Why I will miss ‘Friends’

“People” magazine has already devoted several cover stories to it since Christmas. NBC’s sold ad space in it for a reported $2 million per 30-second spot. Thursday's series finale of “Friends” has been so excessively overhyped that even its most devoted fans may hesitate to add their praise to the unfettered bacchanalia attending it. Which is a shame, since “Friends” really does deserve its reputation as one of the best sitcoms in TV history.

One of the best, mind you — not necessarily “the best comedy ever,” as it was described earlier this year in a breathless and mercifully short-lived NBC promotion.

The overhyped promo is typical of the sort of crap that a “Friends” fan has had to put up with since the anti-“Friends” backlash began (sometime around Christmas 1994, halfway through the show’s first season, when suddenly producers added a monkey to the cast).

Yes, the show gets lauded in the media beyond all proportion; yes, there are more original sitcoms; yes, the cast started to grate a long time ago (and not just the monkey). But the fact remains that "Friends" is a funny show. It started out funny, and funny it remained right up to the triumphant, overhyped end.

A show about something
Detractors of “Friends” often do so on the grounds that it’s a rip-off of its NBC Thursday sitcom predecessor, “Seinfeld,” only more sentimental and less mean. Which it kind of is.

“Seinfeld” was a new kind of sitcom when it premiered, in that it wasn’t set among a family (like “Leave It To Beaver” and later “Family Ties,” “The Cosby Show,” and “Everybody Loves Raymond”) nor in a workplace (like “The Dick Van Dyke Show,” “The Mary Tyler Moore Show,” “M*A*S*H,” or “NewsRadio”). Instead, it was about a group that was just starting to be recognized by sociologists as an “urban tribe” — a group of thirtysomething singleton friends. Or rather “friends,” since from episode to episode, it often wasn’t clear that Jerry, George, Kramer, and Elaine even liked each other all that much; part of what made the show so entertaining was that it was built on such a solid foundation of misanthropy, and the characters’ hatred of the rest of humanity often got turned on one another.

If you really, really, really love ‘Seinfeld,’ chances are that the peppy quipsters of ‘Friends’ would get on your last nerve in a hurry.

“Friends” came along when “Seinfeld” was well established, its ratings high, and its format widely copied. In 1994, when “Friends” premiered, “Seinfeld” was at its creative peak, and while the audience was still interested in sidlers, regifters, and close talkers, perhaps we were ready to try a new show that focused less on obsessively codifying urban social behaviour, and more on attractive young people who seemed to care about each other (even if that caring generally manifested itself in the form of sarcastic one-liners).

Though “Friends” does bear some superficial resemblance to “Seinfeld,” with its sunny tone and eager-to-please little pop theme song it’s more like the anti-“Seinfeld.” This isn’t to say that it’s not possible to like both, but if you really, really, really love “Seinfeld,” chances are that the peppy quipsters of “Friends” would get on your last nerve in a hurry.

One other element “Friends” has in common with “Seinfeld” is an excellent cast. “Seinfeld” brought together a marginally famous standup comic and three character actors with no star credits, but George, Elaine, and Kramer really were the roles that Jason Alexander, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, and Michael Richards were born to play. (The universe apparently concurs, since none of them has yet had a hit post-“Seinfeld.”)

Casting magic
Something similar happened when “Friends” was cast: TV magic. None of the actors was a complete TV neophyte when they all turned up on “Friends,” but none was famous, either; Courteney Cox was closest to being a household name, and even she was best known as the girl pulled up on stage in Bruce Springsteen's “Dancing in the Dark” video. But as with the cast of “Seinfeld,” destiny seemed to play a part; all of the actors’ previous failed sitcoms (and there were several) were just part of fate’s larger plan to get them all to “Friends.”

As with the cast of ‘Seinfeld,’ destiny seemed to play a part; all of the actors’ previous failed sitcoms were just part of fate’s larger plan to get them all to ‘Friends.’

