It’s more fun to watch “Friends” than “Seinfeld” (also known as “Walter Hoag is so wrong it’s insane”)
Madelyn Dewey
Netflix passed “Friends” on to HBO Max this year, effectively removing the show from its streaming library. “Friends” fans stormed social media to beg Netflix to rethink its decision, only to be met by a siege of angry “Friends” foes who haughtily declared the show too lame for any streaming service to host it.
The hill that a few incredibly misguided “Friends” foes have chosen to die on is that of the putrid purgatorial program referred to as “Seinfeld.” While fans of “Friends” vouch for the merits of their romantic comedy, “Seinfeld” fans argue that their misanthropic depression show wins the imaginary competition between the two 90’s sitcoms and deserves its spot on the popular streaming service Hulu. Obviously, they’re wrong.
“Friends” was on air from 1994 to 2004 featuring main characters Monica, Rachel, Phoebe, Chandler, Joey and Ross. It isn’t a perfect show. From some angles, “Friends” isn’t even a good show. I’m just trying to argue that it’s better than “Seinfeld,” which—let’s be honest with ourselves here—sets a pretty low bar.
“Seinfeld” was on air from 1989 to 1998 and followed the lives of characters Jerry Seinfeld, Elaine, George and Kramer. Note that Jerry Seinfeld is one of the show’s writers, stars and literally the show’s namesake. Also note that “Seinfeld” only has one female lead whose character is basically Jerry Seinfeld if he were a woman. For contrast, note that three of six main characters of “Friends” are women with their own personalities and struggles. Interesting.
In “Seinfeld,” Jerry’s character loves referring to individuals of the female gender as one, identically-minded group of people whom he—and the rest of the male gender—simply cannot comprehend. So, while “Seinfeld” seems to follow Jerry’s journey in failing to understand the female psyche, “Friends” wins points for its lack of sexist generalizations. The optimistic comedy asserts that every character is unique regardless of gender; life isn’t an ‘us versus them’ type of situation. In “Friends,” one person’s struggles become the whole group’s problem until the issue is resolved. Our titular “Seinfeld” star mostly whines about nothing until he makes a mess of his own life, or worse, the lives of people around him.
Here’s another core difference between the shows: attitude. Where the characters of “Friends”—minus Ross— tackle their issues cheerily and work to maintain optimistic mindsets, the characters of “Seinfeld” intrinsically either hate themselves or everyone else and color the show’s tone with intrinsic pessimism. “Seinfeld” characters’ exasperation with the world, with their fellow humans and with the disastrous consequences of their own decisions is projected through every line of the supposed ‘comedy.’ Don’t believe me? See season one, episode one.
In the beginning of this “Seinfeld” episode, Jerry tries to explain to his good friend George why clothes can’t be “over-dry” from being in the dryer too long using a disturbing analogy about death.
“Once you die, you’re dead,” Jerry explains with expressionless eyes. “Let’s say you drop dead and I shoot you. You’re not gonna die again, you’re already dead. You can’t over-die, you can’t over-dry.”
This morbid joke lays the show’s tonal foundations. “Seinfeld” thinks of things in terms of winning and losing, life and death. Since “Seinfeld” characters often see themselves on the ‘losing’ side of this spectrum, they make themselves miserable and decide to inflict this unhappiness on everyone around them rather than asking for help.
The vivacious “Friends” characters—not Ross—take a moment to give the world a chance before deciding to dislike it, ensuring a tone for the show that uplifts spirits rather than bringing them down. Monica never jokes about murdering Phoebe, and that’s why we’re soothed by their friendship rather than perturbed by it. Let’s look at season one, episode one of “Friends.”
In the first half of this episode, we meet Monica’s friend Rachel from high school: a spoiled rich girl who has just bravely run out of her own wedding with the hopes of starting a new life in New York City. The other main characters of “Friends” embrace Rachel immediately with open arms—even help her to literally cut ties with the family money by giving her moral support and cheering enthusiastically as she decides to destroy her family credit cards.
“Welcome to the real world,” Monica grins, hugging Rachel after the last card is cut. “It sucks! You’re gonna love it.”
This “Friends” scene symbolizes the start of an enduring team effort in which the six main friends decide to work together to keep each other from suffering through life. Though the characters acknowledge that they cannot live life without struggle, the friends will uplift one another rather than succumbing to the pessimistic worldview that suffocates “Seinfeld.”
If I’m going to make a solid argument, I should probably address the “Friends” character that I’ve been avoiding entirely: Ross—a man mutually despised by all of the show’s viewers despite his pivotal role. Ross is the pessimistic vortex of the friend group. He whines as much as Jerry Seinfeld, if not more, and does his darndest to ruin the lives of everyone around him because he’s just that miserable. Ross is, without a doubt, the worst part of “Friends.”
That being said, one terrible Ross among five cheerful friends is better than “Seinfeld,” a show populated entirely with Rosses. One might argue that in “Friends,” Ross contributes misery to an otherwise cheery tone, providing texture and depth to the show as his friends work to reverse his despondency. It is important to acknowledge that Ross is a three-dimensional character, like the rest of the main characters in “Friends.” That’s why it’s so easy to hate Ross as a human being, because he’s developed and because he’s a very hateable human being. In the world of “Seinfeld,” everyone is so pessimistic that there’s no way to avoid the plague of Ross depression. The Ross-ness is always there. And worse, “Seinfeld” characters all have the same sense of humor and basic personality traits. They wish they were as three-dimensional as that evil prince of darkness from “Friends.”
