Over the past year my wife and I have watched only two TV series live (the old-fashioned way in real time): “Game of Thrones” and “The Good Place,” which had its season finale last night.
In some respects these shows could not be more different; the big budget, violent hugely popular mega-show vs. the sweet, small sitcom that hardly anyone’s watching. But they have a surprising number of things in common. They are both highly serialized, densely plotted shows that wrestle with deep questions on how to conduct yourself in a sinful world, especially when your own impulses sometimes lean toward the baser side of life.
Stretching the analogy too far would be ridiculous because they land on different answers. In the dynastic power struggles of “Game of Thrones,” we learn early that being good itself is not enough. The fate of the guileless Ned Stark is proof of that, and from then on the more moral characters are constantly debating among themselves what ends justify what means. When we’re done with it, The “Game of Thrones” existential conclusion is that life is inherently tragic and that you need to do a lot of bad things to save the people you love — and then you’re punished for it!
There is no physical violence in “The Good Place,” but there is a similar struggle over how to live a good life. The premise of the show is that Eleanor, an attractive but selfish white trash dirtbag played by Kirstin Bell, wakes up one day in the Good Place, a secular version of heaven, despite having lived a decidedly unvirtuous life. She assumes she was sent there by mistake, a conclusion she tries to keep hidden from Michael, the architect of the village, played by Ted Danson. From then on it’s a wild ride, with the show rebooting at least once a season and with at least one shocking twist to rival “The Red Wedding.”
Ostensibly the show is not religious. The word “God” is not mentioned, never mind Jesus, Allah or Muhammed. The Good Place and its counterpart the Bad Place are obviously based on popular conceptions of heaven and hell and those words are rarely used either; same with “sin,” “devils,” “Satan” or “angels.”
And yet, with its assumption that there’s an afterlife in which your earthy behaviors are rewarded and punished, the show doesn’t cater to atheists either. If anything, “The Good Place” has a humanist approach to morality, assuming that humans can solve their own problems. And this might be offensive to many conservative Christians, who believe that only God can save souls.
Despite explicitly rejecting religious themes, the show is definitely religious-adjacent. Eleanor’s Good Place roommate and ostensible soulmate is a philosopher and over four seasons, the show spends a good deal of time explicitly teaching Eleanor (and by extension, the viewers) some of the basic tenets of philosophy. This can’t help but overlap with a lot of Christian thinking.
I need to emphasize that even with the overt philosophizing, “The Good Place” is still a very funny stitcom. In order to keep viewers from tuning out during the heavy thinking, the jokes come fast and furiously and they range from fart humor to wisecracks about modern life. It’s this combination of the sacred and the profane that makes the show unique.
As the series wore on, it became hard not to cry at least once an episode. The show eventually came to understand that love and forgiveness are the path to the Good Place. Love and forgiveness for each other and love and forgiveness for yourself. In a pivotal episode the main characters come upon a man who’s trying to live a blameless, sin-free life (by not harming the environment, not eating meat, living alone in a shack, etc.). He’s eking out a joyless existence, miserable because, as a human, he cannot be sin-free. This is exactly the problem that tortured Martin Luther, who, as hard as he tried, could not stop sinning. Luther’s answer, straight out of St. Paul, was the concept of unwarranted grace — the idea that if we ask for forgiveness and truly repent we will be forgiven. Similarly, in “The Good Place,” you can achieve a form of grace-by-another-name by living in community with those you love; you don’t have to be perfect, but you do have to be doing your best.
Coincidentally, just as the final episode of “The Good Place” came on, I was reading “Love Wins,” a book of pop theology written by the preacher Rob Bell. The subtitle is “A Book about Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived.” I doubt the creators of “The Good Place” ever read the book but this is also EXACTLY what the show is about. Bell rejects the premise that most of humanity is going to a place where they will be tortured for all eternity, arguing instead that over time, even in the afterlife, every soul will reject its sinfulness and find a way to God. This is more or less where the show lands. In the final scenes we see that people who acted hurtfully and selfishly in their earthy lives transformed after they died and made it to the Good Place after all. Indeed, according to “The Good Place,” the best thing about the Good Place is being able to spend as much time as you want with the people you love. And let’s face it, you can’t do that if the people you love are in Hell.
Some additional thoughts:
— This is not a series to binge. The best way to watch it is to go to Netflix, watch the first episode, listen to the show’s podcast (The Good Place: The Podcast), and then watch the show again, looking for all the jokes and nuances you missed the first time. This podcast is brilliant. It’s hosted by Marc Evan Jackson, who plays Shawn on the show, and in addition to recapping the show, he interviews the writers, producers, actors and other craftspeople who put the show together. Not only do they analyze and explain the main themes but they provide the best behind-the-scenes commentary on how a network TV show is actually put together.
— I have a whole new appreciation for the acting of Ted Danson. I probably took him for granted on “Cheers,” but now that he’s aged and mellowed his comedic abilities are even more obvious.
— As great as Ted Danson is, the true acting genius on the show is Darcy Carden, an improv star playing Janet, a robot-like assistant who gradually becomes more human-like over the course of the show. Famously “not a girl,” Janet manages to convey intense emotion while still maintaining the flat affect of a non-human. And in a tour-de-force episode that should be taught in acting classes everywhere (“Janets”), the four main characters are hidden in her “void,” which means they take on her physical appearance. Consequently, Darcy has to play all four characters throughout that episode, each with their recognizable tics and characteristics.
— The “Good Place’s” concept of time is very similar to the eternal time that C.S. Lewis posits in “Mere Christianity.” Time in the afterlife is not linear and leading from one place to the next. Instead it doubles back and loops around until it looks like the name Jeremy Bearimy in cursive English. This is a good example of using silliness (the name “Jeremy Bearimy”) to sweeten a convoluted, mind-bending concept.
— The show liberally name drops the names of philosophers like Aristotle, Plato, and Kant and dramatically illustrates some philosophical concepts like the Trolley Problem (i.e., would you be the pull the lever to divert a trolley that was headed toward a group of children if it meant sending it onto another track where it would kill just one innocent person?”) In the final episode a couple of real-life philosophers played themselves — the kind of in-joke, or “Easter Egg” that the show has become known for.
— The final line of the show is “Take it sleazy,” a joking homage to Eleanor, who managed to rise above her disadvantaged childhood but never forgot that she was the kind of dum dum who would only-semi-ironically say something like that.
— One last comparison to “Game of Thrones.” When the GoT series ended so atrociously there were many apologists who said that it’s impossible for a series to “stick the landing” because the fans want too much. The end of “The Good Place,” which has been enthusiastically embraced by the fans, shows that it absolutely is possible to produce a satisfactory series finale as long as you have the vision and courage to see it through to the end.