Well, this is it! The British Office vs The American Office.
I don't think there's ever been a larger argument when it comes to British versus American comedy. Both of these shows have a large dedicated fun base that aren't exclusive for the country either version originated from. Unlike The Inbetweeners the American Office managed to change itself and move away from the conventions of the original. So let's explore the differences between the UK Office and the US Office...
First of all, British comedy has a significantly different tone to American comedy. Putting it bluntly, British comedy tends to be much more pessimistic and tragic; whereas American comedy is generally lighter and more hopeful. This different is evident with the two versions with The Office and can even been seen right away in the opening titles. The opening theme for the British Office roles in painting a rather drab and depressing feeling to everything. This is complemented by cinematic shots of Oakley grey buildings, traffic field rounabouts, and road signs. There's a juxtaposition between the attractive camerawork and the dreary colourless scenery; it's a sombre opening that clues you into the kind of world you are about to enter. Compare that to American opening it's far more positive from the music to the cinematography. You only need those first three notes of the theme to instantly let you know that you're watching something that is more lighthearted. The American opening is also far more Americanised. You have these shots of the main characters with the actors' names appearing over them; people smiling, the pace is much quicker and it's extremely similar to the other typical sitcom openings. You see now this isn't a bad thing at all; it just highlights the overall differences between the two and this is almost the first step to American Office carving out its own identity.
Now another key thing to look at would be cinematography... The documentary style of the British Office was decided upon initially because it was far cheaper and easiest to produce. Remember at this time Ricky and Steve were pretty much nobody's so the BBC weren't going to hand them a large chunk of money to make the show with. However the British Office used this to its advantage; it made sure to always stick to the documentary format with mostly single camera shots, bleak realistic lighting; and by avoiding film and any scenes or cuts that were to improv for a cheap documentary. This slow and dull style of the cinematography helped shape the overall of the series; working in the office is mundane and depressing and they show that perfectly.
The American version started out looking a lot more like a British show; they even styled Michael Scott's hair to look like he was kind of boarding and sleazy. But by the time season two rode around the cinematography had changed: the image was brighter and colourful almost representative of the tonal shift that the series had. Also should be noticed that there tend to be far more cuts and edits within the American Office, as well as camera angles.
Now a big area for comparison is obviously the humor, and both shows almost perfectly sort of the styles of comedy that their respective country is known for. One thing noticeable about the British Office is how much quiet of it is. It's rare that a joke or funny moment is presented on our plate for you to enjoy. It's far more subtle or requires to put yourself in the situation. If you walk into the British Office expecting a flat-out comedy than you're likely going to disappointed. It has its wacky moments but it's never to the point of being unrealistic.
By contrast the American Office is far less serious in tone; it embraces its wacky moments and goes far further with jokes that would ever be realistic. The characters are all larger-than-life and hilariously eccentric. It's not a bad thing that the American is outlandish, it just shows the clear different visions and goals that each version had.
For the big comparison ror reference, here are the character equivalents (US - UK):
- Michael Scott - David Brent
- Dwight Schrute - Gareth Keenan
- Jim Halpert - Tim Canterbury
- Pam Beesly - Dawn Tinsley
- Roy Anderson - Lee (last name is never stated)
- Todd Packer - Chris "Finchy" Finch
- Kevin Malone - Keith Bishop
- Jan Levinson - Jennifer Taylor-Clarke
- Ryan Howard - Ricky Howard
David Brent vs Michael Scott...
David Brent is definitely the star of the show:
-You will never work in a place like this again. This is Brilliant fact yeah. And you'll never have another boss like me someone who's basically a chilled-out entertainer.
He is self-assured to put it nicely to put it less nicely he's arrogant and gets into trouble almost every time he opens his mouth. He is an extremely silly and ridiculous human being to the horror of [his] fellow co-workers. He just wants to be a good boss to his employees, but he's oblivious to the way they really see him. He is only given some slight redemption with about 15 minutes left in the series when he is shown having a successful date, standing up to his friend Finch, and making his (former) employees laugh with one of his jokes (something he quite literally did not manage to do the entire series). In the end David Brent totally ups the cringe factor on the unskilled boss character.
