Article
Addiction
Culture
Film & TV
5 min read

The death of Chandler Bing

The death of Friends star Matthew Perry still resonates even after the celebrity news cycle has moved on. Comedy writer James Cary contemplates how endings are written.

James is a writer of sit coms for TV and radio.

Actor Matthew Perry looks formally away, with a US flag in the background
A 2012 portrait of Matthew Perry at the launch of a drug control initiative.
Office of National Drug Control Policy, via Wikimedia Commons.

How do you end a sitcom? 

That’s not a joke. For those of us who write sitcoms, it’s a practical question. Every episode needs an ending. These days, every season needs an ending. And then the whole thing needs some kind of grand finale as the characters ride off into the sunset. 

A sitcom ending should be both surprising but also retrospectively inevitable. That’s what I tell aspiring sitcom writers. The ending of a sitcom shouldn’t be a nasty shock. Nor is it just the moment where the episode runs out of time or story. 

Casablanca is one of the all-time great endings. Rick tells Isla to get on that plane, and there’s the business with Lazlo, Strasser and ‘the usual suspects’. I’ve read that the writing of the ending came fairly late in the day. The Motion Picture Production Code forbade showing a woman leaving her husband for another man. This seems restrictive but in our hearts we want to believe that Rick would do the decent thing. 

From the very first scene of the very first episode, it was clear that the planets had aligned for this actor, this show and the viewing public. Everybody loved Chandler.

When it comes down to it, our hearts yearn for a happy ending. And if not happy, bittersweet. But mostly sweet. 

The ending of Matthew Perry, star of one of the greatest sitcoms of all time, is both surprising and inevitable. No one expected him to die at the age of 54. But given his problems with addiction, it is not as shocking as it might be. 

Perry confessed one of his greatest addictions, along with painkillers and alcohol, was to be the funniest. He needed to hear those laughs. In the HBO Max Friends reunion special, he said “To me, I felt like I was going to die if they didn't laugh,” he said. All comedians feel this but it seems that Perry felt it especially acutely. When co-star Matt LeBlanc recalled tripping over his mark and everyone on set laughed, Perry had to jump in. “Because I was like, ‘Somebody's getting a laugh, I can't handle it — I need to get a laugh, too.’” 

 No wonder Matthew Perry was so funny as Chandler Bing. He was so determined to be the funniest. And he was. From the very first scene of the very first episode, it was clear that the planets had aligned for this actor, this show and the viewing public. Everybody loved Chandler. 

For most people, the death of Matthew Perry was the death of Chandler Bing. And we just weren’t prepared for that. 

It was a dream character to play: a young man in his twenties who is funny because, well, he is really funny. Being funny is his thing. It’s to cover his cowardice, but he is the funny guy. Ross is the nerd. Joey is the ladies' man. Rachel is the princess. Phoebe is cooky. Monica is uptight. And Chander is the comedian whose lines were being written, rewritten and perfected by a battery of writers who are among the funniest people in the English-speaking world. 

But Perry still had to deliver those lines, on cue in the right order, no matter what else was going on in his life. And a lot was going on. But he coped. He was just so funny. The only evidence of his personal demons on screen was his weight loss and weight gain. He was a consistently excellent performer. In an earlier era, when more mainstream romantic comedy movies were made, Perry might have given Cary Grant a run for his money. And then maybe Alfred Hitchcock may have given him a new lease of life. 

But I don’t think Perry has been so mourned because of his talent, and that he was taken from us before his time. He wasn’t a River Phoenix or a Heath Ledger whose death meant we have been denied some truly great films they would surely have made. (Personally I feel that way about Victoria Wood who died aged 62 and had at least two more truly great works in her). 

For most people, the death of Matthew Perry was the death of Chandler Bing. And we just weren’t prepared for that. 

Life isn’t scripted. At least not by us. Sitcoms resemble real life. But our lives are messier, and more complicated. Our jokes aren’t as funny. And sometimes it’s just tragic. 

Matthew Perry simply was Chandler from Friends. “I’ve said this for a long time: When I die, I don’t want ‘Friends’ to be the first thing that’s mentioned,” he said. It’s not hard to imagine Chandler making a joke out of that. One can also imagine Perry’s character saying, “I always figured I’d die alone. In a hot tub. Whoa, did I just say that out loud?’ And the audience would laugh because in the Friends-world, those writers have handed Chandler a happy ending: a life with Monica and their children, away from Manhattan, but forever connected to their lifelong friends, Ross, Joey, Phoebe and Rachel. 

Life isn’t scripted. At least not by us. Sitcoms resemble real life. But our lives are messier, and more complicated. Our jokes aren’t as funny. And sometimes it’s just tragic. The Chandler Bings don’t get the Monicas and the happily ever afters. Sometimes the Chandler Bings die young and alone. And no-one laughs. 

