Your email is not valid
Recipient's email is not valid
Submit Close

Your email has been sent.

Click here to send another


A show about intermarriage, Mad About You never once mentioned religion. It’s a monument to the comedic dangers of ethnic cleansing.

Print Email
(Collage: Tablet Magazine; TV photo: Full-Time Lover/Flickr; Mad About You still: NBC/Getty Images)
The Arbiter

The Arbiter is a weekly column dedicated to revisiting canonical works of art, high and low alike, in an attempt to reevaluate their merit. All media are considered; none are pitied. As an homage to the greatest Jewish guardian of memory, Marcel Proust, each work will be rated on a scale of one to five madeleines, with one pastry meaning the work should be forgotten posthaste, and five arguing for a spirited recollection.

TV shows, like lovers, are never as thrilling as they are when we first meet them, when they’re sexy and clever and lighthearted and doing their damnedest to impress us. Judging by its seven-year run on NBC and robust afterlife in syndication, the first episodes of Mad About You, which debuted in 1992, charmed enough people into sticking around with its stars, Paul Reiser and Helen Hunt, and caring for their foibles as newlywed Manhattanites named Paul and Jamie Buchman. Having gone back and watched 40 hours of this show in the course of one thoroughly regrettable weekend, I can say with confidence that Mad About You—a show born in and of a cultural moment that produced MC Hammer and Vanilla Ice, Celine Dion and Milli Vanilli—is a soulless hoax, a stifling bit of fakery that, due to the regrettable state of the human condition and the specific deformities of the era in which it was made, became a hit.

We weary viewers should have recognized the show’s particular heartlessness from the very first scene of the pilot. After some inane chatter about neglecting to drop off laundry at the dry cleaner, Jamie pops a question. “It doesn’t bother you that we haven’t had sex in five days?” she asks. “What’s going on with us?” Paul is quick to answer: “What’s going on is that we’re married five months and the sexual part is over. I thought you understood that. I’m sorry. That’s what happens now. I play checkers in the park and you start arguing with buses.”

In the hands of a greater comedian, Jamie’s complaint of sexlessness so early on in the marriage might have unleashed a brilliant bit that dissected, painfully and humorously, the anxiety men feel whenever their virility is called into question. But Reiser took the path of least creation; his response was fast, glib, sounded good, and had nothing to do with what educated, youngish New Yorkers sound and feel and think like. As anyone who’s ever written for a humorous college outfit knows, nothing is easier than dreaming up repartee; the true comedic art lies elsewhere, in the marvelous trick—mastered by the Jackie Gleasons and the Lucille Balls and the Bill Cosbys—of turning out lines that are both hilarious and heartfelt. Such nuance seems lost on Reiser, who was the show’s co-creator and received writing credit on all of its 161 episodes. The scene’s—and the show’s—chief failure is that Paul and Jamie’s dialogue isn’t funny because it doesn’t ring true.

Such sham writing is a small sin when the subject at hand is copulation, but when religion’s the issue, it’s intolerable. Consider this: In seven years of documenting the Buchmans’ voluble intimacy, Mad About You never once mentions the fact that Paul is Jewish and Jamie is not.

How do we know their religions? Well, for starters, Jamie’s father is played by Carroll O’Connor while Paul’s Uncle Phil is Mel Brooks. She is the daughter of Archie Bunker; he the nephew of the 2,000-Year-Old Man. Yet the Buchmans have nothing to say about Christmas and Hanukkah, welcome their daughter to the world without discussion of christenings or naming ceremonies, and live as if their identities were limited to talking fast and having brunch. Their desexualized relationship can be seen as a consequence of their deracinated lives, which make it impossible for them to be honest, emotionally connected, or truly funny.

