Entertainment
'Curb Your Enthusiasm' finale and its 'Seinfeld' moment: 'A joke 26 years in the making'
“Mr. David. It seems you have a history of doing the same things wrong over and over. And I truly hope this time you finally learned your lesson,” Dean Norris’ Judge Whittaker told Larry David — the fictionalized version of himself — during the series finale of HBO comedy “Curb Your Enthusiasm.”
He has not.
The line, which came with the judge sentencing the comedian and writer to a year in jail, was meant to be read as both literal and meta. Neither the fake Larry David, who has spent 12 seasons calling out “pig parkers” and insulting someone’s “beloved aunt”— and who now can’t even pay attention as his attorney Sibby Sanders (Sanaa Lathan) attempts to deify him to a jury — nor the real Larry David, who is a staunch defender of the similar ending for his and Jerry Seinfeld’s NBC sitcom “Seinfeld,” has ever been capable of learning a life lesson (Driving the point home, the last episode of “Curb” is titled “No Lessons Learned”).
“Curb” executive producer and showrunner Jeff Schaffer, who also directed Sunday’s finale, says the impetus for the finale came when they were writing a scene from earlier in the episode when a boy hits David’s character in the head with a ball. The child’s mother wants him to apologize and learn from his mistakes. The wisdom David’s character imparts to the tyke? That, despite being a septuagenarian, he’s never learned a life lesson.
“We realized we should own that and tell everyone Larry’s never learned a lesson and just do the finale again,” Schaffer says, adding that “Larry doesn’t care what you thought about the ‘Seinfeld’ finale. He cares so little about your thoughts that he’s going to redo it.”
And, although the “Curb” finale is full of call-backs and nods to the “Seinfeld” finale — including bringing back Seinfeld himself to be the episode’s Superman to save the day by getting the charges dropped — there is at least one major difference between the two. In “Seinfeld,” the four leads stand trial for their meanness and are sentenced to a year in jail together because they were caught mocking another person. In “Curb,” our hero’s on trial because of a decent act. He gives water to his friend Rae (Ellia English) when she’s in line to vote during a hot day in Georgia; a gesture that’s illegal under the state’s Election Integrity Act of 2021.
Still, Schaffer says “the parallel between the ‘Seinfeld’ and ‘Curb’ instigating incident doesn’t really exist” and that “it wasn’t something that motivated us in the writing.”
“It was Larry saying, ‘You know, this is crazy law in Georgia, I should get arrested for that,’” Schaffer explains. “It wasn’t ‘I’m gonna perform an act of kindness.’”
In an interview that has been edited, and condensed, for clarity, Schaffer and “Curb” co-star Susie Essman school The Times on “Lessons Learned” and other takeaways from the show’s last season.
Susie Essman, not Larry David, has the last line in the “Curb Your Enthusiasm” finale.
(John Johnson/HBO)
Susie, you have the last audible line of “Curb.” Your character, Susie Greene, and other key characters are fighting on the airplane on the way back to Los Angeles and you tell David’s character, in so many words, to shut up and go back to jail. How does that feel?
Susie Essman: It feels good. It made me very happy. I saw it last night for the first time. And I was like, “Oh, wow, I have the last line.” It’s fitting that Susie should have the last line in the world that we have created here. I don’t think that was on purpose. My voice just happened to be loud.
Jeff Schaffer: It was a final, strident grace note. When we were filming that scene, we tried a lot of different things, as we always do. There were these moves that as everyone was arguing, we would drift over to Larry. The idea, as we conceived it, was sort of ending on Larry’s face. When we were in the editing room, Larry goes, “This isn’t right. It shouldn’t end on me, it should end on our group.”
He was so great about that. Because when we ended on Larry, no matter what expression he gave, it still felt sentimental. And that’s not what we were going for. But when you end it on our guys doing what they do best, which is going at each other, you get this feeling of this is what they’re always going to be like. It’s the best retinal ghost of the show.
