egg: Making a Seinfeld” (season 6) where the shooting crew comment on what all has to be done and in what order to shoot an episode. 8 Subsequently, the show night comes where the actors are shooting the scenes

(except for the exterior ones) in front of a real audience. This phase resembles theatrical productions. Owing to the fact that the crew gathers a real audience for every single show, the episodes include true audience reactions. These, however, are edited to suitable places and presented as laugh tracks in the actual episodes.

In addition to the real audience, there is also the audience which follows the series aired on television. Their perspectives differ. The former can see all of the actors on the stage at once, while the latter one is restricted by the camera picture – “our (i.e. the spectators‟ behind screens) eyes are in the camera and become identical with the gaze of the characters. They see with our eyes.” (Balázs 1970)

The last phase is the editing of the filmed material so that each episode can fit in twenty-two minutes which are reserved for it. Eventually, the episode is ready to be aired on television and the whole process can start over again.

2.4 Metatheatrical Approach

It has been pointed out that Seinfeld can be partly viewed as a theatrical performance as most of the scenes are filmed in front of a real audience and therefore, the shooting becomes more challenging for the actors. At the same time, the presence of the audience helps the actors and creators ensure that the show is well-timed. To specify this, the expression of “metatheatre” should be explained. Metatheatre can refer to the concept of antitheatre which washes away the boundary between a work of art and life.

Furthermore, it is possible to analyze the author‟s attitude to his own production (Pavis

2003: 256-257). Seinfeld‟s creators‟ and actors‟ attitude to life and their own artistic work is obvious: they are often allusive to themselves and this allusion is usually conveyed in a form of parody and self-parody as they reflect on their real-life

9 experience by means of acting and also comment on their own dramatic weaknesses

(see section 4.8 for details).

2.5 The Depiction of Characters

Considering the main characters, they are carefully and deliberately psychologically portrayed. Spectators can get to know their personalities because the environment of the show mostly consists of private situations and scenes involving the characters‟ personal attitude. Therefore, the audience knows what the characters experience just by the fact they simply utter what they feel, or can hear their unpronounced thoughts or perceive it from their reactions. Side characters do not know them as much as (especially regular) spectators do and (unlike the spectators) are often in for a surprise. It means that the device of in-joke is applied to the show: “a joke that can be understood or appreciated only by the members of a limited group of people”

(Webster 1996: 983). It serves as evidence of the fact that the jokes implied in the

Seinfeld episodes are considered to be understood by the spectators and not by all the characters which evokes the atmosphere of privacy on which the joke is based on.

The characters are depicted psychologically in great detail and their temperament and function is firmly fixed throughout the series (such as physical appearance). The story changes, the characters do not. They are only exemplified from situation to situation; their reactions can thus be predicted according to former observation. It means that the characters are types, mostly derived from their personality and constant attributes (being emphasized throughout all the seasons).

All the characters are temperamentally different from one another (see further), which makes a balanced unity in the story. Owing to this variety, the spectators can possibly reflect themselves in some of the characters. Except for their diversity, they

10 possess one aspect common to all of them – selfishness. They primarily think of themselves and their own profit.18

To conclude, the reality and the show interact with one another. Seinfeld as a situation comedy working with well-structured language, everyday situations and places, is based on four reappearing characters and their interactions. A balanced unity is achieved, especially by means of the protagonists‟ distinct personalities. The shooting resembles a theatrical production thanks to a real audience present during the show‟s filming.

18 Amplified traits of character and caricatures will be discussed in the section 4.5. 11 3 The Techniques of Humour Delivery

The techniques (“form-based” categories and the realization of the methods) can be grouped into three main sections according to whether they work with spoken language, physical expression or both. Not all the categories are represented in the show to an equal extent, which will be outlined one by one in individual sections.

3.1 Verbal Techniques

3.1.1 Dialogues

To begin with the aspect of spoken language, “as sentences combine with sentences to form discourses, discourses combine with discourses to form dialogues and conversations” (Dijk 1997: 131). Concerning a film or television series, a dialogue is

“the words uttered by characters on screen” (Boocker 1969: 46).

Jan Mukařovský describes the relationship between dialogue and monologue as a “dynamic polarity,” whereas once the monologue prevails over the dialogue, another time the dialogue is at its peak. He also points out that there are three essential aspects present when a dialogue is happening. First, there is dynamic polarity between the speaker and the listener (between active and passive involvement). Secondly, there is a relationship between the participants and the situation accompanying their speech (often influencing directly or indirectly the way the conversation is being performed). Thirdly, there is unity of meaning and topic (although more contexts can be involved) without which the dialogue would not be possible to perform.

Depending on the prevailing aspect of this triad, the dialogue types can be specified as “personal” (such as an argument), “situational” (such as occupational speech) and the “conversation” (for instance, love talk) with many subtypes and slight steps between the categories (Mukařovský 2001: 92-102). All these basic types are

12 represented in Seinfeld. Moreover, countless number of subtypes are shown on screen as the conversations take place at home, at work, in the street and at other places – all at various emotional levels. Mukařovský claims that there is also an extreme case of a dialogue – one that lacks a topic and therefore can be seen as unreasonable and pointless. This kind of dialogue is usually created artificially in order to cause a comical effect (Mukařovský 2001: 99). Seinfeld is full of such pointless dialogues exposed for comic purpose.

Considering the situations where most of the conversations take place, the code chosen to deliver ideas is obvious. Above all, the conversational code is the most significant one as the characters mostly talk to each other, producing casual, informal dialogues. That reflects on the vocabulary which is predominantly selected from the neutral and colloquial sphere with many expressive words. However, the uniqueness lies in adding words created by the writers themselves into the filmed discourses. For the fact that these words do not belong to the codified lexicon of English language, these made-up words make the utterances exceptional for they could be theoretically involved in the lexicon as they are easily identified by the listeners with regard to its structure (see section 4.1 for details).

The structure of dialogues highlights the features typical of the spoken word so that the speech sounds natural. It means that patterns such as turn-taking (which makes a dialogue fluent), pauses (which usually underline the process of thinking what the character is going to say or emphasize an important statement), overlap (when many speakers are trying to speak at the same time) and backchannel signals (i.e. contact features showing that a listener is active and involved in what the speaker is saying,

13 usually interjections which are also closely associated with our emotions) are integrated into them.19 The result is that the speeches do not look artificial.

The word order of the uttered sentences is formed accurately beforehand by the writers of the series and it is essential for the actors to adhere to the word order given.

Furthermore, there is space provided for redundancy of information, or simply for repetition, as well. Nevertheless, it is used only in the sense of explaining and defining something (usually an unimportant point) more and more precisely (see section 4.3 for details).

To some extent, the strict and punctual word order contradicts the fact that the aim of the wording of the dialogues in Seinfeld as in a situation comedy is undoubtedly to sound natural and casual. Thanks to this contradiction, the impact on the viewers is humorous. As already pointed out, in order to evoke laughter, the timing is important.

Moreover, if the dialogues are ill-timed, not only the comical effect is destroyed but also the audience‟s reaction could spoil the following dialogue (Hrubín 1970: 74).

Another significant element of the dialogues is the use of ellipsis instead of saying something, predominantly within the tabooed topics. Words connected with such topics as well as vulgar words are not voiced explicitly (instead, euphemisms and pronouns are employed), they are rather muttered, whispered, unheard because of a noise being produced simultaneously such as a slamming door (as in “The Pool Guy” of season 7), rarely replaced by “beeps” (as in “The Non-Fat Yogurt” of season 5), held in a character‟s mind only (as unpronounced thoughts) or simply left out. However, the spectators know what is going on in the scene and what the actor was going to say.

There is an example of the ellipsis used for taboo topics in the scene where an embarrassed George comes to meet Elaine, Jerry and Kramer at the coffee shop saying,

19 The terms are taken from George Yule‟s Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. 14 “My mother caught me.” Jerry asks: “Caught you? Doing what?” George answers:

“You know. I was alone...” Later on, George claims: “I am never doing that again.”20

There is no direct pronunciation of the topic, only the hints of the actual connotation; however, everybody (including the viewers) knows what George is talking about.

Another instance is when Elaine has a date with Jerry‟s friend and as they speak about it, they emphasize the pronouns instead of using the real connotation again:

ELAINE. Hello.

JERRY. So?

ELAINE. What?

JERRY. Come on. How was your date?

ELAINE. Oh, the date. The date... (laughing – not sincerely)

JERRY. Yeah, how was it?

ELAINE. Interesting.

JERRY. Really?

ELAINE. Oh, yeah.

JERRY. What happened?

ELAINE. Let‟s see (hesitating)... how shall I put this...

JERRY. Just put it.

ELAINE. (saying it quickly) He took it out.

JERRY. (surprised) He what?

ELAINE. He took (breathing shortly on her glasses to clean them up) it out.

JERRY. He took what out?

ELAINE. It.

JERRY. He took it (short pause) out?

20 “The Contest.” Seinfeld [season 4]. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Tom Cherones. Prod. Castle Rock Entertainment. 1992. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, 2005. DVD. 15 ELAINE. Yessiree Bob.21

The dialogue continues in this manner even when Kramer enters and Jerry retells the story to George. As a result, the jokes are tactful rather than cheap or vulgar.

A remarkable and unusual way of using ellipsis in the dialogues is showed in

“The Yada Yada” episode (season 8). The parts of speech which characters do not want to say are replaced by the “yada yada yada” phrase, which then serves as a device of skipping irrelevant details or parts which a character wants to keep secret because it is unpleasant for him to talk about them. It is not only George‟s girlfriend who uses this phrase during the episode, all the characters adopt it. Moreover, it acquires a new function because some of the characters derive benefit from using this phrase instead of telling the truth to others.

Viktor Shklovsky described a phenomenon of retarding the sequence of events in a story and called it “boring fairy tales.” A “boring fairy tale” arises when a story- teller keeps adding side stories (which might get less and less related) and prolongs the main storyline by interrupting it and detracting the readers or listeners. The plot is then getting more complicated. The purpose of these excursions is to play with the reader‟s or listener‟s expectation (Shklovsky 1978: 247-252). These “boring fairy tales” are omitted in “The Yada Yada” episode as they are hidden under the “yada yada yada” phrase. The content of the “yada yada”-ed bit of speech is getting unclear and makes the full story behind it ambiguous. The more ambiguous and unclear it is, the more curious the characters and viewers are about it. It also happens that when the “boring fairy tale” is revealed, the supposed content is not delivered and thus, the revelation is unexpected and comical. This kind of ellipsis is then instrumental mostly to awake thrill in the audience.

21 “The Stand-In.” Seinfeld [season 5]. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Tom Cherones. Prod. Castle Rock Entertainment. 1994. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, 2005. DVD. 16 Finally, I would like to remark on a special way of characters‟ addressing themselves in “The Jimmy” episode (season 6). Jimmy is a man with an unusual tendency of speaking about himself in the third person singular instead of referring to himself as “I”, which causes wonder and confusion because it seems like he talks about somebody else. As the episode continues and draws to a close, George and Elaine start copying his habit (such as when George says in the very same episode: “George is getting upset.” to express his own feelings). This joke is later re-used in other episodes which makes it an in-joke.

Seinfeld works with many different types of dialogues, however, informal dialogues prevail. The creators not only make an effort to write out natural-sounding dialogues, they also think of devices to make them original.