From the standpoint of survival in the network jungle, however, Paul and Jamie may have been smart to exclude faith from their televised lives. Those intermarried couples that preceded them on the small screen paid a steep price for attempting a greater degree of connection to reality. In 1973, for example, Bridget Loves Bernie, about the marriage of a rich Catholic teacher (Meredith Baxter) to a poor Jewish cab driver (David Birney), became the highest-rated television show ever to get canceled. As historian and television critic David Zurawik notes in his indispensable book The Jews of Prime Time, the show was the fifth-most-watched of the year, which didn’t stop CBS from pulling the plug, a decision most likely influenced by the show’s controversial premise. Nearly two decades later, ABC arrived at a similar decision, canceling Chicken Soup, a sitcom starring Jackie Mason as an impoverished Jewish pajama salesman and Lynn Redgrave as his wealthy British landlady. Despite an audience of 16 million homes—making it, Zurawik notes, the 13th-ranked show out of a total of 110 that season—Chicken Soup lasted only eight episodes. It became the second-highest rated television show ever to get the boot. In the years leading up to the debut of Mad About You, the intermarriage game was television’s favorite sport: Richard Lewis and Jamie Lee Curtis (Anything But Love), Corey Parker and Tea Leoni (Flying Blind), and others all played at trying to make the union of Jew and gentile funny.

Reiser’s refusal to mention his Jewishness makes not only for slimy evasiveness—even Seinfeld casually referred to its star’s ethnicity every now and then, acting like it was no big deal—but also for an unspeakably shitty formulation of marriage. As my friend Alana Newhouse noted, the Buchmans’ marriage features the worst of both worlds, wedding Jewish anxiety with WASPish repression. They’re miserable, and they don’t talk about it.

Of course, demanding accuracy in sitcoms may seem preposterous. It’s not. The genre’s operating principle calls for airless environments, like workplaces or families, and depends on endless permutations of interactions between a few main characters for laughs. No sitcom, in other words, can succeed without predictability and familiarity. The great turn to life for inspiration; we laugh at Archie Bunker because we recognize in him something of the prickly prick next door or the retrograde uncle who infuriates and entertains us each Thanksgiving. This is also why the other 1990s sitcoms about intermarriage may not have been as successful as Mad About You, but are much more intriguing. We’ve no problem picturing Richard Lewis, say, engaging in some deliciously wicked fucking with the terrific Jamie Lee Curtis; he, we can see, is truly mad about her, and his madness translates into real passion that isn’t afraid to touch on the sorts of topics, like sex and ritual, that real passion incites. And that’s hot. The steamiest thing one can imagine Reiser and Hunt doing is waxing nostalgic about how they first met, which they do all the time.

Any show that was on the air for as long as Mad About You is of course likely to produce its share of small comforts. The marvelous Anne Ramsay, for example, plays Jamie’s sister Lisa, a chestnut-haired bundle of neuroses who often seems, in a fictional universe inhabited by walking stereotypes spewing one-liners, to be the only real human being around, and also the only real Jew. Her speech may be laced with psychoanalytical jargon, but her emotional instincts—Rage! Resentment! Infatuation!—are fiery, and they warm up, for brief spells, her otherwise deeply frozen milieu. Likewise endearing is Lisa Kudrow as the dippy waitress Ursula Buffay.

And yet, even these two talented actresses can’t save Mad About You from its deadening self. But let us not look back in anger: In the decade and a half since Paul and Jamie said their final network farewell, TV seems to have learned much about how to play out being married and being Jewish without resorting to shtick. Cable outfits like HBO now allow creators like Larry David the freedom to explore intermarriage not as metaphor but as life, funny and sweet and sometimes vicious. And shows like The Big Bang Theory feature nebbishes of all ethnicities (two Jews, an Indian, and a Texan), some of whom pine for the girl across the hall, a dumb blonde who turns out to be not so dumb at all. The result, often, is the kind of joyous, uproarious, lively humor that Paul and Jamie wouldn’t recognize if it crawled into their tidy, small bed.