The finale also pays homage to Richard Lewis, who was sick while filming this season and died in February, by referencing a scene from the first episode of “Curb” and also seeing Larry continue to sabotage his friend’s love life. Were you intentionally trying to focus on him?
Essman: We didn’t know Richard was going to die, that’s for sure. He was not well, and clearly anybody who sees the season can see he’s not well. But his death was quite shocking. I don’t think anything was written toward that.
Schaffer: Once we knew we were going to do this recapitulation of the “Seinfeld” finale, the question was how far do we take it? How close do we get to the end? I really wanted us to get to that pull-out shot [of Larry in jail and repeating a conversation he’s already had; just as Jerry had done]. … It was all about [let’s] take it as far as we possibly can and make people think that we just were redoing it, shot for shot at the end.
There’s also a whole bit in the courtroom of David swatting at a fly as his attorney attempts to lionize him. And some of it is shot from the fly’s point of view. Why did you want to change up the look of the show by directing that?
Schaffer: Honestly, because it’s funny seeing Larry really go into that straight-to-camera of him trying to kill that fly during this spirited defense. The fact that he didn’t hear a word she said was funny. So we were just mixing up the shots. We wanted that shot. We wanted to see it from the jury’s POV. We wanted him in the background. There was also just one shot of his hand slamming on the table.
It was just building that sequence out of Larry trying to hunt the fly like he’s a tiger in the jungle during that speech.
Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld in the series finale of “Curb Your Enthusiasm.”
(John Johnson/HBO)
The finale has a “Seinfeld”-like scene with Larry and Jerry riffing on a hypothetical about dating a bearded lady from the circus. I’m assuming there’s a lot of unaired footage from that exchange.
Schaffer: Larry had had this hypothetical that he wanted to talk about during the season. … We didn’t know what show to put it in. And it was like, ‘Oh, this is perfect.” I’m so glad we saved it. It was the perfect hypothetical for Jerry and Larry to talk about so you could just see these two be funny together and get a sense of “OK, maybe this is how ‘Seinfeld’ got written. It was just watching these two pals making each other laugh.”
And I’m assuming that Seinfeld was OK with poking fun at his show’s finale?
Schaffer: He loved it. After we shot the jail scene, he said, “This is so great. This is a joke that’s 26 years in the making.”
This season has also gotten some intense fan reactions. An actual billboard of Essman’s character modeling her line of caftans was defaced in a similar manner to what happened to the one on the show. And a fan at a Bruce Springsteen concert came with a sign that referenced the musician’s guest appearance on the show. How are you feeling about this fandom?
Essman: Oh, my God. People called and said, “Are you upset by this?” when the billboard was defaced. I thought it was the funniest thing in the whole world. I mean, it was no small feat to get up there and do the graffiti. … They needed ropes and scaffolding.
Schaffer: It was our genital “Field of Dreams.” If we build it, they will deface it.
And poor Bruce. He does us a huge favor. He does one day of shooting, and now, for all of his concerts .…
Essman: And let me say something very important: Bruce improvised that line. He was really not given his stuff. Sometimes, somebody comes on and they’re not an actor and are spoon-fed. That’s not true. He was brilliant.
Do either of you find the “Seinfeld” finale to be as divisive as the rest of the internet seems to?
Essman: I haven’t watched it since it aired. And honestly, when it aired, I thought it was fine. And I haven’t really thought about it since then.
Schaffer: Larry and I watched it again when we realized we were doing this. … And [we both thought] that it was funny. That made this even more perfect. Because it was like, if you didn’t like that, f— you. We’re gonna do it again.
That’s one of the things I love about this finale. It’s bigger than “Curb” and it speaks to Larry as a contrarian. It not only wraps up the show, but it helps wrap up all this amazing work that Larry has done in a very Larry way. [That] is, “I thought it was funny. And you know what, I still think it’s funny.” And you know what? He’s right.
