Communication senior research

Office Criticism 1

Running head: THE QUALITY OF THE OFFICE

An Evaluation of The Office (Season One) as Quality Television

Josh Emington

Senior Research

Dr. Schultz

Office Criticism 2

Table of Contents

Chapter One……………………………………………………………………………4
Introduction….……………………….…………………………..………………4
Significance…………………………………………………………………..4
The Subject…………………………………………………………5
Background………………………………………………………...6
Literature regarding the Office…………………………...6
Criticism and ‘Quality’...….………………………………7
Quality Television………..………………………………………...9
Criteria …………………………………………………………...10
Theory Importance…………………………………………..…...12
The Office…………………………………………………………12
Definition of Terms……………………………………….………………14
Purpose of Study………………………………………………….………16
Justification for Study………….…………………………………………16
Literature Review…………………………………………………………17
Chapter Two…………………………….……………………………………………20
Opening………………………………………………………………………....20
Operationalizing the Criteria….…………………………………………21
Methodology….……………………………………………………………26
Figure One……………………………………………………………23
Methodology…………………………………………………………..26
Analysis………………………………………………………………………...27
Procedural Analysis………………………………………………….27
Chapter Three…………………………..……………………………………………30
Opening………………………………………………………………………...30

Office Criticism 3

Purpose of Study………………………..…………………………………….30
Research Questions…………...........................................................................30
Data…………………………….……………………………………………..31
Findings………………………………………………………………………33
Interpretations……………………………………………………………….35
Social Expectations…………………………………….…………...50
Artistic Expectations……………………………………………….54
Economic Expectations…………………………………………….56
Chapter Four………………………………………………………………………58
Opening……………………………………………………………………….58
Summary…………………………………………………………....58
Implications…………………..……………………………………..59
Final Conclusions………………………………………………......................61
Initial Conclusions………..……….………………………………...61
Summary of Findings……………………………………………….64
Future Research…………..………………………………………………….69
Subsequent Studies………………………………………………….69
Expanding the Study……..………………………………………….73
Limitations……..…………………………………………………….74
Appendices……..………………………………………………….……………….77
Appendix A……………..…………………………………………………….77
The Figures ……..…………………………………………………….77
Appendix B……………..…………………………………………………….81
Appendix C……………..…………………………………………………….89
Appendix D……………..…………………………………………………….93
References..……………..…………………………………………………….95

Office Criticism 4

Chapter One

Introduction

―‗The Office‘ is the best show ever‖ – Internet Fan

This value statement about television not only raises important issues regarding criticism

in general and evaluation of television, but it also prompts an analysis of the mentioned artifact

so that the elements of its success can be discovered and explored. The questions that arise

deserve a thorough investigation as resolving them promises to fulfill untouched voids in the

study of Communication, provide meaningful insight into the creation of meaningful, good, or

quality television, and offer a systematic assessment of my artifact The Office.

Significance

Television itself represents a mighty, one-to-many, mass communication device wielding

the power to influence, educate, persuade, empower, and entertain a massive percentage of the

world population. A.C. Nielsen Statistics Company found that the average American spends

four hours per day watching television, which equates to nine years of a sixty-five-year-old‘s

life. Norman Herr‘s study of television finds that 99 % of American households own a television

(1993). In the years following Herr‘s study, the use of television has only become more

prevalent. Evidently Americans are greatly susceptible to whatever symbolic communication

they are receiving through the medium so it would be wise to grant television the academic

attention it deserves due to its reach, sway, and power. The area of television effects studies has

grown dramatically in the last decade. Many remember the legal battles and continuous

discussions concerning violence in video games and on television and its effects on children.

The academy seems to suggest that there is yet more at stake.

Office Criticism 5

The Subject

A complex and lasting discussion revolves around television as a political tool and its

various conceptual influences on public organization (McLuhan 1964, 1967; Jenkins 2006;

Baker and Dessart 1942; Fiske 1994; Sayeau 2004; Marc 1995; O‘Connor 1983; Spigel and

Olsson 2004). As Nelson (2006) states: ―‗Quality TV‘ poses cultural, political and ethical as well

as aesthetic, questions‖ (p. 59). Television has been used for all forms of social propaganda both

positive and negative for years. For the focused critic the concern is limited first to

understanding the symbol use and its implications, and then to its greater impact. In simple

terms America watches television often, and in a participatory manner, and the results are

important. For this reason it follows logically that the medium should be studied. Attempting

this in an inclusive manner requires evaluation of the systems we use to judge television

programs. Much debate exists over how, or if, television should be evaluated causing some

strong, important issues and questions to be raised. Brunsdon (1990) presents the problem in

these terms: ―There are always issues of power at stake in notions of quality and judgment –

Quality for whom‖, Judgment by whom?, On whose behalf‖ (p. 73) ? [sic]

Implicit in these questions is a sense of methodological review and epistemology.