Print Email

Daily rate: $2
Monthly rate: $18
Yearly rate: $180

Tablet is committed to bringing you the best, smartest, most enlightening and entertaining reporting and writing on Jewish life, all free of charge. We take pride in our community of readers, and are thrilled that you choose to engage with us in a way that is both thoughtful and thought-provoking. But the Internet, for all of its wonders, poses challenges to civilized and constructive discussion, allowing vocal—and, often, anonymous—minorities to drag it down with invective (and worse). Starting today, then, we are asking people who'd like to post comments on the site to pay a nominal fee—less a paywall than a gesture of your own commitment to the cause of great conversation. All proceeds go to helping us bring you the ambitious journalism that brought you here in the first place.

Readers can still interact with us free of charge via Facebook, Twitter, and our other social media channels, or write to us at Each week, we’ll select the best letters and publish them in a new letters to the editor feature on the Scroll.

We hope this new largely symbolic measure will help us create a more pleasant and cultivated environment for all of our readers, and, as always, we thank you deeply for your support.

I’ve seen the show recently. It didn’t age well. Most sitcoms don’t. (How many can you name that do besides Mary Tyler Moore and Taxi? Was Alex Reiger Jewish? Did it matter?). As notee, it was probably a strategic decision not to mention religion. So what? Would mentioning religion have made it a better show – doubtful. It is unclear whether the characters were Jewish or not – but it also wasn’t a plot point. As to the shallow cultural pit that was the early 90s – give me grunge and written tv shows over what is Dancing with the Stars and Kanye West any day.

Joel Lewis says:

The best put-down of mad About You occurs in an episode of Seinfeld. George is enaged to Susan Ross and, after being told by Susan he can’t hang out with his pals, is found in bed with his fiance’ watching Mad About You. George is fuming, Susan is all smiles as the theme plays & Larry david lets the audience know that mad About You sums about the hell which is domestic life.
yes, I too found the show lifeless and deracinated, more a vehicle to mirror creator Paul Reiser’s own life than any life recognizable to us civilians.

JCarpenter says:

So the alternative would be Woody Allen? _Annie Hall, _Manhattan, etc. Hollywood and the tv industry don’t do well with religion and faith, other than by portraying the culture it emanates from. It seems the best they can approach is the “spiritual but not religious” characterization, or an occasional “coming-home” episode as on _Numbers, an occasional nod to roots, but not a rootedness.

Joel, but isn’t ironic that Seinfeld never mentioned and dealt with religion at all, and pretended George was Italian (when he was clearly a nebbish Jewish sidekick for Seinfeld)

vacciniumovatum says:

Why are the men always Jewish and the women always gentile? I’m looking forward to the reverse situation. At least the children would be Jews…

Gil Brodsky says:

What’s interesting about the premise that prime-time sitcoms were not ready for seriously dealing with intermarriage is that by contrast prime-time dramas had proved that they were. The very popular and highly acclaimed Thirty-Something, with Ken Olin as Michael Steadman and Mel Harris as Hope Murdoch Steadman openly and complexly faced many challenges of their interfaith relationship: the December dilemma, shiva, bris, cultural stereotypes. That show lasted 85 episodes and 5 seasons, and when it ended even Time magazine had an editorial praising the show and mourning its passing. Ironically, Mad About You premiered the next season. Maybe Paul Reiser learned something from the experiences of Zwick and Herskovitz: that the great American dream couple is indeed the sensitive, slightly nebishy Jewish guy paired with the gorgeous and sexy (and sexual!) but also sensitive shicksa. But once you’ve built your character set with that formula (add in the usual array of work colleagues and family members) you don’t need to fill their characters out at all; they work just fine as empty shells cruising through empty plots.
I remember reading somewhere during the 90s that American men most wanted a clone of Jamie Buchman as a wife. I would have preferred a Hope Steadman.

OK, but how do you feel about My Two Dads?

Mad About You? Yeah, I vaguely remember that. And I’m sure this would have been an interesting and relevant critique back in the ’90s. As it is, this article reminds me of what happens when websites feel the need to always fill the content cycle – you start grasping at anything and everything.

Barbara says:

Couldn’t the author of this article think of something else to write about? With his talent and other writings, why would he waste his time with this?