Movie Reviews
Miyamoto says he was surprised Mario Galaxy Movie reviews were even harsher than the first | VGC
Nintendo’s Shigeru Miyamoto says he’s surprised at the negative critical reception to the Super Mario Galaxy Movie.
As reported by Famitsu, Miyamoto conducted a group interview with Japanese media to mark the local release of The Super Mario Galaxy Movie.
During the interview, Miyamoto was asked for his views on the critical reception to the film in the West, where critics’ reviews have been mostly negative.
Miyamoto replied that while he understood some of the negative points aimed at The Super Mario Bros Movie, he thought the reception would be better for the sequel.
“It’s true: the situation is indeed very similar,” he said. “Actually, regarding the previous film, I felt that the critics’ opinions did hold some validity. “However, I thought things would be different this time around—only to find that the criticism is even harsher than it was before.
“It really is quite baffling: here we are—having crossed over from a different field—working hard with the specific aim of helping to revitalize the film industry, yet the very people who ought to be championing that cause seem to be the ones taking a passive stance.”
As was the case with the first film, opinion is divided between critics and the public on The Super Mario Galaxy Movie. On review aggregate site Rotten Tomatoes, the film currently has a critics’ score of 43% , while its audience score is 89%.
While this is down from the first film’s scores (which were 59% critics and 95% public) it does still appear to imply that the film’s target audience is generally enjoying it despite critical negativity.
The negative reception is unlikely to bother Universal and Illumination too much, considering the film currently has a global box office of $752 million before even releasing in Japan, meaning a $1 billion global gross is becoming increasingly likely.
Elsewhere in the interview, Miyamoto said he hoped the film would perform well in Japan, especially because it has a unique script rather than a simple localization as in other regions.
“The Japanese version is a bit unique,” he said. “Normally, we create an English version and then localize it for each country, but for the first film, we developed the English and Japanese scripts simultaneously. For this film, we didn’t simply localize the completed English version – instead, we rewrote it entirely in Japanese to create a special Japanese version.
“So, if this doesn’t become a hit in Japan, I feel a sense of pressure – as the person in charge of the Japanese version – to not let [Illumination CEO and film co-producer] Chris [Meledandri] down.
“However, judging by the reactions of the audience members who’ve seen it, I feel that Mario fans are really embracing it. I also believe we’ve created a film that people can enjoy even if they haven’t seen the previous one, so I’m hopeful about that as well.”
Entertainment
Review: Monica Lewinsky, a saint? This devastatingly smart romance goes there
Book Review
Dear Monica Lewinsky
By Julia Langbein
Doubleday: 320 pages, $30
If you buy books linked on our site, The Times may earn a commission from Bookshop.org, whose fees support independent bookstores.
First loves can be beautiful or traumatic, sometimes both. They are almost always intense, with emotions on speed dial and hormones running amok. Nothing like the durable consolations of late-life romance, but headier, more exciting and, in the worst cases, far more damaging.
Even decades later, Jean Dornan, the protagonist of Julia Langbein’s smart, poignant and involving novel “Dear Monica Lewinsky,” can’t recollect her own first love in tranquility. Its after-effects have derailed her life, and an unexpected email invitation to attend a retirement party in France honoring her former lover sends her into a tailspin.
An agitated Jean finds herself praying to none other than Monica Lewinsky, the patron saint of bad romantic choices, or as Langbein puts it, “of those who suffer venal public shaming and patriarchal cruelty.” In Langbein’s comic, but also deadly serious, imagination, this is no mere metaphor. The martyred Monica has literally been transfigured into a saint. And why not? Surely, she has suffered enough to qualify.
Jean and Monica have in common a disastrous liaison with an attractive, powerful, married older man. Monica was humiliated, reviled, then merely defined by her missteps. Meanwhile, her arguably more culpable sexual partner survived impeachment, retained both his political popularity and his marriage and enjoyed a lucrative post-presidency.