Having established that television is a heavily used medium and working with the knowledge

that communication is the basis for all collective human endeavors including social structures,

political states, and the pursuit of knowledge, harnessing and understanding symbol use is of

great importance. Kenneth Burke (1966) says humans in terms of symbol use and misuse

claiming we have a ―predilection‖ to ―go to great lengths to prefect these symbolic structures.‖

This is the essence of criticism, to interpret symbol use in this case in the form of narrative

Office Criticism 6

television. This understanding reveals the necessity for theories to organize the facts as

observed. In these theoretical systems or ‗paradigms‘ symbol collections such as allegories,

stories, or television programs may be sorted and evaluated to help us make sense of them and

escape the ambiguity of subjective value statements of opinion.

Background

Literature regarding The Office
Very little has been published in criticism of The Office and there is even less material which

seeks to evaluate the quality of the show. Of the known published literature regarding ―The

Office‖ only one seemed to ‗critique‘ it and make value judgments. The remaining handful of

newspaper articles were not of an academic nature but rather described the ratings,

demographics, and awards credited to the show. After reviewing the sole critical article, which

was posted on FLOWTV by Stephan Harrington (2007), I found it does not include any actual

theory regarding quality television but simply states opinion and makes arbitrary connections to

things the author likes or thinks are important. Online communities, fan forums, and websites

devoted to all aspects of the show have done an excellent job of accumulating massive amounts

of information. However, these documents are mostly subjective or descriptive. A rich history

of television criticism does exist including a great number of theories and positions out of which

the paradigm ultimately chosen for this project developed.

Criticism and „Quality‟

―Judgments about the quality of television are made in a great many ways all the time –

in speech, in newspapers, in practice – and on television … Judgments are being made – let‘s

Office Criticism 7

talk about them‖ (Brunsdon 1990 p. 76). The significance of television criticism, media value

assignment, and even simple ‗fan hood‘ are controversial subjects. Many Scholars present

arguments discrediting the study of media and oppose systems by which entertainment can be

rated. Examples could include remarks such as: ―Entertainment is only to entertain and is a

matter of personal opinion.‖ or ―Television is trash; why analyze it.‖ Addressing prominent

arguments will help obliterate misconceptions including accusations of superficial and

inneffective media research while simultaneously illuminating the practical and academic

implications of such endeavors. One common misunderstanding is linked to cultural relativism.

Often individuals‘ personal opinions, beliefs, ideas, or choices are considered to be of equal

value out of respect for others‘ tastes. This behavior is tied to an understanding that each is of

equal validity and is commonly used as a defense against assigning values to anything.

It is evident however that we do assign values to items which are considered to be

stylistic selections. Robert Nelson illustrates this point with the example of shopping. We

purchase designer labels as iconic statements of communal partiality. These are simple but

explicit claims that some products are better than others. The understood superiority of specific

items are based on culture, paradigm, or some other collective perception. The question then

quickly shifts to how ought we judge value, and who should have this authority. This classic

debate raises related issues both sociological and anthropological. These political conflicts

between the many and the few, the common and the elite, socialist and capitalist values, among

others, are embedded in the historical debate concerning television. It is apparent that the study

of television not only has inherent ties to social value appointment but also represents greater

political concerns. The debate assumes more significance when scholars discuss whether (a) the

artifacts themselves (textual analysis) or (b) their effects on the viewers (viewers effects), or

Office Criticism 8

perhaps (c) the viewer‘s use of (Equipment for living), the artifact is more important or more

accurate. The argument should be resolved by one single overarching definition of quality

applied it to all social compilations, times, and questions. Rather than seeking this, the academy

has created paradigms for judgment with the goal of increasing our empirical knowledge,

answering questions of comparison and value with higher certainty, and more importantly,

creating a context and system within which judgments may be made. Utilizing a paradigm we

can answer questions concerning artifacts definitively, allowing us to better comprehend our

subjects. The most appropriate paradigm for judging The Office in terms of value is Thompson‘s

Quality Television theory.