3.1.2 Monologues

The “dynamic polarity” of dialogue and monologue has been discussed. During a monologue one of the participants is constantly active and the rest of them are constantly passive (Mukařovský 2001: 102). The technique of monologue is usually used in the series when a character retells a detailed story to another or others. The others are listening to him without any response; however, if they keep interrupting the speaker, a monologue becomes a dialogue – the “dynamic polarity” is permanent in its presence. This kind of monologue, which is changed into a dialogue every now and then, appears in Seinfeld on a regular basis in every episode.

Furthermore, it often happens that a person retelling a story, which does not involve only the speaker but also other participants, tries to make his monologue more interesting and as authentic as possible by adding the other participants‟ exact quotations. These quotations are distinguished from the storyline by the change of voice

17 (imitating the particular participant). The speaker is the only one who is really speaking, nevertheless, his monologue tends to look like a dialogue.

When there is nobody to listen to the speaker and despite the fact he is speaking aloud, he represents both the speaker and the listener at the same time. Moreover, the speaker can answer to himself and thereby change theoretically the active and passive in himself, but yet producing a monologue (Mukařovský 2001: 102). Such a monologue

(an aside) can be just a sentence when one comments on his own behaviour, usually when he succeeded in doing something or on the contrary, that he did not do the right thing.

There is also an example of monologue when the audience is present but is not supposed to be active in replying and that is when Jerry performs his stand-up acts. He asks questions but as these questions are meant to be rhetorical questions, he does not wait for the answer but rather responds himself. The chain of rhetorical questions is a kind of a comedian‟s tactic as he wants the audience to remain active during his speech.

Here is an example of Jerry‟s stand-up monologue:

People can be so vain, don‟t you know? I have a friend, wears eyeglasses, no

prescription in the glasses because he thinks it makes him look more intelligent.

Now, why? Why do we think that glasses make us look more intelligent? Is it

from the endless hours of reading and studying and researching that this person

supposedly blew out their eyeballs? And that‟s why they need the glasses? It‟s

just a corrective device. If you see someone with a hearing aid, you don‟t think

“Oh, they must have been listening real good. Yeah, to a lot of important stuff.”

No, they‟re deaf. They can‟t hear.22

22 “The Sponge.” Seinfeld [season 7]. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Andy Ackerman. Prod. Castle Rock Entertainment. 1995. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, 2006. DVD. 18 The form of unpronounced thoughts is also monological (being a kind of ellipsis). There is no response expected as the monologue takes place in a character‟s mind illustrating his or her speculating and reasoning. This device which tries to produce the equivalent of a character‟s inner life is called the stream of consciousness

(Mukařovský 2001: 105). These unpronounced thoughts are distinguished from the normal speech by their representation with an actor who simply does not open his mouth while at the same time a recorded monologue of his is being played sometimes accompanied by the technique of making the voice echoed. The viewers are the only ones except for the character himself who know what is in his mind. It is significant to note that the application of in-joke plays an important role here again as it evokes familiarity with the character. Owing to the contrast that the character often ends up in doing something completely different to the action elaborated in his mind and never said aloud, the consequent effect is comical. This happens when Elaine is searching for reasons (in her mind) why to call Puddy, her boyfriend she is breaking up with, in “The

Voice” episode:

I am not calling Puddy. Mmm. What did I do with my gloves? Oh, I bet I left

them over at Puddy‟s. I should call him. I need those gloves (she is about to

call). No, I better not. I‟ll call (reaching for the telephone and seeing the gloves

on the table next to it). Oh, look at that. There are the gloves. I was just about to

call (amused at herself). There they are. That‟s funny. That‟s really funny. That

is really, really funny (laughing). You know who loves funny stories? David

Puddy. (and she dials his number)23

It does not necessarily need to make a contrast. It is enough when the characters merely comment (via unpronounced thoughts) on a situation or conversation which is held

23 “The Voice.“ Seinfeld [season 9]. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Andy Ackerman. Prod. Castle Rock Entertainment. 1997. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, 2007. DVD. 19 around them. An example of this can be found in “The Stake Out” episode (season 1) when Jerry, who is trying to attract Elaine‟s friend at a birthday party, is suffering when

Elaine is persistently telling him unimportant things about a dream she had and spoils

Jerry‟s effort.

A component which deepens the effect of the unpronounced thoughts technique is pantomimic features such gestures, grimaces and mimicry as a whole. The characters try not to show what is going on in their minds but rather being neutral and agreeable to their companions, however, their facial expressions are not natural and the viewers can recognize the pretence.

To conclude, both of the verbal techniques (one merging into another) try to be as similar to a natural speech as possible. Owing to the fact that most of the speeches in

Seinfeld are informal, the words are selected from neutral and colloquial vocabulary.

Both monologue and dialogue use ellipsis for avoiding some words or sentences and for the diversifying of the speeches.

3.2 Non-Verbal Techniques

3.2.1 Physical Comedy and Pantomimic Features

The term physical comedy involves movements, motion habits and physical appearance of the characters including their fashion tendencies. It also covers pantomimic features such as gestures and face and body language.

Michael Richards, the actor who plays Kramer, is the best at the physical acting.

His role is based upon physical skills. He is clumsy, fidgety and sometimes clownish, especially because of his style of clothing. He wears colourful or patterned shirts with ridiculously short sleeves, the same applies to his trousers. And as he is a very tall and slim man, it makes his physical appearance preposterous, the more when it is combined with his haircut. His clothes do not fit his age and would be more suitable for an older 20 person. Kramer‟s physical action is predominantly comical due to the fact that he performs them with his face serious – the term “dead-pan humour” is used for this principle of seriousness (Hrubín 1970: 36-38). It is also intensified by the presence of his friends Newman and Mickey (see section 4.4 for details).

To give some examples of Kramer‟s physical performance, one example is his imitation of dog‟s behaviour when he does not want to take a pill and is thrashing about on sofa, wants to go for a ride when Jerry is tinkling with his keys and asking him whether he would like to have some fresh air, does not want to see a doctor and runs out of the car when Jerry finally managed to take him to the hospital (“The Andrea Doria”

[season 8]). Also, he can put himself in a model‟s place, trying to imitate a woman‟s elegant walk when he is present at a bachelor auction (“The Barber” [season 5]).

As far as the other main characters are concerned, Elaine and George are capable of physical comedy as well. To begin with Elaine‟s physical performance, it is important not to miss her chaotic running in Jerry‟s apartment (full of poisonous fumes against fleas) searching for a book which Kramer left there and which she needs to read quickly (“The Doodle” [season 6]), her well-performed awkward dancing described by

Jerry as “the little kicks and the thumbs” (“The Little Kicks” [season 8]), her reaction when she finds out that she made a good impression on John Kennedy, Jr. whom she had met at the health club (“The Contest” [season 4]) or when she is drunk at the Indian wedding (“The Betrayal” [season 9]).

Among George‟s great acting performances, it is necessary to name the scene in which he and his secretary are attracted to each other (“The Secretary” [season 8]) or his disappointed reaction when he pretends that he might be hired for an imaginary company “Vandelay Industries” but Kramer does not know about it, picks up the phone and spoils his plan (“The Boyfriend” [season 3]).

21 Considering Jerry‟s physical comedy, he is the worst actor among the cast, which is often parodied in Seinfeld (see section 4.8). His weak acting is compensated by his great aptitude for being a writer. He is aware of this fact and, therefore, highlights

Elaine‟s, George‟s and Kramer‟s parts. Julia Louis-Dreyfus perceives this as well and says in one of the “Inside Looks”: “I wasn‟t conscious so much of Jerry writing himself out as I was of Jerry writing us in.”24

It is vital to choose the most talented actors as of all to perform their roles persuasively and in an individualistic manner. The interpretation of George, Kramer and

Elaine (as well as Mrs. Costanza who excels in her role as George‟s nerve-racking mother brilliantly) is well-done as they all are masters of their face-play and conduct.

The role of requisites, simply objects, helps to extend and intensify the physical comedy and the gag action in general. The qualities of an object are usually mitigated or multiplied such as when a gag actor is hit by a brick in his face, falls down and after a while he is able to stand up and walk regardless of any grave injuries. There is an unwritten agreement between the gag creators and the spectators that an actor is endowed with unrealistic qualities (Hrubín 1970: 22-24). Kramer is the one who survives countless numbers of falls and accidents. The spectators know the qualities of the objects used in a gag and perceive them as a matter of course (Hrubín 1970: 25). A comedian takes advantage of it and uses the property in an unexpected way.

For instance, George‟s glasses are broken and because he is short-sighted, he uses his dioptric swimming goggles for walking in the city (“The Glasses” [season 5]).

In the very same episode, he mistakes an apple for an onion (as he does not have his glasses on and their shape is similar) and is having a bite of an onion. In another episode

Jerry pretends he wears dioptric glasses (humorously shaped ones) although he cannot

24 Taken from the “Inside Look” on “The Busboy” episode (season 2). 22 see anything and therefore, cannot move very well with them on (“The Gum” [season

7]).

As has been pointed out before, pantomimic features are closely connected to physical comedy. Body language starting with eye contact, gestures, grimaces and ending in moves helps to emphasize actors‟ acts and intensify their impact on the audience. The pantomimic features are supported by the method of exaggeration which makes them even more visible. They are also an important element of the aforementioned unpronounced thoughts, as the protagonist who is thinking of something in his mind or is commenting on a situation for himself quietly does show via his mimicry that he is not actually entirely mentally present.

Facial expression reflects on people‟s feelings. Moods and emotions are mirrored on people, mostly on their faces. All four protagonists – but especially, Elaine,

George and Kramer – are well-equipped for performing emotions in the show as if they were really experiencing them at that moment. Sometimes, these features are accompanied with sounds of different kinds, and it is especially Kramer who uses this tool to make his acting peculiar. This technique is used in most of the episodes.

To supply the pantomimic features with a couple of instances, I focus on

George‟s taped introductory word on his answering machine (“The Susie” [season 8]).

He is sitting at home, watching television and does not want to pick up the phone because he wants to avoid speaking with his girlfriend. His pre-taped introductory message – not said but rather sung – is as follows: “Believe it or not, George isn‟t at home, please leave a message at the beep. I must be out or I‟d pick up the phone, where could I be? Believe it or not, I‟m not hoooome.”25 The content itself is comical but the result is raised by him eating popcorn (as a stereotypical thing to do while watching a

25 “The Susie.” Seinfeld [season 8]. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Andy Ackerman. Prod. Castle Rock Entertainment. 1997. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, 2007. DVD. 23 movie), moving to the rhythm of the song (physical comedy) and amused grimaces exposed on his face as he is enjoying his own song.

To conclude, physical comedy including pantomimic features is predominantly

Kramer‟s domain in the show because his character is based on it. The comical result of physical acting consists in visual effects which make the audience laugh automatically regardless any complicated development.

3.2.2 Montage

There are many possibilities of defining montage. Except for its primary meaning that it is “the process of editing a film, of assembling all the shots, scenes and sequences into the final motion picture” (Konigsberg 1997: 245), there are other definitions regarding it more artistically. One of these states:

It is any editing style that seems distinct from the invisible style of cutting

developed in the Hollywood studios by being more consciously constructed to

achieve particular effects and to control the responses of the audience. In this

sense, montage is a more artistic kind of editing where the emphasis is less on

the simple progression of narration and more on the impact of the sequence of

images upon viewer. (Konigsberg 1997: 245)

The Seinfeld crew uses this artistic montage as well. The artistic aspect appears when

“two shots filmed in different places can be placed together so that both appear to belong to the same location” (Konigsberg 1997: 245). It means that “a single space that exists nowhere but on the film” is created and so are “new dimensions of space and time” (ibid.). Obviously, this process was used in “The Merv Griffin Show”26 (season 9) when Kramer finds the set from this show in a public refuse container, brings it home

26 This title was adopted from the real American talk show presented by Mervyn Edward Griffin, Jr. (1925-2007). The show was aired on television in the 1960s and lasted until the mid 1980s. 24 and puts it together in his little apartment. When Jerry and Elaine are unlocking Jerry‟s flat, Kramer calls at them to come to his place and this is the moment – they are leaving the corridor (through Kramer‟s apartment door) and entering his apartment (through the curtains of the set), which is full of the built-up set. The shots with the set were definitely filmed somewhere else than in Kramer‟s apartment, however, then they were placed together to give the illusion of it really being there.