Jean’s brief fling during the summer of 1998 coincided with the public airing of Monica’s doomed romance. Jean’s passion took a more private toll, but she still lives with what Monica calls “this deepening suspicion that your existence is a remnant of an event long since concluded.”
Though framed by a fantastical conceit, “Dear Monica Lewinsky” is at its core a realist novel, influenced by the feminism of #MeToo and precise in its delineation of character and place. Langbein’s Monica — having finally transcended her past and ascended to spiritual omniscience — becomes Jean’s interlocutor. Together, they relive the fateful weeks that Jean spent studying the Romanesque churches of medieval France and charming David Harwell, the Rutgers University medieval art professor co-leading the summer program.
Every now and again, Monica, as much savvy therapist as all-knowing seer, interrupts Jean’s first-person account to offer guidance. Threaded through the narrative, as contrast and commentary, is a martyrology of female saints. These colloquially rendered portraits, reflecting a punitive, patriarchal morality, describe girls and women who would rather endure torture or even death than sully their sexual purity — stories so extreme that they seem satirical.
The portraits play off the novel’s milieu: a series of churches, as well as the medieval French castle that is home to an eccentric and mostly absent prince. The utility of religious doctrine and practice is another of the book’s themes. One graduate student, Patrick, is a devoted Roman Catholic, unquestioning in his faith. Others are merely devout enthusiasts of medieval architecture. Judith, a doctoral candidate at Harvard, has an addiction of her own: an eating disorder that threatens to disable her.
A rising junior at Rutgers, Jean is one of just two undergraduates in the program. Her initial dull, daunting task involves measuring and otherwise assessing the churches’ “apertures” — windows and doors. Later, she is assigned to collaborate on a guidebook and write a term paper.
A language major unversed in art, architecture or medieval history, Jean feels overwhelmed at times. But she does have useful talents: fluent French and the ability to conjure delicious Sunday dinners for her bedazzled colleagues. (The author of the 2023 novel “American Mermaid,” Langbein has both a doctorate in art history and a James Beard Foundation Journalism Award for food writing, and her expertise in both fields is evident.)
As the summer wanes, Jean’s fixation on David grows. Langbein excels at depicting the obsessive nature of illicit, unfulfilled desire — how it swamps judgment and just about everything else. A quarter-century Jean’s senior, David is trying to finish a stalled book project, laboring in the shadow of his more prolific and successful wife, Ann. An expert on the erotically charged religious life of nuns and the art it produced, she shows up briefly in the story and then conveniently disappears.
David is smooth, seductive and, to 19-year-old Jean, far more appealing than the fumbling schoolboys she has known. But he turns out to be no more grown-up or emotionally mature. After the flirtation and its consummation, David beats a hasty (and unsurprising) retreat. Then he does something worse: He allows his guilt to shred his integrity.
In the aftermath of that summer, a wounded Jean stumbles through her last two years of college, “berserk, unfocused, humiliating.” She abandons her academic and career ambitions, takes a job as a court interpreter, and marries Michael, an affable nurse who has little idea of her emotional burdens.
Then that invitation, inspiring “a racy heat,” arrives, and Jean must decide whether to confront her past or keep running from it. Is there really much of a choice? Fortunately, she has the saintly Monica as her guide. More clear-eyed now, Jean must reject her martyrdom and reclaim her own truth and agency. If she does, David, at least in the realm of the imagination, may finally get his comeuppance.
Klein, a three-time finalist for the National Book Critics Circle’s Nona Balakian Citation for Excellence in Reviewing, is a cultural reporter and critic in Philadelphia.
Movie Reviews
‘I Swear’ Review – Heart Sans Sap, Cursing Aplenty
The sixth outing in the director’s chair for filmmaker Kirk Jones, I Swear dramatizes the real-life story of touretter John Davidson (played by Robert Aramayo). Tourette’s Syndrome, for those unfamiliar with the condition, is a nervous system disorder that causes various tics, the most prolific being erratic and explicit language. However, as I Swear expertly showcases, the syndrome is far more than ill-timed outbursts of curse words. Davidson’s story is one of societal frustration, finding your people (both with and without the condition), and using your voice to help others rise. The subject and subject matter are handled with absolute care and understanding under Kirk’s measured vision and Robert Aramayo’s BAFTA-winning performance.
