The Office Wars: UK v US

They have just started to show the US version of the Office over here. I haven't seen it too many times, twice actually and only in fragments, but I can already tell why the US version doesn't work. It may be an ok show as far as sit-coms go but it is not, and I am sure all you Office fans out there will agree, the phenom that Ricky Gervais hit the BBC with a couple of years ago.

Let's explore this a little bit further. Apologies to those who are not familiar with the British Version of the Office. If you are not, rent it. Immediately.

The US version in theory, should work. They lifted so much of the English version including credits, camera angles and story lines. I just saw the American one about Comedy Relief which was one of THE funniest episodes in England. I didn't crack a smile. So how did they mess it up? I have been thinking a lot about what makes something funny and what does not ever since my ill-fated comedic dinner party conversation. Here are some points:

Battle of the Bosses: David Brent v Michael Scott

Michael Scott is really not funny and David Brent is hysterical. I get so embarrassed for him I have to hide my eyes. I think this is because Michael Scott has redeemable qualities - he is not entirely unlikeable or reprehensable so we find it harder to laugh at him. David Brent, on the other hand, is a terrible human being. If, at any time, we even think about feeling sorry for him, Gervais makes sure that Brent does something to pull us back from that sympathetic point. He makes us realise he is a selfish, underhanded, egotistical bastard. Sometimes that is not enough for me not to feel sorry for him but I can easily more laugh at him. The US version does not do that very subtle, thin line well at all.

Sales Rep Rumble: Tim v Jim

This is no contest. Martin Freeman as UK Tim is a man who is entering his thirties, realising that none of his dreams have a hope of coming through and is the ballast for the whole show. We get the pathos of this whole Office, which we need to highlight the comedy. Tim does nothing but comment on what is going on around him, he is the narrator, the chorus. In the American version, Jim, his equivalent, is young, it seems to be his first job out of college and he is actively writing a screen play. It may suck but he is still pursuing something outside the office. Not tragic enough! It doesn't provide the contrast that we need. Again, the devil is in the detail between brilliance and mediocrity.

Office Idiots: Gareth v Dwight

I think the UK Gareth works so much better than the US Dwight because of the opposite reason that the bosses work. I think we feel sorry for Mackenzie Crook's Gareth, just a little bit. He is so obviously out of touch, a bit vunerable and the kind of weak guy that we as kids would pick on because he would get mean instead of cry. He was a nasty mass of insecurities and vulnerablities - traits that kids are drawn to like sharks to chum. I believe it is tapping into that horrible cruelty to which we are familiar and Crook is absolutely brilliant. I think he is the best actor on the show. Dwight is just an asshole. I find him so one dimensional that I don't care about any of the humiliation he suffers at Jim's hand and because I don't invest myself, the laugh pay out is just not as big.

"Gareth Keenan investigates" That slays me.

Smile for the camera

In the US version, I never get the sense of the "mock-umentary" aspect of the show. It feels like a sit-com. In the UK version, the side glances and the presence of the unseen film crew is always there and again, adds to the heightening of the comedy.

This may be a part one of two because I need to see the US version more times to get all the details down. The little things make a lot of difference.

By the way - I have been to Slough. I even stayed overnight for a meeting. I felt special.