The kind of montage which is the most important for analyzing Seinfeld is called

American montage and is described as “a technique of editing … that condenses time and space, conveys a great deal of information to the viewer in a short period, and may also suggest a hallucinatory state of mind, a dream, or a character‟s remembrance of past events” (Konigsberg 1997: 245-246). A dream, remembrance of the past events or something that a character imagines is usually highlighted by the visual effect of a white blurred frame around the picture such as when Jerry is about to tell something to George in “The Sponge” episode (season 7) but pauses for a moment, imagines the information being transmitted by George to Susan and from Susan to her friend (being visualized as a dream usually is), starts to be worried of the chain of gossiping and so changes his mind and does not say the truth to George. As the scenes are condensed or sometimes fast-paced, it results in a greater impact on the audience, in a more intensive comical effect, especially when there is only music being heard and the moving picture without saying a word.

This kind of montage can be found in “The Voice” episode (season 9) where

Elaine tries to break up with her boyfriend Puddy, Jerry does not believe she can do it, they make a bet and the spectators are provided with a sequence of various scenes coming one by one in a fast pace and revealing many of Elaine‟s attempts to break up with Puddy. Nevertheless, she is always moved by his tender looks or comments,

25 repeatedly loses the bet and has to pay Jerry. It is also used in “The Bookstore” (season

9) when Jerry (who is extremely obsessed with hygiene) is not at home for a night and before he comes back, Kramer is messing around. What follows after Jerry‟s departure are again fast-paced scenes showing Kramer doing many different activities in Jerry‟s flat (such as moving the furniture, riding the bike in the flat, spilling some juice on the floor and drying it with a cushion, having a party and people around etc.), then Jerry returns and because Kramer set everything in order, Jerry can never find out what happened in his apartment while he was not there. Moreover, when he comes back,

Kramer is sleeping on his couch, having a glass of coke on Jerry‟s wooden coffee-table without a placemat under it, immediately he notices it, comes to the table and puts the placemat under the glass with the words: “I don‟t believe this.”27

Owing to the fact that by means of montage the Seinfeld crew can create an illusion of an in-reality non-existing place, shift place and time into the past or the future or condense many scenes into a short period of time, it makes the shooting as well as humour development easier.

Both components of non-verbal techniques have different functions. On one hand, physical comedy (usually more demanding to create) makes the comical effect come automatically. On the other hand, montage (generally, easier to create) helps the audience better concentrate while following it.

27 “The Bookstore.” Seinfeld [season 9]. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Andy Ackerman. Prod. Castle Rock Entertainment. 1998. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, 2007. DVD.

26 3.3 Combined Techniques

3.3.1 Gag

The term “gag” was used to describe an actor‟s improvisation to save an unplanned situation on the stage caused by unexpected circumstances (such as forgetting a line), later, it was applied to planned jokes as well (Hrubín 1970: 6-7). Vít

Hrubín describes gag as a dynamic structure consisting of a sequence of actions and events which need not be separately comical; however, their logical unification results in a surprise for the spectator, whose imagination is undeceived, and therefore, in a comical effect (in laughter). He also highlights the difference between a gag and a mere visual comical effect – the visual effect comes immediately and is automatic. The gag, on the contrary, derives benefit from the play with timing and a spectator‟s expectation.

Simply, where the mere visual effect ends, the gag just begins (Hrubín 1970: 7-14). The need of precise timing reappears because it is important for gag exposition.

As has been pointed out, a gag has a more complicated structure than a visual effect does. It can be divided into two categories: “simple gags” and “complex gags” – the latter mostly used when a more extensive area is provided for the development of a gag, such as in films (Hrubín 1970: 17-18). Hrubín defines a “complex gag” as a three- part structure. Firstly, a “gag” (sensu stricto) is displayed, afterwards, it is expanded

(this elaboration is called a “routine”) and finally, a “topper” joins all the routines (there can be more routines or variations of them distributed throughout a performance), being a punch line, a logical and surprising ending (Hrubín 1970: 15-21).

The structure of a gag can also be described within the “estrangement” principle.

The term “estrangement” was coined by Viktor Shklovsky. He illustrates that actions often repeated in life are becoming automatic and that this repetitious behaviour we get used to (the “automatism”) changes life in nothingness. According to him, the aim of art

27 is to make these automatically perceived things and events strange. The “estrangement” means that a thing is being viewed in an unconventional way (Shklovsky 1933: 14-23).

Václav Havel claims that a gag can be considered to be a specific example of

“estrangement” and explains that there are two phases of a gag: the first one exposes a situation (i.e. is passive) and the second one (the active) enters, twists the first phase and reveals its absurdity. The phases are not interchangeable because the dialectic principle thesis – antithesis – synthesis (which stands as a proof that the second phase makes the first one “strange”) is applied. One “automatism” is made “strange” by another and it is important that the collision has its own logic as a gag is not nonsense (Havel 1966: 127-

132).

I have chosen an example from “The Gum” episode (season 7). Jerry is sitting in a car, has dioptric glasses to pretend he wears them (as has been mentioned), everything is blurred for him – that is the first phase. The second phase (not related yet to the first one) is when George‟s friend thinks he suffers from some psychological problems, that he is paranoid, makes things up etc. The second phase enters into the first one when

George takes notice of Jerry in the car and wants him to explain to his friend that he is not crazy and that everything he said to her is true. George introduces the situation by saying that the man in the car is his best friend but because Jerry‟s view is very blurred, he cannot recognize George and it seems as if they never saw each other before (which, in turn, also deepens George‟s friend‟s suspicion). The viewers‟ expectation of their introduction is not fulfilled, twists the first phase and so results in surprise.

The previously described situation where Kramer stays alone in Jerry‟s flat and behaves as a child left alone without a parent‟s supervision for a while (see section

3.2.2) is another example of a gag. Kramer‟s childish behaviour is the passive phase of a gag, while Jerry‟s coming home is the active one, entering into the first phase. The

28 audience expects Jerry will find out the mischief Kramer caused. However, this automatism is made strange because Jerry only puts a placemat under Kramer‟s glass so that it does not damage his wooden coffee-table. Thus, the collision of phases results in a comical effect.

To sum up, gag is included in combined techniques because it is rather viewed as a structure and differs from the pure physical comedy which mostly derives benefit from mere visual effects only. Besides, the spoken word can support a gag development because it can deepen the effect of a physical action.

29 4 The Methods Causing Comical Effect

The methods (i.e. “content-based” categories), which are described in the following sections, are realized by the “form-based” categories (i.e. the techniques).

Their combinations are not fixed, as one method can be once realized by one of the techniques and another time by a different one.

4.1 Seinfeld Language

A significant content-based category used in Seinfeld and being realized by the verbal techniques only is creating new words. There are more ways in which they handle the words. They often play with prefixes and suffixes and by their means make a word which is not included in the codified register of English language; however, the audience can understand the intentional meaning of it as they are aware of the rules of the English language.

For instance, the audience knows that the prefix un- means “not, contrary to, opposite to” and “denoting reversal of an action or state” (Collins 2007: 1745) as well as that the suffix -able can mean “capable of, suitable for deserving of” or “inclined to, given to, able to, causing” (Collins 2007: 4) and -s expresses the plural, therefore, the spectators understand a word unshushables (used in “The Apartment” episode of season

2) meaning people you cannot silence. Similarly, when the audience knows that the prefix re- indicates “repetition of an action” (Collins 2007: 1346) and suffix -er expresses “a person or thing that performs a specified action” or has “a certain characteristic” or “a person engaged in a profession, occupation” (Collins 2007: 555), they can understand the made-up word re-gifter (used in “The Label Maker” episode of season 6) meaning a person who gets a present and then gives it to someone else (as he does not like it).

30 Another way of creating Seinfeld words is compounding. Again, that is not a new way of creating words but Seinfeld creators combine such words so that the final compound sounds unusual and humorous also by putting them into a new context. To name a few, a high-talker (“The Pledge Drive” [season 6]) stands for a person who speaks very loudly, low-talker (“The Puffy Shirt” [season 5]) is someone whose voice is so quiet that we can barely hear him and close-talker (“The Raincoats” [season 5]) is a person whose mouth is very close to your face when he talks to you. To mention more, words such as a must-lie-situation (“The Hamptons” [season 5]), spongeworthy (Elaine used it in “The Sponge” episode of season 7 in the phrase “a spongeworthy man” expressing whether a man is good-looking enough so that she can use the sponge, which is her favourite contraception, for him) or to doubledip (used in “The Implant” episode of season 4 when George dipped a piece of cracker in a sauce, had a bite and then dipped the piece in the sauce again).

Sometimes words are created on the basis of analogy such as when George‟s parents separate for some time and George is discussing it with his mother, the dialogue is as follows:

MRS. COSTANZA. Georgie, I‟m a divorcée.

GEORGE. You‟re not a divorcée. You‟re just separated. You‟re a separatée.28

Another time, they just exchange a letter for another, for instance, when Elaine gets a wedding invitation, finds out that the ceremony is taking place in India in a couple of days and perceives that the engaged couple do not want her to come to the wedding and just want her to send a wedding gift instead. For this reason, she calls the invitation an unvitation (“The Betrayal” [season 9]). Also, when Jerry and his mother are playing scrabble, Kramer is hanging around and giving advice to Mrs. Seinfeld. She needs to

28 “The Fusilli Jerry.” Seinfeld [season 6]. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Andy Ackerman. Prod. Castle Rock Entertainment. 1995. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, 2005. DVD. 31 use a letter Q and Kramer suggests to put down a word quone, which Jerry challenges, consults a dictionary, does not find it as it is no word at all. The comical part of the dialogue is when Kramer tries to defend it and says: “We need a medical dictionary! A patient gets difficult, you quone him...”29 Kramer behaves like a child who despite the absurdity keeps trying to substantiate the nonsense he uttered.

Although the ways of creating new words for the Seinfeld series are not new, the result of using such words is comical because the creators focus on affixes and letters in great detail and especially work with slight differences in their meanings. The method of Seinfeld language is realized by the verbal techniques only.

4.2 Metaphorical Expression

George Lakoff claims in his book Metaphors We Live By that “metaphor is pervasive in everyday life, not just in language but in thought and action” (Lakoff 1980:

3) and explains that “the essence of metaphor is understanding and experiencing one kind of thing in terms of another” (Lakoff 1980: 5). The presence in everyday life demonstrates the close relation to the topics of the series as a situation comedy and to the choice of language. Therefore, as Seinfeld‟s creators employ everyday life to the show, likewise, metaphorical expressions are employed as they are pervasive in everyday life.

Although Lakoff classifies many kinds of metaphors, for the purposes of this thesis the basic concept of speaking metaphorically – that means expressing something indirectly by means of saying something else which is related on the basis of similarity

(Karpatský 2001: 345) – is sufficient. The similarity and analogy can be perceived in a number of possible ways such as by appearance, size, characteristic, function

29 “The Stake Out.” Seinfeld [season 1]. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Tom Cherones. Prod. Castle Rock Entertainment. 1990. Columbia TriStar Home Entertainment, 2004. DVD. 32 (Karpatský 2001: 345). Personification, a “physical object” being “specified as being a person” (Lakoff 1980: 33), as well as metonymy, “using one entity to refer to another that is related to it” (Lakoff 1980: 35), are specific kinds of metaphor used in Seinfeld as well.