The film kicks off with the greatest exclamation to democracy ever uttered (*%#! the Queen!), as a nervous John Davidson prepares himself before entering an awards ceremony hosted by Britain’s royal family. Right away, the film tells us what it is: a triumph over adversity that blends humor and human drama with education. It’s an important setup, as the film flashes back to Davidson’s 1980s youth, where we see his time as a star soccer recruit flatline as his condition takes hold. Davidson’s life spirals from there. Some aspects, like school bullying and accidental run-ins with authority figures, are expected but important to empathizing with young Davidson’s (young version, played with heart by Scott Ellis Watson) new everyday life. The more tragic, a complete meltdown of his family system, is unsettling if quick. His father (Steven Cree) is never given enough screen time to explore his alcohol coping tendencies. However, his mother Heather’s descent into easy fixes and blaming is crushing and convincing. Harry Potter series actress Shirley Henderson (Moaning Myrtle) gives a layered performance as Heather. Someone who loves her son, but also feels cursed by him as the entire family exits the picture. It’s bitter, she’s tired, and fills each conversation with ‘only medication and your mother can save you’ energy.
From there, the viewer and Davidson find refuge in a host of characters. Maxine Peake plays Dottie, the mother of a childhood friend and a retired mental health nurse. Screen vet Peter Mullan plays maintenance man Tommy Trotter. Together, they help Davidson build a life and an understanding of himself that carries the film forward into its second half. After that, the film is primarily a 3-actor show as director Kirk fills the screen with these tour-de-force performances. Peake and Mullan are great vessels to get the film’s main message across: patience, love, and a shared responsibility between the diagnosed and those who understand their struggle can help change the path for people quickly left behind by a normative world. Together, they are the soul of the movie, with the filmmakers clearly hoping the audience will follow their lead after they exit the theater (in my case, the beautiful Oriental Theater for the Milwaukee Film Festival). Both performances are perfectly warm and reflective and shouldn’t be left out in discussions of I Swear.
I say this because the movie is anchored by The Rings of Power actor Robert Aramayo, who leaves Elrond’s elf ears behind to bring an acute naturalism to his performance of main character John Davidson. Aramayo’s physicality and timing of the fitful Tourettes Syndrome never feel out of place or overplayed. In fact, the movie as a whole does an amazing job of never veering into sentimentality. While many moviegoers left with tissues dabbing their eyes, the filmmaking never felt like it was forcing that reaction out of audiences. It straddles the line between feel-good and reality with every story beat and lands squarely on the side of letting the real inform our feelings. Anyone with an ounce of empathy will grasp the film’s message and hopefully take it with them into life.
I Swear continues at the Milwaukee Film Festival on Tuesday, April 21st, and releases nationwide April 24th, 2026, courtesy of Sony Pictures Classics.
-
Tennessee4 minutes ago
How to celebrate TN Earth Day with nature hikes, workshops, 5k
-
Texas10 minutes agoFlorida truck driver charged with intoxication manslaughter in fatal West Texas crash
-
Utah16 minutes agoWhat Utah transfer Terrence Brown brings to the table for UNC
-
Vermont22 minutes agoLetter to the Editor: Suzanne Kenyon announces run for Vermont House
-
Virginia28 minutes agoNick Jonas set to perform at Caesars Virginia in June
-
Washington34 minutes agoPulitzer-winning Washington Post editor Dan Eggen found dead at 60 after being laid-off earlier this year
-
Wisconsin40 minutes agoWisconsin’s Mr. Basketball Announces Highly Anticipated Commitment Decision
-
West Virginia46 minutes agoChemical emergency at Kanawha County plant – WV MetroNews
