Because humour is so very hard to duplicate, I've found myself rewatching The Office at least 40 times. I wish I was exaggerating but, then again, with my life crumbling around me, what else is there to do than laugh at a group of people with exceedingly horribly yet funny lives. In case you don't know what this classic television show is, it's a sitcom/mockumentary according to its ever-changing wikipedia page but it follows the story of a small branch of a paper company, specifically where the sales are done. Which sounds boring as hell, but somehow it's funny? We just don't know.
Something about this show that I adore, besides it's 20 minute style which makes you feel like you are doing a shot of comedy, is its ability for comedic timing with the use of the camera as another member of the office. You honestly feel like you are in the scene with the rest of the employees and it creates a very visceral and specific kind of comedy that people have tried to recreate before and failed. Some manage to actually use it successfully and I fully recommend those shows as well. See Parks and Rec.
While the shows both sit in an office and the characters are fleshed out very realistically (yet not??), the shows tend to gather a 'love it or hate it' crowd. I assume it's because it can remind people of their own office life and people either take that as positive or negative.
Comedic timing is something that was so perfectly created in the original UK version and, personally, I think it was well recreated in the American version. After watching both more times than I wish to reveal, I've found that I almost thinking of them as two different animals even though the first few episodes have the exact same scripts, the same beats, and the same camera work. We just /don't/ know. As the series/seasons go on, the actors obviously become more in tune with how they should react with the cameras and each other and it, again in my opinion, gets better as it goes on. While that might not be true for the writing, I very much appreciate the use of the cameras for comedic effect. It's pretty rad.
If you're like me and want to be a screenwriter (which apparently applies to like, half of our class) you might assume that all scripts are more or less the same: just throw something decent in celtx and boom. Script. Film, Tv, whatever, a script is a script. However, as I'm learning very quickly in my writing for series television class, there are some major differences between writing a film (short or feature) and writing for a weekly television show. Here are just a few.
1. Television writers are more likely to get/keep jobs.
Yay jobs!
Not to say that people who write TV shows are better at their jobs than those who choose to write films; it's simply a matter of numbers. While film scripts are typically written by only one or two people as a kind of freelance project, TV scripts are made by - almost always - staff writers. Staff writers collaborate on scripts to keep episodes of any given TV show consistent with that show's tone and brand. Simply put, there are more positions available to write for TV than to write for film. To find out a bit more about the various positions and hierarchy of a television writing team, check out the Writer's Guild of America's official overview here.
2. Characters develop differently...if at all.
Ja feel, Alicia.
In any good film, the main character will undergo some kind of change as they progress from point A to point B. A movie with a static character is kind of just a boring movie. Television, however, is more or less the exact opposite. Apart from certain cable dramas (cough cough Breaking Bad), people watch TV shows for consistency. If Michael Scott suddenly realized that he was a gigantic doofus and wanted to change his ways halfway through season 3, there never would have been a season 4. As weird as it sounds, we want to know what we're getting into before we watch a show. I watch the Good Wife because it's an intensely dramatic show about lawyers; even though major, major changes occur during its fifth season, I continue to watch it because it's characters are consistent and awesome. It's perfectly fine to reveal new traits and things about your characters as a show goes on, but they should always have the same basic characteristics that made your viewers want to watch your show in the first place.
3. TV is faster and there's way more of it.
Whereas a feature film writer can take months (or even years!) to write a first draft of a commissioned screenplay, a television writer typically has to churn out a script that's ready for production in 5-7 days. That's less than a week to go from concept to breakdown to outline to rough draft to shooting draft, with a few extra drafts thrown in there somewhere for good measure. And don't even think of missing deadlines. Alex Epstein details the entire process in section taken from his book, Crafty Screen Writing, which can be read here. The upside to this tight production schedule, however, is that television writers are some of the most powerful people in the industry. Unlike film writers - who are typically never on set and practically thrown away after they've turned in a decent draft - television writers are often the producers and showrunners of their own productions. All of this basically just means that the actors shouldn't piss off the writers, since they could literally kill off your character at any moment.
While both television and film have their pros and cons, it almost goes without saying that writing for TV is the more difficult of the two. But if you are up to the challenge and can somehow not consistently get chronic writers block, it also may be the more rewarding.
One of my favorite series to ever hit primetime television is NBC’s The Office. I enjoy it for many
reasons, the humor, how relatable it is, and the way it is produced. I think the most unique part of the
production of The Office is the camera work. Because The Office is made to seem like a camera crew is
actually following the characters around, it has a much different feel than most television shows.