To give some examples of such transferred meanings, in “The Hamptons” episode (season 5) the word shrinkage is applied by Elaine to laundry, and by George and Jerry to men‟s genitals. It is metaphorically expressed by Jerry at the very end of the following conversation:

GEORGE. Do women know about shrinkage?

ELAINE. What do you mean? Like laundry?

GEORGE. No.

JERRY. Like when a man goes swimming, afterwards...

ELAINE. It shrinks?

JERRY. Like a frightened turtle.30

In “The Dinner Party” (season 5) Jerry buys a black-and-white cookie and by speaking about it, he metaphorically speaks about the racial topic:

JERRY. (while eating the cookie) See, the key to eating a black-and-white

cookie, Elaine, is you wanna get some black and some white in each bite.

Nothing mixes better than vanilla and chocolate. And yet still somehow,

racial harmony eludes us. If people would only look to the cookie, all our

problems would be solved.

ELAINE. Well, your views on race relations are just fascinating. You really

should do an op-ed piece for The Times.

30 “The Hamptons.” Seinfeld [season 5]. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Tom Cherones. Prod. Castle Rock Entertainment. 1994. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, 2005. DVD. 33 JERRY. Look to the cookie, Elaine. Look to the cookie. (and he is lifting his

black-and-white cookie to an African-American who is eating the same one

and replies to him in the same manner)31

To provide the last instance of speaking metaphorically, I chose a dialogue from

“The Couch” episode (season 6) where Kramer and Poppie (a foreigner, restaurant owner and cook) are making a pizza pie and arguing about it because Kramer‟s idea is that customers can make their own pie but Poppie does not agree. Before reading their dialogue, it is necessary to know that the abortion topic and a law giving the right to a woman to choose whether to be pregnant of not are elaborated throughout the episode and so the dialogue metaphorically expresses it as it can be viewed as a hidden reference:

KRAMER. (making pizza to his taste, after putting some sauce, cheese, he is

adding some cucumbers on the pie) And cucumbers.

POPPIE. Wait a second. What is that?

KRAMER. It‟s cucumbers.

POPPIE. No, no, no. You can‟t put cucumbers on a pizza.

KRAMER. Why not? I like cucumbers.

POPPIE. That‟s not a pizza. It‟ll taste terrible.

KRAMER. But that‟s the idea. Make your own pie.

POPPIE. Yes, but we cannot give the people the right to choose any topping

they want. Now, on this issue, there can be no debate.

KRAMER. What gives you the right to tell me how I would make my pie?

POPPIE. Because it‟s a pizza.

KRAMER. It‟s not a pizza till it comes out of the oven.

31 “The Dinner Party.” Seinfeld [season 5]. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Tom Cherones. Prod. Castle Rock Entertainment. 1994. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, 2005. DVD. 34 POPPIE. It‟s a pizza the moment you put your fists in the dough.

KRAMER. No, it isn‟t!

POPPIE. Yes, it is!32

To conclude, Lakoff describes that “metaphor is as much a part of our functioning as our sense of touch, and as precious” (Lakoff 1980: 239). Some metaphors are easily perceived and indentified, while others are very common as they are used very often and so people do not notice them in speech as something special.

And it is the same in Seinfeld. The more carefully the audience watches the series, the more metaphorical expressions (realized predominantly by verbal techniques) they can find and by means of repetition, start to perceive them as common.

4.3 The Twist of Perspective

To begin this section, the term “estrangement” (discussed formerly) is essential to be repeated. The crucial aspect of it consists in that the conventionally viewed things and events are taken away from their usual context (Havel 1966: 129). This can be described as a child‟s view of life because a child is not experienced and thus unconventional (Hrubín 1970: 28-31). This is Kramer‟s view – he does not notice the line of division between the “appropriateness” and “inappropriateness” in life. For instance, he does not see pasta only as food but also as a good-textured material for making little figures (“The Fusilli Jerry” [season 6]), uses a wooden spoon for a microphone (on more occasions, mostly when he parodies Jerry‟s stand-ups), leaves

Jerry‟s flat door open not thinking of the robbery risk (“The Robbery” [season 1]) or when he is present to see an operation process in the hospital, he opens a packet of

32 “The Couch.” Seinfeld [season 6]. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Andy Ackerman. Prod. Castle Rock Entertainment. 1994. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, 2005. DVD.

35 bonbons and is eating them if he was watching a movie and does not feel inappropriate

(“The Junior Mint” [season 4]).

This twist of perspective is used in the Seinfeld series in a number of ways.

Speaking of conventions, Seinfeld works with them in a reversed manner – unimportant things are highlighted over crucial ones and observed in detail. The characters‟ point of view is reversed to that of routine. Frequently, Seinfeld protagonists are tackling minute problems which are not that essential and remain untroubled even though they neglect something vital. This method of a converted scale of importance transforms banal real life situations into extraordinary ones and thereby smart and amusing ones. Typical of the protagonists is that they precisely define and classify ordinary aspects of life. For instance, when Jerry is expecting a female visitor and while waiting at the airport, he and George are discussing different kinds of greeting and they define them according to what the girl shows by the greeting in terms of liking:

GEORGE. It‟s all in the greeting. All right. If she puts the bags down before she

greets you, that‟s a good sign.

JERRY. Right...

GEORGE. Anything in the lip area is good.

JERRY. Lip area. (pointing at him to express he is listening to him)

GEORGE. A hug, definitely good.

JERRY. Hug is definitely good. (agreeing)

GEORGE. Sure.

JERRY. Although what if it‟s one of those hugs where the shoulders are

touching, the hips are eight feet apart? (they are demonstrating it together)

GEORGE. That‟s the brutal...

JERRY. You know how they do that?

36 GEORGE. (agreeing) Also... a shake is bad.

JERRY. Shake is bad. But what if it‟s the two-hander? The hand on the bottom,

the hand on the top, the warm look in the eyes. (demonstrating it)

GEORGE. Hand sandwich..?

JERRY. Right.

GEORGE. It‟s open to interpretation. Because so much depends on the layering,

the quality of the wetness in the eyes...33

In this moment, Laura (the expected girl) is coming and her greeting is absolutely different from those discussed and so both Jerry and George are confused. Not only the reversed point of view but also the protagonists‟ specific classifying and the gag structure are illustrated by this dialogue.

Another time, after George ate a piece of cake already put in a trash bin, they are defining garbage and try to resolve whether it was garbage already or not yet:

JERRY. So let me get this straight. You find yourself in the kitchen. You see an

éclair in the receptacle and you think to yourself: “What the hell, I‟ll just eat

some trash.”

GEORGE. No, no, no, no, no. It was not trash.

JERRY. Was it in the trash?

GEORGE. Yes.

JERRY. Then it was trash.

GEORGE. It wasn‟t down in. It was sort of... on top.

JERRY. But it was in the cylinder.

GEORGE. Above the rim.

JERRY. Adjacent to refuse is refuse.

33 “The Seinfeld Chronicles.“ Seinfeld [season 1]. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Art Wolff. Prod. Castle Rock Entertainment. 1989. Columbia TriStar Home Entertainment, 2004. DVD. 37 GEORGE. It was on a magazine. And it still had the doily on.

JERRY. Was it eaten?

GEORGE. One little bite.

JERRY. Well, that‟s garbage.34

Similarly, Jerry owes a meal to his acquaintance and when they are in a restaurant, the friend only has a soup, Elaine and Jerry are then trying to define whether a soup counts as a meal or it does not. This scene is also comical because they can never reach a consensus as they use different criterions in this “scientific” classification –

Jerry is concerned with a social aspect, whereas Elaine focuses on gastronomy:

ELAINE. What kind of soup did he get?

JERRY. I don‟t know. Consommé or something.

ELAINE. Consommé? Mmm...

JERRY. What?

ELAINE. Well, that‟s really not a meal, Jerry. I mean, if he had gotten chicken

gumbo or matzo ball... even mushroom barley, then I would agree with you.

Those are very hearty soups.

JERRY. Elaine, you‟re missing the whole point.

ELAINE. What?

JERRY. The meal is the act of sitting down with him. It doesn‟t matter what you

get. As long as he‟s sitting at that restaurant, it‟s a meal.

ELAINE. Was it a cup or a bowl? (Jerry expresses disbelief) I‟m just curious.

JERRY. A bowl, okay?

ELAINE. Did he crumble any crackers in it? (Jerry is getting upset, Elaine

repeats her question forcefully) Did he crumble any crackers in it?

34 “The Gymnast.“ Seinfeld [season 6]. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Andy Ackerman. Prod. Castle Rock Entertainment. 1994. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, 2005. DVD. 38 JERRY. As a matter of fact, he did.

ELAINE. Oh, well, crackers in a bowl. That could be a meal.35

In addition to this, there is another kind of a twist, which is important to mention. It is not primarily connected with the characters but rather with the writers of the series. It lies in the approach of the writers to be experimental and create a show which is different from the others, which is (in Shklovsky‟s words) “made strange.”

Although such twists involve the content aspect, at the same time they work with the form.

Such a twist is applied when Jerry and Kramer switch their apartments for a while which results in switching the specific behaviour of their roles for a couple of lines in “The Chicken Roaster” episode (season 8). This includes the body movements

(Jerry is copying Kramer‟s entering his apartment), the language usage (formulating ideas), thinking and the whole attitude to life. This twist could also be viewed as an example of self-parody method (see further). In “The Opposite” episode (season 5) this reversal happens between George and Elaine as George is devoted to education, reading and politeness, Elaine is “becoming George” because she is the real “loser” there. As

Jason Alexander claims, it is “the only episode when everything goes right for

George.”36

A significant instance of the writers‟ experiments is a time twist used in “The

Betrayal” episode (season 9), in which the protagonists are travelling to India to a wedding. This time the twist is wholly based on the form aspect because it shifts time perspective of the whole episode. Its uniqueness consists in the depiction of events – the episode is based on retrospective. The sequence of events is reversed (i.e. the most

35 “The Soup.“ Seinfeld [season 6]. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Andy Ackerman. Prod. Castle Rock Entertainment. 1994. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, 2005. DVD. 36 Taken from the “Inside Look” on “The Opposite” episode (season 5). 39 recent events come first and we are proceeding to the past events), the comments shown on screen saying One Day Earlier, Three Hours Earlier, Fifteen Minutes Earlier etc. help us imagine the time axis. The story, which means the casual sequence of events, is made “strange” and depicted in a reversed order, this narrative depiction is called the plot (Nünning 2006: 877). This time play is carried into effect from the very beginning of the episode to the very end as it includes the reversal of the opening and final credits.

The information (such as the names of creators, writers, director, actors et al.) normally showed at the beginning are placed at the end and vice versa. Furthermore, a crucial property used in this episode – a big colourful lollipop which Kramer is licking – deepens this effect because it is getting bigger as the episode proceeds.

To conclude, the twist of perspective is used in Seinfeld within the aspect of content as well as of form. The former prevails in connection with the characters; the latter rather within the context of writing the show. The twist of perspective as a content-based method can be realized by all three kinds of techniques: verbal, non- verbal or combined.

4.4 Contrast

According to Vít Hrubín, there is a principle of contrast which helps make a comedian‟s work effective as the contrast revives a spectator‟s interest. He speaks about the contrast of character and the contrast of physical appearance (Hrubín 1970: 38-39).