Mad About You succeeded mostly because so many of us know (or knew) intermarried couples like the Buchmans who, if not quite the living stereotypes those characters were, were recognizable enough. As far as the December dilemma goes, most of us don’t require our sitcom characters to deal with it. Although Friends did it fairly admirably, in the case of Monica and Ross’s mixed upbringing and Ross’s insistence on teaching his son about Hannukah. BTW, I believe you’re mistaken as to the ethnic makeup of the Big Bang Theory crew. It’s one Jew, one Indian, one Texan, and one vaguely WASPy nerd with the last name Hofstadter, which is just as likely German as anything. There’s been no hint on the show that Leonard is supposed to be a Jew.

Thank you for clarifying for me why I hated this show so much! (Can you talk about Huff? Did you watch that show? Brilliant, if uneven — and no one watched it. On my list of the great underwatched shows along with Sports Night and Firefly.)

Ellen L. says:

Why write about this now? Is there a retrospective or something? Otherwise, it was a dull show and that’s that.

MFischer says:

You have to be kidding. All this show was about was intermarriage and religion. I don’t remember any other plot line. It was a moment when that seemed funny. Glad those days are over.

Seinfled was an hypocrite. Georges was always clearly Jewish (and based on Larry David) – I eman look at his parents ! So why say he is Italian ?
Helen was played by a Jewish-looking and Jewish-named actress – she was supposed to be Catholic.
And Kramer – was obvioulsy Jewish also even if the actor, to everybody’s surprise, is not.

But Seinfeld did not have the guts to acknowledge it was an all-Jewish characters show.

Dani ben Leb says:

I am with ben on this one.

I totally agree with the author. The traditional American TV networks are a disgrace. Hollywood also has a lot to answer for, in their hiding of Jewish identity. Thankfully, there is now HBO and “Curb Your Enthusiasm”

Here’s an article I wrote for Galus Australis a couple of years ago on this same topic.

This review is what? Twenty years too late? Who cares about Mad About You now? Why not try a TV show that made it to the 21st Century?

JCarpenter says:

Oh, then there’s Frasier and Lilith . . . .

How could Leibovitz ignore The Nanny, which unlike most Jewish intermarriage themed sitcoms actually occasionally addressed modern Jewish religion in its aspect of Israel worship?

Leibovitz also ignored Shalom Salaam, the British sitcom that addressed Jewish Muslim intermarriage.

Lainie Friedman says:

I loved this! How come you are so smart and wise, Liel Leibovitz?
It is so easy to sweep under the rug uncomfortable subjects and make a cheap joke, but this analysis is the real thing! Thanks so much!

Bridget Loves Bernie! Bernie was handsome, tall budding author who drove a cab. His parents ran a deli. Bridget was soooo gorgeous. Paul Reiser could never get Helen Hunt in real life.

Cherie says:

Did you know “Mad About You” is back on WGN (Chicago’s station) and can been seen via FIOS?

joanne says:

Helen Hunt sexy? Cold/whiney.
Paul Reiser also lacked sex appeal.
I could never get next to this show, because the characters talked at each other, never to each other, they were delivering parallel monologues.

dsdsds says:

The funniest thing about this article is that its author sees “Mad About You” as an example of “bad” humor, but what alternatives of “good humor” do they provide? “The Big Bang Theory.” I know taste is relative, and such, but that’s a good punchline in an article that aims to “judge.” Came out of nowhere and hit me right in the face. I burst out laughing like the non-obnoxious non-INTJ personality that I am because seriously?


Your comment may be no longer than 2,000 characters, approximately 400 words. HTML tags are not permitted, nor are more than two URLs per comment. We reserve the right to delete inappropriate comments.

Thank You!

Thank you for subscribing to the Tablet Magazine Daily Digest.
Please tell us about you.


A show about intermarriage, Mad About You never once mentioned religion. It’s a monument to the comedic dangers of ethnic cleansing.

More on Tablet:

Why the Teenage Girls of Europe Are Joining ISIS

By Lee Smith — Because they want the same things that teenage boys want: a strong sense of meaning and purpose