The Office

[Non_Comformist]

I just discovered this show on Kazaa and it is already one of my favorites. Anyone else watch this?

[stripsqueez]

already seen the repeats

i struggle to watch all of it - i spend a lot of the time cringing

perhaps you should be contributing to the british humour thread ?

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[Cyrus]

The 1st series' episodes were brilliant. Life in the office, for white collar clock punchers, can be like that, ie a living, boring hell, and when you have a "well-intentioned" boss who's keen on injecting some "fun" to the colossal and inevitable boredom, you get things like that. That's why the show clicks. (That and its protagonist/co-creator unflinching honesty and talent.)

The 2nd series was a bit of a let-down. All the problems were shown to be due to the "personality" of the clown-boss, rather than to the very premise of mindless office work. The series had a so-cute-it's-nauseous boss coming in and setting things right. White collar jocks sighed a great sigh of relief - and joined in the general laughter. Which didn't take all of the brilliance out, of course. It's still an excellent series - but the 1st series was simply brilliant.

Having said all that, there is, of course, nothing like The Office that is shown (or can be shown) on American television. American TV serves its food canned, sterilized and market-tested.

[Robk]

[ QUOTE ]
All the problems were shown to be due to the "personality" of the clown-boss, rather than to the very premise of mindless office work.

[/ QUOTE ]

While that is an interesting interpretation, I think it's far from the series' intention. Check out this interview with Gervais, the segments on "David Brent" and "Universal Themes" don't really jibe with what you're saying IMO.

Edit: Maybe the link (http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/theoffice/clips/rickyinterview/index.shtml) would help.

[superleeds]

Cyrus,
I have to disagree. The 2nd series was not humdrum. It was as excellent as the first and a little more rounded as the charaters have been fleshed out by the first series.

I agree that something similar will never be made by a mainstream American Network - the closest thing is Curb your enthusism - which is unfortunate because some of the best sitcoms have come from the US - Taxi, Cheers, Friends - and when they do it well they are exceptional. The problem with mainstream TV here is a lack of risk-taking by TV execs only interested in keeping their advertisers happy. HBO being the exception (but is HBO mainstream?).

I've heard that their maybe a American version of The Office in the works, I fear that it may be like watching a car accident.

[nicky g]

"I've heard that their maybe a American version of The Office in the works, I fear that it may be like watching a car accident. "

It's been done and the word is it's terrible.

[Cyrus]

"While that is an interesting interpretation, I think it's far from the series' intention."

Who cares about "intention"? I care about result. IMO the result of the 2nd series is to show that Gervais' character was some perversion of the system, while, in fact, the character personifies the very system.

BTW, Gervais and the other co-creator are brilliant, no doubt about it. "Humdrum" is the overboard comment of a fan who takes these letdowns personally.

[Cyrus]

"Some of the best sitcoms have come from the US - Taxi, Cheers, Friends - and when they do it well they are exceptional. The problem with mainstream TV [in the US] is a lack of risk-taking by TV execs only interested in keeping their advertisers happy."

I have noticed two things that, in general, make British TV comedy stand out more than American TV comedy - and none of them has to do with literacy!

One, you don't get nearly as often in Britain as you do in American, the dreaded season after season after season of a "successful" show. "Friends", which you mentioned, run for nearly 10 years! What's the point in that? Compare with "The Office", for instance, which run its course in something like 8 or 9 episodes, and then it was gone. (A 2nd series of some 8 or 9 more episodes was an exceptional thing.)

Two, the laugh track. Remember "Faulty Towers"? You could have something like the opening ten minutes without a single laugh being heard! This would be unthinkable in American TV comedy, where the producers go nuts if there are more than three lines of dialogue without a joke.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Who cares about "intention"? I care about result.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly Cyrus! This is why all the questions as to why we invaded Iraq are totally irrelevant. Thank-you for pointing this out so succiently. Keep up the good work and we'll turn you into a free-thinking conservative yet.

[IrishHand]

The first season of the Office is one of the most brilliant TV comedy series' ever. The second season was, in my opinion, a colossal disappointment. Regardless, that doesn't detract from the initial excellence.

The Office dwarfs american sitcoms in general - it relies on intelligent humor rather than mindless gags, and doesn't need to tell you when you're supposed to be laughing.

[Cyrus]

"The Office dwarfs American sitcoms in general - it relies on intelligent humor rather than mindless gags, and doesn't need to tell you when you're supposed to be laughing."

You don't notice until you're reminded of it, that the show had no laugh track. This is called "treating your audience as adults".

[Cyrus]

Cyrus > "Who cares about "intention"? I care about result."

Wake Up CALL > "Exactly! This is why all the questions as to why we invaded Iraq are totally irrelevant."

You got it exactly wrong, Wakie.

The result-over-intentions rule applies to Art. In other words, the best intentions cannot compensate for a bad result in Art. On the other hand, in matters of human morality, as well as in politics, the inverse is true : Intentions (i.e. moral justification, legitimacy, etc) are, more often than not, equally, if not more, important than results.

It is authoritarian regimes that care "only about results". You consider yourself a "free thinking conservative" ? There's no "free thinking" when one cares only about results in politics.

Or, take poker : Percentages-oriented thinking (ie thinking about what the intented outcome should be on the basis of odds) is considered to be better than Results-oriented thinking (ie "I won that Hold'em pot with J3 suited so J3 suited must be a good hand").

At least, that's the expert opinion...

/images/graemlins/cool.gif