Nevertheless, there is another contrast involved in the Seinfeld series and that is the contrast between the concept of following social norms and the totally inappropriate.

Firstly, to discuss the contrast of character, it is inevitable to focus on Kramer as he is the most contradictory character. Concerning intellect, although he looks like a total fool, he is competent in many fields of knowledge. He knows a lot about books, films, famous people, birth control, sport techniques and so forth and is able to surprise

40 viewers with accurate details. Sometimes he is more of an expert in professional questions than in ordinary and automatic attainments which require common sense. He is able to strike the audience with his wit and with a great judgement of things or people.

For instance, in “The Secret Code” (season 7) he shows that he has got the streets of New York mapped in his mind extremely well because he is able to lead a fire engine to the affected place via the most suitable streets during a traffic jam so that they are there as soon as possible. In the same episode he reveals his detective abilities by guessing right George‟s credit card PIN. Both wit and clumsiness make Kramer a contradictory character.

Kramer is also very childish as his ideas are very often unrealistic, which contrasts to his age, as he is a grown man. To make a short list of Kramer‟s typical habits, we can start with his turning up in Jerry‟s flat, using it as his own (taking food from Jerry‟s fridge, using his things of all kind, calling from his phone etc.), spending time by speculating about his “jobs,” “businesses” and inventions, more fictional than real (such as a place where people can make their your own pizzas, perfume which would smell like the beach, a coffee-table book about coffee tables, making “bras” for obese men to give them support, having a fictional company “Kramerica Industries” and so on), which mostly fail. To add more, he keeps discovering new spare-time activities he wants to practise or try (such as do-it-yourself, owing a part of highway, making a sauna in his apartment, being part of the fire brigade). All these are comical because he has no job, so his whole life is just full of hobbies and spare-time activities. As George states when he finds out that Kramer left for a fantasy camp for vacation: “His whole

41 life is a fantasy camp. People should plunk down two thousand dollars to live like him for a week.”37

Also, because Kramer is neither very fastidious nor vengeful, it puts him in a contrast especially with the postman Newman, his friend, who is mean, stingy and calculating, often demonstrating it by his fiendish laughter. When Kramer spoils someone‟s plan (which he does quite often by saying something inappropriate, indiscreet or ill-timed), it is always unintentional. On this account the viewers watch his plans carefully, almost with mother-like sensibility because he is the one who is likely to be hurt or tricked.

Secondly, the contrast of physical appearance is the most remarkable in two cases: Kramer is contrastive to Newman and to Mickey. As they are both friends of his, they often appear together on screen, which deepens the visual effect. I have already pointed out that Kramer is a very tall and quite slim man, on the contrary, Newman is an obese and short man, while Mickey suffers from dwarfism. The couple of Kramer and

Newman can be viewed as an intensified contrast of Laurel and Hardy.

Thirdly, there is a contrast between following social norms and being totally inappropriate. On one hand, the characters are disappointed and sometimes frustrated when they forget to do something polite such as to offer a drink to a moving-man (“The

Couch” [season 6]). On the other hand, they are tired of and hate the social norms and the unwritten rules of being appropriate such as when they do not want to see their friends‟ newborn baby because they just protest to be as others and “have to see the baby.”38 Their consideration and thinking of social norms is contrary to their acting. The characters are shameless enough to watch an operation as a cinema movie (“The Junior

37 “The Visa.” Seinfeld [season 4]. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Tom Cherones. Prod. Castle Rock Entertainment. 1993. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, 2005. DVD. 38 “Hamptons.” Seinfeld [season 5]. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Tom Cherones. Prod. Castle Rock Entertainment. 1994. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, 2005. DVD. 42 Mint” [season 4]) or to go to unknown people‟s house to ask them to watch a movie with them because they really need to watch it at that time (the true reason is that

George is lazy to read a book and instead, he is only willing to watch a movie for the story) and there is not another copy in the rental (“The Couch” [season 6]).

Above all, contrast helps and quickens the delivery of laughter because it has immediate relevance no matter whether the compared aspects are personalities, appearances or actions. It can be realized verbally as well as by physical acting.

4.5 Exaggeration and Caricature

Seinfeld’s view of life is often exaggerated for its comical purpose. In accordance with this aim, the exaggeration is fully intentional. Except for statements, physical acting including facial expression is hyperbolized as well as the protagonists‟ character traits. Considering the actors‟ individualistic appearances, it is possible to sketch the characters easily (as Eric Yahnker39 did).

Hyperbole is defined as “an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally” (Webster 1996: 940) and the Seinfeld writers extend this to a whole chain of statements, creating exaggerated theories. Such a theory is revealed during “The Pool Guy” episode (season 7) where Elaine asks George‟s girlfriend Susan to join her to go to an exhibition and George feels threatened and betrayed as he considers Susan‟s entrance into his milieu as the total loss of his freedom:

GEORGE. You have no idea of the magnitude of this thing. If she is allowed to

infiltrate this world, then George Costanza, as you know him, ceases to exist.

You see, right now I have relationship George... but (expressed in a vehement

39 Eric Yahnker, an American artist, created some of the Seinfeld DVD supplements. Some of them, predominantly in the seasons 6 to 9, contain a section called “Sein-Imation” (included in “Extras”). There are ten short pencil-sketched cartoons of several minutes‟ duration altogether, each of them based on the particular monologues and dialogues taken from the episodes. 43 way)... there is also independent George. That‟s the George you know, the

George you grew up with. Movie George, coffee-shop George, liar George,

bawdy George.

JERRY. I love that George.

GEORGE. Me too. And he‟s dying, Jerry (forcefully)! If relationship George

walks through this door (pointing at the door of Jerry‟s apartment), he will

kill independent George. A George divided against itself cannot stand (still

forcefully).40

Philip Thomson describes a caricature as follows: “Caricature may be briefly defined as the ludicrous exaggeration of characteristic or peculiar features” (Thomson

1972: 38), which proves that it is closely related to exaggeration. He also highlights that

“one laughs at a caricature because a recognizable or typical person or characteristic is distorted (or stylized) in a ridiculous and amusing way – that is, a peculiar feature is exaggerated to the point of abnormality” and he adds that when the “norm of abnormality … is exceeded, the caricature is no longer simply funny, but disgusting or fearsome besides, for it approaches the realm of the monstrous” (Thomson 1972: 38-

39).

All four protagonists are depicted in a caricatured way, however, not all of them cross the imaginary limit of abnormality. It is essential to describe the characters‟ typical features so that we can focus on whether they do or do not fulfil the aforementioned criterion.

Elaine is hardworking, self-confident, sociable, intolerant, sometimes big-headed and greedy (such as in “The Secret Code” episode [season 7] when she does not want to give a sponge, a type of birth-control, to George‟s girlfriend because she is saving them

40 “The Pool Guy.” Seinfeld [season 7]. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Andy Ackerman. Prod. Castle Rock Entertainment. 1995. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, 2006. DVD. 44 for herself), naive (as she often swallows the bait when Jerry is teasing her) and ambitious (improving herself is a challenge for her and she wants to date clever and good-looking men only).

George is a cheater (and he says it about himself in “The Final” episode of season 9), mendacious (once he says: “It‟s not a lie if you believe it.”41), lazy, most of the time jobless or reluctant to work, neurotic, very stingy (such as in “The Invitations” episode of season 7 when he buys very cheap envelopes for his and Susan‟s wedding invitations and she dies of licking them as they turn out to be toxic), unhappy about being bald, unattractive, single and still under control of his parents. After Elaine throws out his toupee out of the widow and he is bald again, we can learn from his own words what he is: “I feel like my old self again: totally inadequate, completely insecure, paranoid, neurotic. It‟s a pleasure.”42

Jerry is self-confident, neurotic, extremely obsessed with hygiene (he throws out a shoelace which touched a public toilet floor, the same he does with his belt as it touched a urinal), he keeps his flat extremely tidy and usually follows social norms.

Real-life Jerry Seinfeld says about his character that it is “a character for whom things worked out, which kind of goes against standard comedic law.”43

Since Kramer was described in detail formerly (see sections 3.2.1 and 4.4), I will only add that he is also friendly, sociable in his special way, very alternative in his life- style and messy (for instance, once he spills some juice on the kitchen desk, dries it with a kitchen towel and then wrings it back into the jug, another time he spills a bowl full of milk and cereal and because he is in a hurry, he promptly hides it in the nearest drawer).

Compared with the rest of the protagonists, he is less selfish and fastidious.

41 “The Beard.” Seinfeld [season 6]. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Andy Ackerman. Prod. Castle Rock Entertainment. 1995. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, 2005. DVD. 42 Ibid. 43 Taken from the “Inside Look” on “The Airport” episode (season 4). 45 Generally speaking, to some extent it is characteristic of all the main characters that they tend to hedonism, egoism and selfishness44. To demonstrate this, when George is having a chat with an old friend of his, she thinks he has got some psychological problems and when she mentions “taking pleasure in the misfortunes of others” as a symptom, George answers: “All my friends do that.”45 In the very last episode of the series Elaine, George, Jerry and Kramer are on trial and the district attorney says about them that they “have quite a record of mocking and maligning” and that the witnesses called to give testimony will provide “a history of [their] selfishness, self-absorption, immaturity and greed.”46 His speech reveals the main characters‟ personalities and moreover, serves as evidence of the method of self-parody (see further).

To return to Thomson‟s “norm of abnormality,” Jerry‟s behaviour is exaggerated. Still, he definitely does not exceed the norm. Neither does Elaine. George sometimes overreaches the point of abnormality and is disgusting such as when he is able to eat and watch television while having intimate moments with a woman (“The

Blood” [season 9]). Kramer finds himself behind the norm quite often (especially because of his eating habits). Although George and Kramer are the ones exceeding the norm of abnormality by being disgusting, they are not monsters when it comes to their relationships with other people. Their action is exaggerated, they do things out of spite, but never with the intention of hurting someone (though it happens very often). The primary intention, common to all of them, is to ridicule or insult people to revenge themselves.

44 This is close to seventeenth-century French writer La Rochefoucauld‟s thinking of life and human qualities in his book Maxims. The concept of the book, consisting of more than five hundred quotes about friendship, love, selfishness, egoism and others, is similar to the one of the Seinfeld series. 45 “The Gum.” Seinfeld [season 7]. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Andy Ackerman. Prod. Castle Rock Entertainment. 1995. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, 2006. DVD. 46 “The Final.” Seinfeld [season 9]. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Andy Ackerman. Prod. Castle Rock Entertainment. 1998. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, 2007. DVD. 46 Considering recurring side characters, lawyer Jackie Chiles is a caricature of

Johnnie L. Cochran, Jr.47 Not only are they similar in their appearances, but also Jackie

Chiles imitates Cochran‟s way of speech.

The created characters‟ typology is persistent throughout all the seasons. Each character‟s persona is unchanged and therefore, the audience is amused at just seeing them in a particular situation because they can imagine how this and that character would handle it (Hrubín 1970: 33-34, 39). The actors‟ contributions to interpreting the characters is creating that character‟s soul, which projects their physical existence, and maintaining a character‟s habits. The combination of both makes the characters‟ appearance on screen complex, natural and hence familiar to the audience.

This method can be realized by means of verbal, non-verbal and combined techniques.