Some of the most established examples of qualitative criticism in narrative television

were conducted by David Lavery. These include his structured evaluations of Twin Peaks

(1995), The X-Files (1996), The Sopranos (2002), and Buffy the Vampire Slayer (2002). The

Buffy book, written with Rhonda V. Wilcox: Fighting the Forces: What's at Stake in Buffy the

Vampire Slayer (2002), is a prime example of how my study will apply Thompson‘s criteria to a

narrative television show. Lavery‘s known critical studies each represent respected examples of

strict criteria being objectively applied to an artifact. The actual theorist whose theory is used in

Lavery‘s application is Robert J. Thompson who wrote Making Television: Authorship and the

Production Process with Gary Burns (1990), Adventures on Prime Time: The Television

Programs of Stephen J. Cannell (1990), Television's Second Golden Age (1997), Television

Studies: Textual Analysis with Gary Burns (1989), Prime Time, Prime Movers (1992), and

Television in the Antenna Age: A Concise History (2004). Thompson‘s work has been widely

accepted and utilized. For this reason using his criteria will help in comparisons of The Office

with other programs which have been criticized using the same theory.

Office Criticism 9

Quality Television

The Office (season one specifically) will be evaluated and described in terms of ‗quality‘

according to a widely accepted and acclaimed media paradigm. Robert J. Thompson developed

twelve criteria for ‗quality television‘ which can be applied to narrative television to determine a

programs value. This set of criteria has been revered by scholars and employed in judging such

shows as Buffy the Vampire Slayer. This specific example, Fighting the Forces: What's at Stake

in Buffy the Vampire Slayer written by Rhonda and David Lavery, provided sufficient support

for closely defining the terms which compose nine of Thompson‘s criteria.

Of the twelve, this study focuses on six criteria to concentrate on those aspects of The Office

which cause the program to either fulfill or fail to realize the benchmarks for quality television.

The following are the selected criteria organized in order of discussion:

 Quality TV usually has a quality pedigree.

 Quality TV tends to have a large ensemble cast.

 The subject matter of quality TV tends toward the controversial.

 Quality TV has a memory.

 Quality TV creates a new genre by mixing old ones.

 Quality shows must often undergo a noble struggle against profit-mongering networks and
non-appreciative audiences.
(Thompson 1997 in Wilcox & Lavery, 2002, p. xxi)

The additional criteria to be briefly described for understanding of the theory are:

 Quality TV tends to be literary and writer-based.

 Quality TV is self conscious.

 Quality TV aspires toward ‗realism.‘
(Thompson 1997 in Wilcox & Lavery, 2002, p. xxi)

Office Criticism 10

Criteria

The Office can be viewed under the scrutiny of Robert J. Thompson‘s criteria developed

in Fighting the Forces (2001), for evaluating the quality of a television program. There are

nine criteria in all and one could effectively argue that ―The Office‖ satisfies each one of them

on a more than satisfactory level. Six of these will be discussed thoroughly in this study.

A description of the nature of each criterion is in order. The ―Quality TV usually has a

quality pedigree‖ can be explained in terms of three defining characteristics, namely: The

director has a certain cachet; the director has training, experience, education, or a degree that is

relevant to, or ‗fits‘ the artifact; the creators have a variety of diversified experience and

experiences. In short the first criterion maintains that quality television is produced by either

interesting, educated, or experienced groups and individuals.

The second criterion, ―Quality shows must often undergo a noble struggle against profit-

mongering networks and non-appreciative audiences,‖ can be explained by the tensions formed

between the artifact‘s artistic aspirations and economic forces, rating expectations, network

status, (airtime) and awards. Adverse relationships also often develop between stockholders and

stakeholders, between producers and marketers.

―Quality TV tends to have a large ensemble cast,‖ the third criterion, largely focuses on

fan/character relationships. The characteristics are unique and identifiable characters,

relationships between characters, a large quantity of recurring characters, and diversity within the

mainstay personalities.

Office Criticism 11

The fourth criterion emphasizes that an artifact ought to have a sense of its own history.

―Quality TV has a memory.‖ Benchmarks for this standard include characters who should have

memory and awareness of their surroundings in the artifact, and characters who pull the audience

through their own experience as well as the overall program which maintains a ‗palpable past‘ in

which viewers are rewarded for loyalty, program memory, and their study of the canon.

The fifth criterion, ―Quality TV creates a new genre by mixing old ones,‖ expresses the

value of appreciating the existing varieties of entertainment while innovating to produce

something familiar but new. This is measured by how well the artifact blends or combines

known genres to create its own genre. Often fulfilling this criterion is a matter of presenting

something of the known past in a new and entertaining way to celebrate its human origin.

Thompson‘s sixth criterion, ―Quality TV tends to be literary and writer-based‖

emphasizes the literary roots of script writing. The producer should have writing experience or a

passionate respect for literature as a standard.