But the real human Perry did what one senses the fictional Chandler Bing would not or could not do: turn to God for help. A year before his death, he wrote in his memoir that at his lowest ebb, he experienced God’s presence and love, saying that “for the first time in my life, I felt OK. I felt safe, taken care of. Decades of struggling with God, and wrestling with life, and sadness, all was being washed away, like a river of pain gone into oblivion.” 

Maybe it sounds cliched. But for those of us with a Christian faith, what he experienced is not a surprise but a wonderful reality. 

Article
Care
Culture
Economics
Generosity
4 min read

Parenthood Inc: high burn rate, infinite upside

Raising kids is the ultimate moonshot, with returns measured in love, not cashflow

Imogen is a writer, mum, and priest on a new housing development in the South-West of England. 

A baby sleeps curled up.
Sorena.
Hessam Nabavi on Unsplash

Even before they are born, they demand things – a bed or two, Babygros, the cute paraphernalia, like the baby bath used for a few months then outgrown. And, as they grow, they only get more expensive.  

Children apparently cost us over £14,000 a year. According to the Child Poverty Action Group's annual survey, children cost couples £260,000 to raise to adulthood, while the bill rises to £280,000 for a single parent. That is a lot of money. The spread of these costs is heavily weighted towards the early years of a child’s life. Initial set-up, as with many new ventures, is expensive and the list of seemingly essential items is extensive. Childcare during the pre-school years can also up the household bills by £200 per week, causing many parents to question whether work is ‘worth it’. 

It seems though, that it is not only returning to work that is uneconomical. In fact, having babies full stop doesn’t appear to be an economically attractive option. Over the last 15 years, birth rates in the UK have significantly declined. In 2024 the average number of live children a women would have during her life was down to 1.41. UK fertility is low. People are just not having babies. 

There are many reasons for this. Access to contraception, women’s increased equality and opportunity in the workplace, and concerns about finances mean that couples wait longer to begin a family than in previous generations. People in their twenties are perhaps more interested in financial stability rather than family procreativity and women want to get ahead in their chosen career paths before taking time out to have children. Everything has got more expensive, including having children. The world is a big place and desire for travel, adventure, and exploration means couples do not want to be ‘tied down’ with children while they are young.  

The impact of having a child on a woman’s career has been shown to be significantly greater than her male counterpart. I observe mothers, anecdotally and statistically, to be more likely to take time out of work, move to part-time employment, and work in lower-income jobs, than fathers. This is not only something observable in the UK, but it is a universal feature of motherhood. Perhaps becoming a mother is just not ‘worth it’.  

Many concerns about declining birth rates often come down to economics. Without the next generation of workers, our welfare state is headed for stormy seas. An aging society risks a nation flooded with retired dependants without the balance of the tax-paying, working population to support them. Although children are expensive, they are of integral economic value to our functioning society. Even on a micro level, children are increasingly keeping aging parents afloat, supporting them by contributing to the living, housing, and caring costs.  

 Opinions inevitably differ and cause controversy, but for me, the rational economics of parenthood does not contribute to my desire to have children. I do not see our children as a financial investment awaiting a hefty return. I have not embarked on procreation as a means to a stable retirement. Rightly or wrongly, I have not undertaken a cost-benefit analysis of having children. However, I understand it to have great value beyond the numbers. 

To play a part in raising the next generation is one of my life’s greatest joys. To slow down and witness our boys learning the world day by day is an act of resistance against those rational laws of economic productivity and market capitalism. Much of my time does not appear to be ‘well spent’, but in the giggles, the endless mealtimes, the repeated instructions of ‘sit down’, ‘be gentle’, and ‘listen’, there are deep wells of meaning and significance. While some choose to focus on the pouring of economic resources into their children, I choose to focus on the outpouring of my heart. As I give of myself, they grow. I love them, feed them, teach them, wash them at bathtime, and tell them stories of the world, of faith, and of life. As I am poured out, they are formed as tiny humans of unquantifiable value.  

This kind of value, I think, reflects more accurately the value we have before God. Our value as children of God. There is a story about a man who sees a pearl. The pearl is super expensive. This man wants the pearl so much that he sells his possessions, giving everything up so he can have it. Perhaps the pearl is God’s Kingdom, perhaps it is the message of Jesus, or perhaps, as my son once thought, it is us. We are the pearl of infinite, unquantifiable value to God and he gave up everything for us. 

Support Seen & Unseen

Support Seen & Unseen
Since Spring 2023, our readers have enjoyed over 1,500 articles. All for free. 
This is made possible through the generosity of our amazing community of supporters.

If you enjoy Seen & Unseen, would you consider making a gift towards our work?

Do so by joining Behind The Seen. Alongside other benefits, you’ll receive an extra fortnightly email from me sharing my reading and reflections on the ideas that are shaping our times.

Graham Tomlin
Editor-in-Chief