4.6 Stand-up

Robert Stebbings describes a stand-up act as follows:

Stand-up comedy is the art, initially developed in the United States, of humorous

dialogue presented before an audience. The talk itself is memorized and (…)

usually expressed in a spontaneous conversational manner, as if the performer

were speaking to friends. Although it tends to be one-sided, there may be

interaction between performer and audience. (Stebbings 1990: 3)

The evoked (i.e. casual) atmosphere determines the range of vocabulary used for the stand-ups – it is very often neutral and colloquial. A stand-up comedian needs to be verbally well-equipped, be a good speaker as “the verbal content is the essence of stand-

47 Johnnie L. Cochran, Jr. (1937-2005) was an American lawyer best known for his defence and acquittal of an American football player O. J. Simpson (1947-) who was in 1994 accused of a murder of his wife and her friend. Among others, he also defended Michael Jackson. 47 up comedy” (Stebbings 1990: 4). That is what Jerry Seinfeld, the real one as well as the fictional one, possesses. He performs a sequence of bits and jokes in front of the audience at the beginning and at the end of more than two-thirds of the Seinfeld episodes, thereby framing each of them.

“There can be no stand-up comedy without an audience …. [The] interaction with the audience is an essential part of the comic‟s act” (Stebbings 1990: 53). Jerry Seinfeld comes up to the microphone on the stage and addresses the real audience invited to the shooting of the show as well as, later on, the spectators in front of the screen.

Jerry uses a number of topics such as relationships, female vs. male point of view, dating, sex, fashion, shopping, occupations, friendship, social norms, travelling, going out etc. (Seinfeld 1993). Jerry Seinfeld and Larry David call these topics the

“gaps in society.”48 Jerry asks rhetorical questions and answers them (described in section 3.1.2 where an example of stand-up talk is also provided) after a pause which heightens the spectators‟ suspense and highlights the comical effect of the joke‟s punch line. Consequently, the audience is prepared for the topic to be often developed in the following scenes of the show.

The couple of minutes dedicated to stand-up comedy in the episodes distinguishes the Seinfeld series from others for it works with an artistic form, which is commonly not a part of situation comedies. The method of stand-up is predominantly realized verbally (by the technique of monologue), however, it can be intensified by physical acting and pantomimic features.

48 Jerry Seinfeld (taken from the section “How It Began” of season 2) 48 4.7 Running Gag

There are gags that once appear in an episode and are repeated a number of times in it and very often throughout the series. The audience is getting familiar to the gag (which can be also only a visual effect) which creates and supports a character‟s image. As the gag reruns on a regular basis, it is called a running gag. A running gag can be a move, a phrase or a sentence, a character‟s habit or an action. Moreover, these running gags were repeated not only in the series, but also some of the phrases became popular among the spectators and were adopted by them and integrated in their real- lives.49

Kramer‟s original entrances into Jerry‟s flat is a running gag used in the series as well as his using Jerry‟s fridge and food as if it was his own. He also says “giddy up” on many occasions to express that he agrees or is ready to do something. The word

“yellow” is repeatedly used instead of “hello” when the characters pick up a phone as well as the phrase “not that there‟s anything wrong with that” when they express an opinion which might be discriminatory.

Jerry‟s running gags are situations when he greets Newman, whom he does not like, and says: “hello, Newman” in a very stiff and affected way, likewise, his “No. I don‟t think so.” expressing disagreement with someone‟s (usually Kramer‟s) ideas is pronounced in a specific way.

When Elaine is surprised or shocked, she cries: “Get out!” to the responsible person while pushing him strongly away using both arms.

George repeatedly pretends that he is an architect (which is the job he always wanted to have). In the first season he invents a fictive name “Vandeley” which he uses later (in season 3) to create a name of a fictional company “Vandeley Industries” he

49 Mentioned by Jason Alexander in the “Inside Look” on “The Outing” episode (season 4). 49 fictionally works in and the name is also used in the very last episode (“The Final”

[season 9]) for the name of the judge.

Due to the reappearance, running gags intensify (especially regular) viewers‟ participation in the in-joke and their progressive familiarity with the structure of humour in the episodes. Running gags can be realized by verbal techniques as well as by physical acting.

4.8 Ridicule and Self-Ridicule

Ridicule with its particular shapes (discussed one by one in this section) is a frequent method used in Seinfeld. Moreover, it is common for the creators and actors that they are allusive to themselves and thereby producing self-ridicule.

To begin with, parody is often used in the series. Linda Hutcheon deals with it in her book A Theory of Parody and writes that the traditional definitions of parody

“demand the inclusion of the intent to ridicule” (Hutcheon 2000: 49). However, she points out that “many parodies today do not ridicule the backgrounded texts but use them as standards by which to place the contemporary under scrutiny” (Hutcheon 2000:

57). She goes beyond a dictionary definition and describes parody for instance, as “an important mode of modern self-reflexivity” (Hutcheon 2000: 34) or “the major means of creating new levels of meaning – and illusion” (Hutcheon 2000: 30), and is concerned not only with parody in literature, but also in music, architecture, film and the visual arts (Hutcheon 2000: 34-35). This aspect is important as this analysis is focused on television series.

Ira Konigsberg, in his film dictionary, defines parody as “a work that comically imitates another work or group of works of a more serious nature. The parody performs its humorous imitation by picking out the more pronounced and sometimes silly elements of its subject and exaggerating them, though it may do so in a good-natured as

50 well as sarcastic manner” (Konigsberg 1997: 288). Konigsberg‟s mention of “picking out elements” is important for dealing with Seinfeld because basically, it is not a text being imitated and parodied but more likely the aspects of life.

To provide some particular examples is the most suitable way to demonstrate it.

Romantic films are addressed (such as when Jerry has to make a crucial decision about whether he really wants to be with his girlfriend in “The Voice” episode of season 9; he is sitting alone on a bridge, preoccupied, imagining them while a romantic song is being played50) as are dramatic film scenes (such as when Marlon Brando‟s voice in The

Godfather is parodied in “The Baby Shower” episode of season 2). The atmosphere of detective stories is parodied in “The Doorman” episode (season 6) where a sofa is stolen

(and it was Jerry who should have kept an eye on the hall replacing a doorman for a while) from the building where Elaine works and afterwards, Jerry and Elaine are dramatically speaking about what happened as if they were creating an alibi (the dramatic atmosphere of their conversation resembles more the circumstances of a committed murder than a stolen sofa).

When the parodied aspects are connected to the characters, creators or to the series itself, self-parody is produced. The Seinfeld creators and actors often allude to themselves or to the series via the characters. They work with the typical characteristics of themselves, personal habits and behaviour, the reality behind the creating of the show and others. For instance, in “The Chicken Roaster” episode (season 8) Jerry‟s and

Kramer‟s behaviour is parodied by the short interchanging of their roles (discussed in the section 4.3). The protagonists‟ characteristics are parodied in “The Bizarro Jerry” episode (season 8) where Elaine is meeting with a group of three friends for a while,

Kevin is representative of Jerry‟s counterpart, Gene of George‟s and Feldman of

50 This scene can be also viewed as allusive to one in “The Engagement” episode (season 7) because it is George who is sitting on the bridge thinking about his life and him proposing to his girlfriend Susan. 51 Kramer‟s. A man resembling Newman is also present in the episode; his name is

Vargas. Although all of them resemble the protagonists by appearance, their characters differ. They are very polite, honest, more intellectual, interested in reading and helping people, responsible – just the opposite to the main characters. Elaine is amazed; however, she behaves in the same way as she always does and “is so flawed that they reject her.”51

The aforementioned reflecting of reality is a source for self-ridicule on many occasions. The casting is parodied, for instance, in “The Pilot” episode (season 4) and also the reality is reflected and ridiculed in “The Pitch” episode (season 4) where

Kramer feels offended when he finds out he cannot play “Kramer” in Jerry‟s show on television (the metatheatrical approach is obvious) because he can‟t act. Larry David‟s and Kenny Kramer‟s commentaries in “How It Began” (season 2) reveal that Kenny

Kramer (i.e. real-life Kramer) wanted to play the character as well.

Considering acting, Jerry‟s acting is parodied on many occasions throughout the episodes. His stand-ups are often parodied by Kramer such as in “The Doll” episode

(season 7) when he is giving Jerry advice to talk about styrofoam in his stand-up and is imitating Jerry‟s talk or in “The Bookstore” episode (season 9) when he is alone in

Jerry‟s flat and is doing a stand-up for his own fun in front of self-made curtains, being dressed in a suit and holding a wooden spoon which is meant to represent a microphone.

Jerry‟s stand-up about Plato in “The Stake Out” episode (season 1) can be also viewed as hidden self-parody as his monologue goes as follows: “Apparently, Plato who came up with the concept of platonic relationship was pretty excited about it. He named it after himself. He said: „Yeah, I got this new thing. Platonic. My idea, my name,

51 David Mantel‟s (writer) comment on the episode in the “Inside Look” on “The Bizarro Jerry” episode. 52 calling it after myself.‟”52 The spectators can perceive this bit as self-parody because

Seinfeld called the series after himself as well.

The last example of self-parody provided in the thesis is chosen from “The

Final” episode (season 9) where the trial (discussed formerly in the section 4.5) takes place. The district attorney claims in the trial that the protagonists‟ bad manners revealed to the judge (thanks to the witnesses) are “part of a pattern of antisocial behaviour that‟s been going on for years,”53 which can be perceived as a reference to the series as it remained on television for nine years.

When there is no external work of art used for the ridicule, it is not accurate to speak about a parody. It is a satire which targets the general aspects of life and deals with individual, social or political ridicule (Vlašín 1977: 341). It can ridicule speech and behaviour patterns as well as human inadequacies and social conditions (Karpatský

2001: 488-489). Public events are satirized, as Single Bullet Theory connected with president John F. Kennedy‟s assassination in “The Boyfriend” episode of season 3 where Kramer and Newman explain they were spat on by someone claiming that the spit hit both of them, while Jerry demonstrates on them – using a golf pole – that they both could not have been hit by a single spit, shows them what the trajectory would have to look like and concludes there must have been a second “spitter”. Another example of a satirized event is the aforementioned O. J. Simpson‟s trial and the gloves he tried on over a pair of rubber gloves being the key piece of evidence. There is a trial in “The Caddy” episode (season 7) where a woman walking in the street with only a bra on is accused of causing Kramer‟s car accident. Jackie Chiles leads the prosecution. She is asked to try the bra on as evidence whether it fits her or not. She tries it on a leotard

52 “The Stake Out.” Seinfeld [season 1]. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Tom Cherones. Prod. Castle Rock Entertainment. 1990. Columbia TriStar Home Entertainment, 2004. DVD. 53 “The Final.” Seinfeld [season 9]. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Andy Ackerman. Prod. Castle Rock Entertainment. 1998. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, 2007. DVD. 53 she is wearing and cannot hook it up. The reference is even clearer when Chiles says:

“Of course a bra‟s not gotta to fit over a leotard. A bra‟s gotta fit right up against a person‟s skin. Like a glove!”54

Political meetings and elections are also dealt with. In “The Cadillac” episode

(season 7) retirees living in a Florida condominium have their own board with a president, elections and rules as a state system does. Even publicly known people are imitated. Mr. Pitt, Elaine‟s boss, speaks at a conference and resembles Adolf Hitler in

“The Gymnast” episode (season 6) because he accidently smears ink above his lips which then looks like Hitler‟s moustache. His speech and gestures also remind the audience of Hitler. President Richard Nixon‟s resignation and gestures are imitated in

“The Cadillac” episode when Morty Seinfeld, the president of the Florida condo, is accused of impeachment and dismissed. He is leaving his apartment and when he is at his car, he waves in the same way as Nixon did boarding his airplane. Occupations in general are ridiculed (for instance, Jackie Chiles is an embodied ridicule of lawyers).