You can see it when you catch "Friends" pilot in syndication. Pilot episodes are seldom re-watchable because, by necessity, they’re crammed so full of exposition that there’s barely a plot line to follow. But the “Friends” pilot stands up remarkably well, partly because the producers made the canny decision of starting it with several short vignettes of the cast basically loitering in Central Perk, talking about nothing much but doing so entertainingly and in a manner that proved the show trusted us enough to get that they were all friends (you know — if the series title hadn’t already tipped us off).

Necessary backstory is revealed naturally, in the course of normal human conversation, in ways organic to the plot. The fact that it comes out because Rachel suddenly appears out of nowhere, fleeing her own wedding, and has to be brought up to speed at the same time we viewers do, certainly helps.

Even from that first episode, it’s clear that this group has chemistry. And they must have known it too, since it’s come out in recent years that there were rumblings from NBC, at the end of the first season, that some roles might get written out or recast. But the six actors resolved to stand firm in all negotiations, all for one and one for all, to preserve the show’s best asset: this particular mix of personalities.

Good casting is something you take for granted in a good show, and don’t notice until another show is poorly cast. If you happened not to be blinking last fall and caught any episodes of NBC’s “Coupling” — the remade British import that was groomed to be the new “Friends” – you might have observed that “Coupling” was just like “Friends.” That is, if “Friends” were populated by unlikable hams hired more for their looks than their ability to impersonate real human beings or interact believably with one another.

The “Friends” actors are starting to get old, and they make bad movies when they’re on hiatus, but something special and unique happens when they’re all gathered around that big-ass sofa at the coffee house. When you see the actors in movies, it’s clear that they can’t replicate that “Friends” energy or charm without the other Friends.

From brilliant to likable
The show has also benefited from having many talented writers. They’ve given us “The One With The Two Parties” (in which Rachel must deal with her parents’ new separation by attending two birthday parties simultaneously being thrown for her, one parent sequestered at each); “The One Where No One’s Ready” (the real-time episode where Ross tries and fails to corral the gang to attend a museum event); “The One Where Chandler Crosses The Line” (in which Ross busts out his old Casio and starts performing his horrible keyboard stylings at the coffee house); and “The One With The Wedding Dresses” (in which Monica picks up Ross’s fiancée’s gown, ends up liking the feeling of wearing it around the house, for fun, and ultimately gets Rachel and Phoebe to rent wedding gowns of their own to hang out in).

The characters are so well-drawn and well-known by now that we’re laughing as much at the lines as at our knowledge of the backstory they rest on.

On the macro level, the writers have also created multi-episode story arcs that are compelling to watch, and ring true for those of us who have hit similar real-life milestones and pivotal decisions — Chandler and Monica’s marriage; Ross’s fatherhood; the way Rachel and Joey have slowly established their careers; Phoebe’s search for her real parents; and countless new relationships and breakups.

From the tiny details that emerge in stand-alone episodes (Rachel fantasizes about winning a Grammy! Monica had a childhood crush on Kermit the Frog! Ross wears Designer Impostors cologne!) to the attributes that have emerged over the course of 10 strong seasons, the characters are so well-drawn and well-known by now that we’re laughing as much at the lines as at our knowledge of the backstory they rest on.

As they’ve grown into dull adults, happily paired off, secure in their jobs and homes and less inclined to fixate neurotically on trifling matters, the “Friends” may be less fun than they were in their carefree early twenties. You could even argue that, with a few sparkling exceptions, the show has been declining steadily since ’round about Season 5.

But in the grand scheme, that just means it’s gone from being a brilliant show to merely a very good, very likable one. Sure, it’ll live on in syndication for years (maybe centuries) to come, but it’s not the same: when there are no more new episodes of “Friends,” I’ll miss it very much.

Tara Ariano co-created and co-edits Fametracker.com and TelevisionWithoutPity.com.