In addition to the long arc featuring Aisha Tyler, there was also a singe episode guest-starring Gabrielle Union, again dating both Joey and Ross. Sort of the Charlie arc in miniature.
TroutMan wrote:
Friends was quite homophobic, especially viewed from today. See the linked article below for specific examples.
David Chase, the showrunner, was gay and Chandler, For all his daddy issues, was written to be broadly campy. I question how homophobic the tone actually was.
The term homophobic gets applied to people, usually men, who show discomfort with the idea of being gay. I don’t see anything wrong with it. In one case someone pointed out how one of ‘homophobic’ scenes was actually highlighting the insecurities of the straight characters. Some people aren’t that good at looking below the surface to understand what is happening.
Wasn’t there an episode where one of the women wanted the others to believe she kissed another girl in college. They don’t believe her so she tries to prove how she was ‘bi-curious’ (hope that term is not offensive). Is that supposed to make the show less homophobic? It seems to me to be using the same subject for laughs, which is okay, peoples insecurities are a real aspect of humanity that we should be able to laugh at.
On the other hand, a lesbian marriage…
I find them both offensive, but for different reasons.
Seinfeld, because it’s nothing but white assholes being assholes to other white assholes. Incredibly depressing. And as far as its being about nothing, that’s a glib, dishonest gimmick. Nothing is about nothing. And Seinfeld is about the breakdown of modern society, and the privileged white assholes who represent this at the same time they’re exploiting it.
Friends, because it’s an indulgent fantasy of white privilege.
This is another tangent but you can write an entire book on how Asians were the racial punching bag for black sitcoms/comedies well into the 2010s. Chappelle Show targeted a lot of races as part of it’s satire but the episodes against Asians seem the most mean-spirited now.
Seinfeld was actually about showing selfishness and assholery as attractive qualities, at least as far as Jerry and Elaine were concerned. Friends did the same thing, but to a much lesser extent; it showed flawed and damaged personalities as being something less than a deal breaker for relationships.
I thought just recently: when George fed disguised lobster to the Jewish woman in revenge, does that count as a hate crime?
Just to provide some non-US perspective: Seinfeld and Friends are pretty much shorthand for “least offensive classic comedies of the era” IMO; the idea that either of them could be considered to have risen above “a bit dated, perhaps” to “actually offensive” seems more than a bit bizarre to me.
No, it was a personal matter between the two of them, not any problem George had with Jews in general or Judaism. It doesn’t have to be a hate crime to be vile and disgusting. Didn’t Kramer steal those lobsters?
Yeah, but he didn’t know he was doing anything illegal.
Their sins are largely ones of ommission, and subtext, so the offensiveness requires some active analysis. For example, there are many overtly racist scenes in U.S. sitcoms of the latter ha!f of the 20th Century. But the racism of Seinfeld and Friends lay in their near erasure of Black people in their depictions of life in 1990s NYC.
They are both problematic when seen with modern eyes - for Friends, TBH, the fat-shaming is the real problem, especially since it seems to have affected some of the cast.
Seinfeld will be criticised less online because a, the characters were not supposed to be good people, and b, Friends has a waaay wider international viewership, so there are people from all over the world still talking about it.
FWIW I don’t find it unrealistic that the main cast of Friends was mostly white, because people do sort of cluster, but nearly all the occasional characters and extras were also white. I mean, Monica went to work at a diner, and they were all white, and Phoebe the former homeless girl apparently only knew white people. That’s what makes it seem like it was shot in a sort of totally white NYC that doesn’t fit reality.
I don’t know that I’d call it racist either. Unrealistic, unrepresentative, etc… sure. There’s no question about that.
But I feel like labeling something “racist” has to have had some degree of intent involved, or ought to at the very least. I don’t get the impression that the lack of non-white people is a deliberate choice on the part of the showrunner, casting people, etc…
Disagree–Seinfeld seems to almost unambiguously portray the four main characters as negative, not positive, examples. The finale of the entire series is basically a collective social condemnation of the four.
There is also strong anti-intellectualism in the show.
FWIW, I didn’t actually say it was racist.
But it was almost all white for background characters, even when you know lots of non-white people would have been showing up wanting to be extras or get one line, and it would have been a deliberate choice not to cast them - they can’t all have failed on their ability to walk down a road or say would you like a coffee.
It doesn’t mean the producers and casting directors were out and out racists at all, but they were definitely choosing to present a very very white NYC.
Yes! This part I found really strange. “A museum Urgh!”
It’s New York. People in big cities go to museums and always have. Rich and poor people go, more when they have kids, but it’s not something only nerds do.
And palaeontology is dinosaurs and considered cool by almost every small child, except Ross’s son and all his friends, apparently.
There was an episode where they implied Ross was a sexless virgin as a teen because he knew who Gandolf was.
Not sure I’d count that as anti-intellectual, just anti-nerd. That has actually changed a lot in the past 15 years or so.