The debate on racial issues is satirized in “The Yada Yada” episode (season 8) where

Jerry, who is Jewish, does not like his dentist (Whatley) because he suspects he converted to Judaism only for the jokes. Kramer finds it discriminatory:

JERRY. So you won‟t believe what happened with Whatley. It got back to him

that I made this little dentist joke and he got all offended. Those people

(scornfully) can be so touchy.

KRAMER. “Those people.” Listen to yourself.

JERRY. What?

KRAMER. You think that dentists are so different from me and you? They came

to this country just like everybody else in search of a dream.

54 “The Caddy.” Seinfeld [season 7]. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Andy Ackerman. Prod. Castle Rock Entertainment. 1996. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, 2006. DVD. 54 JERRY. Whatley‟s from Jersey.

KRAMER. (moralizing) Yes, and now... he‟s a full-fledged American.

JERRY. Kramer, he‟s just a dentist.

KRAMER. Yeah, and you‟re an anti-dentite.

JERRY. I‟m not an anti-dentite.

KRAMER. (forcefully) You‟re a rabid anti-dentite. Oh, it starts with a few jokes

and some slurs: (shouting) “Hey, denty!” Next thing, you know, you‟re

saying they should have their own schools.

JERRY. (opposing) They do have their own schools.

KRAMER. (pointing at Jerry to signify that is what he means) Yeah, yeah,

yeah!55

Childish behaviour is ridiculed when Jerry‟s father and his friends behave childishly in “The Cadillac” episode (season 7) as senior people sometimes do, when

George keeps repeating sentences after Jerry right after he said them (“The Wallet”

[season 4]) or when Elaine attends a drawing class in “The Doodle” episode (season 6) and behaves like a teenage girl (she is gossiping with her classmate, using the casual way of speaking typical of teenagers, chewing gum during the class, making faces etc.).

She is given a warning by her teacher which also satirizes high school rules.

The automatic pre-recorded voice on information lines is ridiculed in “The Pool

Guy” episode (season 7) where Kramer‟s number is often mistaken for a movie information line, so he adopts the role of a tape informing people on what movie can be watched in which cinema in the city demanding the same responses from the callers as these machines do. Kramer is imitating the artificial voice of such machines for the

55 “The Yada Yada.” Seinfeld [season 8]. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Andy Ackerman. Prod. Castle Rock Entertainment. 1997. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, 2007. DVD.

55 whole scene and George, who is calling, does not even recognize him (exaggeration and montage contributes to the comical effect as well). The scene is as follows:

GEORGE. (dialling the mistaken number for the movie information)

KRAMER. Hello and welcome to Moviephone. If you know the name of the

movie you‟d like to see, press one.

GEORGE. (pressing the button in a hurry) Come on, come on.

KRAMER. Using your touch-tone keypad, please enter the first three letters of

the movie title now.

GEORGE. (pressing three buttons)

KRAMER. You‟ve selected... (hesitating) Agent Zero (rather questioningly). If

that‟s correct, press one.

GEORGE. (does not understand) What?

KRAMER. You‟ve selected Brown-Eyed Girl. If this is correct, press one.

GEORGE. (silent, waiting for further instructions)

KRAMER. (silent for a while as well, confused) Why don‟t you just tell me the

name of the movie you selected?

GEORGE. (confused) Chunnel.

KRAMER. To find the theatre nearest to you, please enter your five-digit ZIP

code now.

GEORGE. (pressing buttons)

KRAMER. (puzzled) Why don‟t you just tell me where you wanna see the

movie?

GEORGE. (bewildered) Lowes Paragon, 84th on Broadway.

KRAMER. Chunnel is playing at the Paragon 84th Street cinema in the main

theatre at 9:30 p.m.

56 GEORGE. (hanging up and running out of his flat) Now, I‟ve got you.

KRAMER. (still on the phone) It‟s also playing in theatre number two at 9:00.56

The imitation of non-American accents from anywhere in the world appears in a number of episodes. Some character-foreigners speaking English with a strong mother- tongue accent recur in the series such as Poppie (Italian) or Babu (Pakistani). The

British accent is ridiculed quite often (character Marla) as well as Italian (in “The

Barber” episode of season 5; not only is the Italian accent ridiculed here but also Italian impulsive behaviour) or Romanian (the Romanian gymnast from “The Gymnast” episode of season 6) and others.

To conclude this section, I focus on the terms “encoder” and “decoder” used by

Linda Hutcheon. They are important for the concept of parody and can be also applied to other kinds of ridicule. Considering the encoders and decoders, she defines parody as follows:

Parody is a sophisticated genre in the demands it makes on its practitioners and

its interpreters. The encoder, then the decoder, must effect a structural

superimposition of texts that incorporates the old into the new …. In some ways,

parody might be said to resemble metaphor. Both require that the decoder

construct a second meaning through inferences about surface statements and

supplement the foreground with acknowledgement and knowledge of a

backgrounded context. (Hutcheon 2000: 33-34)

She also claims in terms of a text, which can be extended to a ridiculed work in general, that the “producers must assume both a shared cultural and linguistic set of codes and the familiarity of the reader with the text parodied” (Hutcheon 2000: 95) and that “the reader too must share a certain amount of this sophistication, if not skill, for it is the

56 “The Pool Guy.” Seinfeld [season 7]. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Andy Ackerman. Prod. Castle Rock Entertainment. 1995. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, 2006. DVD. 57 reader who must effect the decoding of the superimposed texts by means of his or her generic competence” (Hutcheon 2000: 96). Therefore, the recipients are then “active co- creators” (Hutcheon 2000: 93) of it and if they “miss a parodic allusion, they will merely read the text like any other” (Hutcheon 2000: 94).

Ridicule with its particular shapes is a frequent method used in Seinfeld. It deals with a wide range of topics and aspects, including references to the series itself, and requires the audience to be familiar with the original images and aspects which are ridiculed. The method of ridicule and self-ridicule can be realized verbally, non-verbally or by the combination of spoken word and physical acting.

58 5 Conclusion

In conclusion of my thesis, I would like to summarize what has been analyzed therein. Seinfeld is a situation comedy based on situations which change throughout the series as the topics do from one episode to another. The recurring characters‟ fixed personalities are showed by means of the changing situations. The series also benefits from the presence of a real audience during the filming as it helps the actors and creators ensure that both speeches and acting are well-timed.

Although humour is a subjective entity, what is funny for someone does not necessarily have to be perceived comical by somebody else (depending on various factors such as age, gender, knowledge, personal experience, preferences, and others), it was possible to find components which are repeatedly bound together in variations and therefore, create a structure of humour in Seinfeld.

The topics for the show are diverse throughout the series; nevertheless, both groups of the analyzed categories are applied at the same time. One category expresses the topics and thoughts (what), the other gives shape to the ideas (how). Therefore, it was essential not to neglect the criterion of content and form. These are two completely different aspects which must not be blended together.

It was demonstrated by the particular examples provided in every section of the thesis that a single episode contains many different variations of combining techniques and methods. Every section dealing with the methods was concluded by a statement which illustrated which kinds of techniques can be possible realizations for that particular method.

To conclude, it was proved that humour in Seinfeld has its structure and therefore, does not have to be explained in terms of subjectivity only.

59 6 Summary

This thesis deals with the structure of humour in the situation comedy Seinfeld, drawing from the episodes of all nine seasons of the show and concentrating predominantly on the main characters. After introducing the background information on situation comedy in general, on the specificity of the Seinfeld series, it analyzes humour components and divides them into two categories, content-based and form-based. A content-based category is called a method and can be defined as a group of elements and aspects involved in the series to deliver humour with regard to the idea they express (i.e. what is expressed). On the contrary, a form-based category is called a technique and can be defined as a group of elements and aspects creating the way how something (an idea, a thought, feelings etc.) is expressed.

The techniques are further grouped in three main sections according to whether they work with spoken language (verbal techniques), physical expression (non-verbal techniques) or can use both of them (combined techniques). The first group involves dialogues and monologues, the second one physical comedy with pantomimic features and montage, the last one gag. The methods in Seinfeld are language, metaphorical expression, the twist of perspective, exaggeration and caricature, stand-up, running gag, ridicule and self-ridicule. Every category is theoretically described and provided with particular examples from the episodes.

The analysis proposes that every single method is realized at least by one of the techniques, moreover, sometimes there are more possible techniques to give shape to a thought (for instance, self-parody, as a particular realization of self-ridicule, can be delivered verbally by means of a monologue or non-verbally by means of physical comedy). In conclusion, the results of the analysis are summarized, demonstrating that the content-based and form-based categories must not be blended together.

60 7 Shrnutí

Tato práce se zabývá strukturou humoru v situační komedii Seinfeld. Čerpá z epizod všech devíti sezón Seinfelda, zaměřujíc se především na hlavní postavy. Poté, co seznámí čtenáře se situační komedií obecně a s pozadím tvorby Seinfelda, analyzuje jednotlivé složky humoru a na základě toho, zda jsou založené na obsahu, či formě, je dělí do dvou kategorií. Obsahové kategorie vymezuje jako metody. Metodu lze definovat jako soubor prvků, jež zprostředkovávají humor s ohledem na vyjádřený obsah (tj. co je vyjádřeno). Kategorie týkající se formy se nazývají techniky. Ty lze popsat jako soubor prvků, které vytvářejí způsob, jakým je něco (nápad, myšlenka, pocity aj.) vyjádřeno, tedy jak je něco vyjádřeno.

Dané techniky jsou dále děleny na základě toho, zda pracují s mluveným slovem

(verbální techniky), fyzickým výrazem (neverbální techniky) nebo zda mohou využívat obojí (kombinované techniky). První ze skupin čítá dialogy a monology, druhá fyzickou komedii, prvky pantomimy a montáž, třetí pak gag. Metody obsahují slova vytvořená tvůrci Seinfelda, metaforické výrazy, překroucenou perspektivu světa, hyperbolu a karikaturu, stand-up komedii, průběžně se opakující žerty, zesměšnění a sebezesměšnění. Každá z kategorií je popsána teoreticky a doplněna konkrétními příklady z dílů.

Kromě popsání jednotlivých kategorií je cílem práce dokázat, že každá z jednotlivých metod je realizována nejméně jednou z technik, propůjčující tak myšlence konkrétní formu, někdy však i více technikami (například sebeparodie, jako konkrétní realizace sebezesměšnění, může být vyjádřena verbálně formou monologu, stejně tak i neverbálně formou fyzické komedie). V závěru práce jsou shrnuty výsledky analýzy, které dokládají, jak je důležité nesměšovat obsahové kategorie s těmi formálními.

61 8 Primary Sources

Season 1

“The Robbery.” Seinfeld. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Tom Cherones. Prod.

Castle Rock Entertainment. 1990. Columbia TriStar Home Entertainment, 2004.

DVD.

“The Seinfeld Chronicles.“ Seinfeld. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Art Wolff.

Prod. Castle Rock Entertainment. 1989. Columbia TriStar Home Entertainment,

2004. DVD.

“The Stake Out.” Seinfeld. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Tom Cherones.

Prod. Castle Rock Entertainment. 1990. Columbia TriStar Home Entertainment,

2004. DVD.

Season 2

“The Apartment.” Seinfeld. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Tom Cherones.

Prod. Castle Rock Entertainment. 1991. Columbia TriStar Home Entertainment,

2004. DVD.

“The Baby Shower.” Seinfeld. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Tom Cherones.

Prod. Castle Rock Entertainment. 1991. Columbia TriStar Home Entertainment,

2004. DVD.

Season 3

“The Boyfriend.” Seinfeld. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Tom Cherones.