Since it is made to appear as a documentary, all camera angles have to be believable. For
instance, if it starts with a wide shot, then cuts to a close up, the shot they cut to cannot be from an
angle within the original wide shot. It sounds confusing, but basically for the show to be believable as
a documentary, you have to imagine it being shot with multiple cameras at the same time, in such a
way that no camera would appear in a different camera’s shot.
Most television shows try to have the highest production value possible, The Office does the
opposite, but in a unique way that works for them. Being that its shot in a documentary style, one
would not expect The Office to have a high production value. When something supposedly is
happening once and there is only one chance to capture it or it’s gone, you don’t expect beautiful long
dolly shots or a steadicam follow shot. You expect shakey, handheld shots, with lots of quick camera
movement to ensure that all the action happening is captured. In real life the camera-man would not be
prepared for action happening across the room, so to get the shot he/she would have to use quick pans
and zooms to ensure that he/she can get all the action in frame, while putting the actual framing quality
on the backburner. The use of tripods is rare, and anything you would call “beautifully cinematic,” will
not appear in The Office.
If it were truly a documentary, the characters would be aware of the cameras that are constantly
following them. Often characters will look at the camera or the crew in certain situations. For example,
in the clip below, Michael is telling a joke he looks at the cameraman as if he is going to laugh at the
joke too. At another point in the clip Michael talks directly to the camera about whether or not
something is appropriate or not.
One part of the show that makes the characters extremely relatable is the individual and small group confessionals that most of the actors partake in. These are very similar to an interview, which are often used in real documentaries, frequently with b-roll being placed over the audio from the interview. The Office does the same thing, with the confessionals, making the show appear even more similar to a documentary.
I believe that the documentary style of shooting is a significant contributing factor to The
Office’s success. Because it’s shot as a documentary the audience believes the characters are real
people and that is the real way they act. Without this style the show would appear very scripted and
precise. While the scripted and precise style works for some shows, The Office’s style of comedy
revolves around the relationship the character builds with the audience, and without the documentary
style, that relationship would be gone.
Below is another clip that I feel really displays what The Office is really about.
A lot of people talk about who won the Emmy's, but I'm here to talk about some notable actors that went empty handed this year. I'd like to start with the leading actor from one of my favorite shows, Michael Hall. Hall is Dexter in the show Dexter. Connie Britton also missed out. She plays, Tami Taylor on another of my favorite shows Friday Night Lights. It was good to see Coach Taylor win but I think that Britton had a much better performance then her male counterpart. Finally, Steve Carell walked away empty handed. Carell has repeatedly put up stellar performances as Michael Scott in the Office, however he has never won. I know the people who won the Emmy's deserved it and there are others who should have won that didn't that I didn't mention but that is just my opinion on the topic.
As I pass the time between seasons watching my old favorite episodes of The Office, I found myself wondering if this upcoming season will be a success. I have put off thinking about how Steve Carell is gone and how I hate the new actor that is replacing him because I am in denial. I can't believe that he is actual gone. Michael Scott. The reason the show was my favorite. Michael Scott. A comical genius. His absence raises the question, Will this show survive without their MVP? If you apply this question to Michael Jordan and the Chicago Bulls, it would probably be a different answer. With the Office I think they will survive. The cast includes some great actors/esses that will be able to save the show. Although Carell, took the main responsibility of the humor surrounded by the office, his absence will allow Jim and Dwight's relationship to be a main focus.
Besides Carell, Jim Halpert and Dwight Schrute were also hilarious characters. What I believe will actually happen now is instead of always being at each others throat and playing tricks non-stop, Dwight and Jim are going to be forced to work together. Their common goal? To destroy the new boss, Robert California, played by James Spader. This will blossom into a new relationship with a hilarious new twist. This is just a guess, but it does sound possible.
I dont know enough about James Spader, but I have to admit my first impression of him was not at all a good one in the season 7 finale. Either way I will give him a chance and hope that he take this show in a positive new direction.
Something about this show that I adore, besides it's 20 minute style which makes you feel like you are doing a shot of comedy, is its ability for comedic timing with the use of the camera as another member of the office. You honestly feel like you are in the scene with the rest of the employees and it creates a very visceral and specific kind of comedy that people have tried to recreate before and failed. Some manage to actually use it successfully and I fully recommend those shows as well. See Parks and Rec. 