-How would you like to be remembered?
-Simply as the man who put a smile on the face of all who he met.
Michael Scott often does things that are incredibly mean and self-centered. He does so many things that would make us hate an actual person. But we still love him because of moments in which he is kind, empathetic, pitiable. Meanwhile we can't deny that Michael's unprofessionalism and immaturity regularly create a number of hilarious moments. Like David Michael is trying to lead his troops and be a friend to his employees. He is slightly more successful in his attempts. Even so without the delusional David Brent there would be no Michael Scott and that is something we need to take into account.
Given that the original show was very much about a difficult boss and the soul-decaying nature of the work therein, the American equivalent gives the impression that it might actually be a not-horrible place to work (at least for a while), and therefore as a satire or critique it would seem less pointed and barbed. While Brent is an oft-mean spirited, potentially offensive failed jester, telling misguided "jokes" in the pursuit of self-adulation, Scott lacks the same ferocity, for better or worse.
Tim/Dawn vs Jim/Pam
One of the more distinguishable elements of each version of The Office is the portrayal of the central love interest, in Tim and Dawn (UK), and Jim and Pam (US). In both versions, the female receptionist character is a somewhat downtrodden, ill-appreciated struggling artist, though Pam never succumbs to the ennui-induced fatalism that plagues Dawn, who remains confined to her reception-bound existence until Tim finally takes the initiative in the Christmas Special. Pam, though struggling under the same dead-end job, is far more assertive and self-confident, making her generally easier to like in those earlier seasons, though it makes the tonal change of her character in later seasons all that more surprising. The pranks become more mean-spirited, and she and Jim essentially seem to feel above their colleagues, compared to the rather playfully acerbic antics of Tim and Dawn. Whether this change in character was intentional remains a mystery; to some, it is a brave diversion (after all, characters must change and grow, especially working in that office for so long), and to others, it may seem sacrilegious.
Gareth vs Dwight
A truly tough one to call on the basis that both performances and characters are so strongly constructed, the boss's glorified errand boy does in both versions assume a false sense of authority - albeit for very different reasons in each - to hilarious effect, and in both versions is tortured incessantly by Jim/Tim. One instance in which the distended format really aids the American show is characterisation, and as such Dwight is naturally further developed, impressively without sacrificing much of what makes his essence so hilariously compelling to watch. While Mackenzie Crook's Gareth is a military brat who falsely asserts that the office should be run like a concentration camp, Dwight is cut from a quirky sub-culture of American society; an NRA-approving, Amish farmer whose oddball persona seems to derive from his peculiar social standing compared to that of his colleagues. While Crook is superbly cast as the man-child that he no doubt must be - who can forget those absurd suspenders? - Rainn Wilson as Dwight demonstrates a more conniving and essential feral intelligence that makes his character go the distance of the show's 100+ episodes, for there's the distinct feeling that Gareth would quickly succumb to caricature had he been around for another series or so.
To conclude...
Each popular version of The Office serves to fit a particular comic mode, suited to the popular demeanour and tastes of its native audience, naturally; the British one is a work of kitchen sink realism that's more acerbic and cynical (as is true of Brits typically), while the American offering has virtually dispensed with the docu-gimmick now, and is warmer, features a prettier cast, and is more infused with pathos (not a concern of Gervais' perhaps until that Christmas-time reunion episode) as well as having a higher opinion of people generally (whereas in UK one, there's the very foreboding feeling that these people are eking their way through life in a crummy job).
Verdict both versions of The Office are great in fact the winner in all of this is the show's creator Ricky Gervais who had a hand in both versions: Comedy is a place where the mind goes to tickle a self. That's what she says.
Komentarze
Prześlij komentarz