Prod. Castle Rock Entertainment. 1992. Columbia TriStar Home Entertainment, 2004.

DVD.

62 Season 4

“The Contest.” Seinfeld. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Tom Cherones. Prod.

Castle Rock Entertainment. 1992. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, 2005.

DVD.

“The Implant.” Seinfeld. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Tom Cherones. Prod.

Castle Rock Entertainment. 1993. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, 2005.

DVD.

“The Junior Mint.” Seinfeld. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Tom Cherones.

Prod. Castle Rock Entertainment. 1993. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment,

2005. DVD.

“The Pilot.” Seinfeld. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Tom Cherones. Prod.

Castle Rock Entertainment. 1993. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, 2005.

DVD.

“The Pitch.” Seinfeld. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Tom Cherones. Prod.

Castle Rock Entertainment. 1992. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, 2005.

DVD.

“The Visa.” Seinfeld. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Tom Cherones. Prod.

Castle Rock Entertainment. 1993. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, 2005.

DVD.

“The Wallet.” Seinfeld. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Tom Cherones. Prod.

Castle Rock Entertainment. 1992. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, 2005.

DVD.

63 Season 5

“The Barber.” Seinfeld. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Tom Cherones. Prod.

Castle Rock Entertainment. 1993. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, 2005.

DVD.

“The Dinner Party.” Seinfeld. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Tom Cherones.

Prod. Castle Rock Entertainment. 1994. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment,

2005. DVD.

“The Glasses.” Seinfeld. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Tom Cherones. Prod.

Castle Rock Entertainment. 1993. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, 2005.

DVD.

“The Hamptons.” Seinfeld. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Tom Cherones.

Prod. Castle Rock Entertainment. 1994. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment,

2005. DVD.

“The Non-Fat Yogurt.” Seinfeld. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Tom

Cherones. Prod. Castle Rock Entertainment. 1993. Sony Pictures Home

Entertainment, 2005. DVD.

“The Opposite.” Seinfeld. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Tom Cherones. Prod.

Castle Rock Entertainment. 1994. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, 2005.

DVD.

“The Puffy Shirt.” Seinfeld. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Tom Cherones.

Prod. Castle Rock Entertainment. 1993. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment,

2005. DVD.

“The Raincoats.” Seinfeld. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Tom Cherones.

Prod. Castle Rock Entertainment. 1994. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment,

2005. DVD.

64 “The Stand-In.” Seinfeld. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Tom Cherones. Prod.

Castle Rock Entertainment. 1994. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, 2005.

DVD.

Season 6

“The Beard.” Seinfeld. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Andy Ackerman. Prod.

Castle Rock Entertainment. 1995. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, 2005.

DVD.

“The Couch.” Seinfeld. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Andy Ackerman. Prod.

Castle Rock Entertainment. 1994. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, 2005.

DVD.

“The Doodle.” Seinfeld. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Andy Ackerman. Prod.

Castle Rock Entertainment. 1995. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, 2005.

DVD.

“The Doorman.” Seinfeld. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Andy Ackerman.

Prod. Castle Rock Entertainment. 1995. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment,

2005. DVD.

“The Fusilli Jerry.” Seinfeld. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Andy Ackerman.

Prod. Castle Rock Entertainment. 1995. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment,

2005. DVD.

“The Gymnast.“ Seinfeld. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Andy Ackerman.

Prod. Castle Rock Entertainment. 1994. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment,

2005. DVD.

65 “The Jimmy.” Seinfeld. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Andy Ackerman. Prod.

Castle Rock Entertainment. 1995. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, 2005.

DVD.

“The Label Maker.” Seinfeld. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Andy Ackerman.

Prod. Castle Rock Entertainment. 1995. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment,

2005. DVD.

“The Pledge Drive.” Seinfeld. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Andy Ackerman.

Prod. Castle Rock Entertainment. 1994. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment,

2005. DVD.

“The Secretary.” Seinfeld. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. David Owen

Trainor. Prod. Castle Rock Entertainment. 1994. Sony Pictures Home

Entertainment, 2005. DVD.

“The Soup.“ Seinfeld. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Andy Ackerman. Prod.

Castle Rock Entertainment. 1994. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, 2005.

DVD.

Season 7

“The Caddy.” Seinfeld. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Andy Ackerman. Prod.

Castle Rock Entertainment. 1996. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, 2006.

DVD.

“The Cadillac.” Seinfeld. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Andy Ackerman.

Prod. Castle Rock Entertainment. 1996. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment,

2006. DVD.

66 “The Doll.” Seinfeld. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Andy Ackerman. Prod.

Castle Rock Entertainment. 1996. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, 2006.

DVD.

“The Engagement.” Seinfeld. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Andy Ackerman.

Prod. Castle Rock Entertainment. 1995. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment,

2006. DVD.

“The Gum.” Seinfeld. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Andy Ackerman. Prod.

Castle Rock Entertainment. 1995. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, 2006.

DVD.

“The Invitations.” Seinfeld. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Andy Ackerman.

Prod. Castle Rock Entertainment. 1996. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment,

2006. DVD.

“The Pool Guy.” Seinfeld. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Andy Ackerman.

Prod. Castle Rock Entertainment. 1995. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment,

2006. DVD.

“The Secret Code.” Seinfeld. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Andy Ackerman.

Prod. Castle Rock Entertainment. 1995. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment,

2006. DVD.

“The Sponge.” Seinfeld. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Andy Ackerman. Prod.

Castle Rock Entertainment. 1995. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, 2006.

DVD.

67 Season 8

“The Andrea Doria.” Seinfeld. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Andy

Ackerman. Prod. Castle Rock Entertainment. 1996. Sony Pictures Home

Entertainment, 2007. DVD.

“The Bizarro Jerry.” Seinfeld. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Andy Ackerman.

Prod. Castle Rock Entertainment. 1996. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment,

2007. DVD.

“The Chicken Roaster.” Seinfeld. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Andy

Ackerman. Prod. Castle Rock Entertainment. 1996. Sony Pictures Home

Entertainment, 2007. DVD.

“The Little Kicks.” Seinfeld. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Andy Ackerman.

Prod. Castle Rock Entertainment. 1996. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment,

2007. DVD.

“The Susie.” Seinfeld. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Andy Ackerman. Prod.

Castle Rock Entertainment. 1997. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, 2007.

DVD.

“The Yada Yada.” Seinfeld. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Andy Ackerman.

Prod. Castle Rock Entertainment. 1997. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment,

2007. DVD.

Season 9

“The Betrayal.” Seinfeld. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Andy Ackerman.

Prod. Castle Rock Entertainment. 1997. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment,

2007. DVD.

68 “The Blood.” Seinfeld. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Andy Ackerman. Prod.

Castle Rock Entertainment. 1997. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, 2007.

DVD.

“The Bookstore.” Seinfeld. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Andy Ackerman.

Prod. Castle Rock Entertainment. 1998. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment,

2007. DVD.

“The Final.” Seinfeld. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Andy Ackerman. Prod.

Castle Rock Entertainment. 1998. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, 2007.

DVD.

“The Merv Griffin Show.” Seinfeld. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Andy

Ackerman. Prod. Castle Rock Entertainment. 1997. Sony Pictures Home

Entertainment, 2007. DVD.

“The Voice.“ Seinfeld. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Andy Ackerman. Prod.

Castle Rock Entertainment. 1997. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, 2007.

DVD.

69 9 References

Printed Sources

Balázs, Béla. Theory of the Film: Character and Growth of a New Art. New York:

Dover Publications, 1970. In Grodal, Torben. Moving Pictures: A New Theory

of Film Genres, Feelings, and Cognition. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2002. pp. 81-

82.

Boocker, Lee R. Elements of Film. New York: Harcout, Brace & World, 1969.

Collins English Dictionary. Glasgow: HarperCollins Publishers, 2007.

Dijk, T. A. van. Text and Context. London: Longman, 1977.

Grodal, Torben. Moving Pictures: a New Theory of Film Genres, Feelings, and

Cognition. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2002.

Havel, Václav. Protokoly. Praha: Mladá fronta, 1966.

Hořínek, Zdeněk. Kniha o komedii. Praha: Scéna, 1992.

Hrubín, Vít. Stavba filmového gagu. N.p.: n.p., 1970.

Hutcheon, Linda. A Theory of Parody: the Teachings of Twentieth-century Art Forms.

Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2000.

Karpatský, Dušan. Malý labyrint literatury. Praha: Albatros, 2001.

Konigsberg, Ira. The Complete Film Dictionary. New York: Penguin Reference, 1997.

Lakoff, George. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980.

Monaco, James. How to Read a Film: the Art, Technology, Language, History, and

Theory of Film and Media. New York: Oxford University Press, 1977.

Mukařovský, Jan. Studie II. Brno: Host, 2001.

Nünning, Ansgar, ed. Lexikon teorie literatury a kultury. Brno: Host, 2006.

Pavis, Patrice. Divadelní slovník. Praha: Divadelní ústav, 2003.

La Rochefoucauld, Francois de. Maximy a úvahy morální. Praha: Votobia, 1997.

70 Seinfeld, Jerry. SeinLanguage. New York: Bantam Books, 1993.

Stebbings, Robert A. The Laugh-makers: Stand-up Comedy as Art, Business, and Life-

style. Montreal: McGill-Queen‟s University Press, 1990.

Šklovskij, Viktor. Próza: Úvahy a rozbory. Praha: Odeon, 1978.

Šklovskij, Viktor. Teorie prózy. Praha: Melantrich, 1933.

Thomson, Philip. The Grotesque. London: Methuen, 1972.

Yule, George. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.

Vlašín, Štěpán. Slovník literární teorie. Praha: Československý spisovatel, 1977.

Webster‟s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language. New York:

Gramercy Books, 1996.

Wilde, Oscar. Jak je důležité míti Filipa. Praha: Jitro, 2004.

DVD Supplements

Alexander, Jason. “Inside Look.” Commentary on “The Opposite” episode (season 5).

Seinfeld. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Tom Cherones. Prod. Castle

Rock Entertainment. 1994. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, 2005. DVD.

Alexander, Jason. “Inside Look.” Commentary on “The Outing” episode (season 4).

Seinfeld. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Tom Cherones. Prod. Castle

Rock Entertainment. 1993. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, 2005. DVD.

Azzari, Thomas, and Tom Cherones. “Commentary on The Pilot.” Seinfeld [season 4].

By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Tom Cherones. Prod. Castle Rock

Entertainment. 1993. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, 2005. DVD.

“How It Began.” Seinfeld [season 2]. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Prod. Castle

Rock Entertainment. 1991. Columbia TriStar Home Entertainment, 2004. DVD.

71 Mantel, David. “Inside Look.” Commentary on “The Bizarro Jerry” episode (season 8).

Seinfeld. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Andy Ackerman. Prod. Castle

Rock Entertainment. 1996. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, 2007. DVD.

Luis-Dreyfus, Julia. “Inside Look.” Commentary on “The Busboy” episode (season 2).

Seinfeld. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Tom Cherones. Prod. Castle

Rock Entertainment. 1991. Columbia TriStar Home Entertainment, 2004. DVD.

“Running with the Egg: Making a Seinfeld.” Seinfeld [season 6]. By Larry David and

Jerry Seinfeld. Prod. Castle Rock Entertainment. 1994. Sony Pictures Home

Entertainment, 2005. DVD.

Seinfeld, Jerry. “Inside Look.” Commentary on “The Airport” episode (season 4).

Seinfeld. By Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Tom Cherones. Prod. Castle

Rock Entertainment. 1992. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, 2005. DVD.

72