Okay, I’ve gotta wrap this up, so basically my argument boils down to this: watch “Friends” if you want to make it through life without being miserable 100 percent of the time. You can laugh along with Chandler’s endearing sarcasm and shake your head, bewildered, when the rest of the friend group tries to make Ross happy. No longer will you be forced to stare into the dead, soulless eyes of Jerry Seinfeld as he tells humorless jokes and waits for you to laugh. “Friends” will help you remember that humans aren’t all that bad, even if some humans are better than others. I think that’s something we all need a little of right now.
The One Where Friends is Outted as the Lesser 90’s Sitcom
W.C. Hoag
Fantasy is my favorite narrative genre and so, as someone who has consumed countless impossible stories, I understand the appeal of the classic 90’s sitcom “Friends.” How else can you explain a group of exceptionally attractive people living in massive “rent controlled” New York apartments while enjoying a lavish lifestyle that is utterly implausible? My friends, “Friends” is a fantasy story.
That’s okay though because, among its many trappings, fantasy is valuable because it provides escapism from a world we don’t want to think about and perhaps even some level of aspirationalism. Through this lens, it’s easy to see why “Friends” has been appealing to so many people for so many years.
This same lens, however, is what ultimately reveals how overrated “Friends” is. Escapism is at its most valuable when the escape is only a pleasant side effect; fantasy stories are important because of what they reveal about the intricacies of the human psyche—a curtain that is pulled back by juxtaposing characterization and a fantastical setting. “Friends,” however, is nothing but empty calories; it is what you turn on when you want to turn your brain off. If a 90’s sitcom is what you crave, you should instead watch The One That Actually Makes People Laugh. Yes, dear readers, “Seinfeld” is obviously the superior 90’s sitcom.
While both shows are indelible and endlessly rewatchable, without fail “Seinfeld” proves more valuable to revisit—even more than three decades after its premiere. Regardless of the situation, “Seinfeld” remains surprisingly timeless and thus is in constant conversation with modernity, whereas “Friends” increasingly feels more and more like some twisted Groundhog Day remake featuring David Schwimmer endlessly, repeatedly antagonized by his group of beautiful buffoons.
“Seinfeld” provides its own sense of Serenity Now, an escape into banality. The show thrives on the idiosyncratic nature of minutiae; it’s a comedic journey inward that feels particularly pertinent during a time when we’re forbidden from exploring outward. If you’ve ever stopped yourself from overthinking an awkward interaction you’ll understand the appeal, “Seinfeld” does the overthinking for you.
Famously it’s “a show about nothing,” but “nothing” proves to be the hilarious daily annoyances and frustrations that come with being a person living in the world, and these feelings really haven’t changed much between 1998 and now. “Seinfeld” is currently housed on Hulu and the streaming service helpfully divides iconic episodes into curated lists to make them even easier to consume. An episode exists for any mood or annoyance you could be dealing with during a given day; even during a pandemic in 2020—we can only hope to not get blacklisted at Hop Sing’s during a time when delivery is so essential.
“Seinfeld” will remain relevant for as long as there are dumb societal rituals people are forced to interact through. In turn, the show’s exploration of these rituals shapes the public lexicon. If “double dipping” a chip has ever skeeved you out, if you’ve ever referred to someone as a “close talker” or if you’ve summed up a conversation with “yadda yadda yadda” you have “Seinfeld” to thank. This eternal relevance causes the show to be continually experienced in the present tense while “Friends” and its endlessly looping plot is forever condemned to life as a 90’s relic.
While some “Seinfeld” criticism hinges around the show’s lack of character growth, that missing development is precisely what positions “Seinfeld” to be better received ad infinitum. Characters in “Friends” are presented as ignorant young adults who grow and learn throughout the show because of what they experience together; an admirable sentiment that ultimately establishes them as good people.
Tough look for “Friends” then when these good people fat shame Monica and turn queer people into punchlines like when Chandler’s drag queen father is constantly derided. This behavior feels at odds with the seemingly innocuous group whose friendship is strong enough to power them through life in the big city.
This isn’t to say that Jerry, George, Elaine and Kramer from “Seinfeld” are saints. Rather, the group of hilarious misanthropes are some of the most selfish and mean-spirited characters in television history. It’s the immoral characterization, however, that forms the foundation of the show’s transgressive comedy. Put simply, “Seinfeld” characters are part of the joke while “Friends” characters are just the mouthpiece for them—that show’s sense of humor amounts to pretty people reading from a joke book.
On the other hand, the “Seinfeld” characters themselves are the punchline. Jerry isn’t supposed to come across as a good person when he forces his date to move to better lighting in a restaurant and George certainly isn’t meant to be read as moral when he acts differently abled to use a bigger bathroom. These moments are played for laughs, however, because the characterization itself is what reveals the often-nonsensical constraints of interpersonal life.
Ross, Rachel, Phoebe, Monica, Chandler and Joey are forever trapped in an early-21st century time capsule while the “Seinfeld” crew gets to run rampant in the cultural consciousness for as long as people continue talking to each other. Their quirks shaped culture in the 90’s and continue to in the 2020’s. Seinfeldian comedy influences most of modern humor; if you’ve enjoyed the likes of “Arrested Development” or “Curb your Enthusiasm” you have the trailblazing path of “Seinfeld” to thank.
“Friends” is like Christmas; a widely celebrated, even more widely beloved institution that recognizes the warm and fuzzy feeling you get being around the people you love. Sometimes that’s not enough though, and “Seinfeld” is that show that gathers you around and tells you all the ways you’ve disappointed people over the past year. “Seinfeld” scratches me right where I itch, it’s Festivus for the rest of us and obviously the better of the 90’s sitcoms.