―Quality TV is self conscious,‖ the seventh in the paradigm, requires attention be paid to

the program‘s own history, makeup, style, and culture. This standard states that artifact must

create its own history and allude to it, make cultural references, and refer to other known and/or

relevant works.

The eighth criterion, ―The subject matter of quality TV tends toward the controversial,‖

focuses on the ability of a television program to introduce topics of interest and importance. The

program should indirectly discuss topics or include scenarios which are commonly considered

Office Criticism 12

controversial. It should also consider controversial questions with a developed sense of

responsibility to the subject and viewers.

―Quality TV aspires toward ‗realism‘,‖ the final criterion, places value in representing

reality in one form or another. The televised program ought to tackle realistic and regular social

issues and questions through its subject matter and content. It should also strive to empathize

with, represent, or be an analogy for, realistic situations of consequence (Emington 2008).

Together these criteria form a standardized system for evaluating the quality of a television

program.

Theory Importance

Thompson‘s criteria for evaluating television are the most developed and respected in the

academy and have been applied successfully to multiple television series. This theory is the

most fitting for my use due to its qualifications and scholarly endorsements. When this set of

criteria was first published many scholars commented on them and used them in criticism and in

academic circles. The great number of critical works using this paradigm suggests that using it

to evaluate The Office will allow for further comparison with other artifacts.

The Office

―The Office‖ started mid-season with a six episode first season. The second season of 22

episodes followed which was brought new characters into the plot. Season three aired beginning

September 21 2006 and included 23 episodes which contained many relational changes between

characters. The fourth season which was interrupted by a writers‘ strike after eight filmed

Office Criticism 13

episodes was intended by NBC to include 30 episodes but was shortened by the strike to 19.

NBC has ordered a 28 episode fifth season.

The Office is a remake/spinoff of the original British version which was a defining factor

in how the show developed. Executive producer Ricky Gervias said in response to this criticism

: "I think people are always gonna [sic] be wary of a remake—it's a tradition," he said. "But this

remake is aimed at the 249 million Americans who didn't see the original TV show. There's not

gonna [sic] be many Texas farmhands going, 'Eccch, not another version. I can't believe it'"

(Wolk, 2008, p. 1).

Due to its mid-season start and strict adherence to parts of the British version‘s plot, the

first season on American TV differs from the other seasons in its form. There is some question

as to whether this difference, mostly regarding whither the relationships between characters

simulate those in the original and that characters are further developed, matters. Another major

contrast is that very few characters in the first episode are developed and needed to be carefully

described. As a result many secondary characters existed but did not get any description or

extensive airtime until the second and third season.

Luckily, for its producers, the American audiences of The Office had, in large part, not

even heard of the British show and if they had most had little stomach for the subtle British

humor and style.

From a more informed standpoint the show was viewed with greater skepticism. It is

common for remake attempts to fail dramatically and become what many call a ―shadow of its

former self.‖ The very fact that The Office boldly attempts this commonly ‗suicidal‘ feat is a

Office Criticism 14

stance against predictable and commercial bad television. The campaign to reintroduce the

show‘s concept in America was led by the star of the British series. It was risky to attempt an

entirely unknown form of television known as mockumentary in America since there was not a

known fan base from which to draw.

As could be implied from the above general information about the series, the producers

and writers of The Office are a unique and skilled group. A more thorough and adequate

description of their skills will be discussed in terms of the theoretical criteria. Specifically,

Thompson‘s mention of pedigree and artistic struggles will be combined with Lavery‘s

interpretation in the form of forces which built the team‘s histories, talents and tendencies.

Definition of Terms

A large part of the description thus far has been dedicated to discussing terms related to

‗quality television.‘ Comprehension of terms in specific context will be key to clarifying my

study‘s claims and statements. For instance, although Thompson based his definition for ‗quality

television‘ on Dorothy Swan‘s (1984) statement: ―A quality series enlightens, enriches,

challenges, involves, and confronts. It dares to take risks, it is honest and illuminating, it appeals

to the intellect and touches the emotions. It requires concentration and attention, and it provokes

thought‖ (p. 77), under the context of this qualitative evaluation a more strict and quantifiable

definition will be used. Quality television will be defined as, the extent to which the artifact

fulfills Thompson‘s criteria (1996). This means that mention of quality television in conclusions

or evaluations made during the study will refer to the measure of success or failure in meeting

criteria benchmarks.

Office Criticism 15

Thompson employs some fairly vague verbiage in his criteria. Using Lavery‘s construal

and a common understanding of related issues have been matched with the crucial terms in each

of the Thompson criteria to be applied. For example the criterion ―Quality TV usually has a

quality pedigree‖, raises the question ―How do you define ‗quality pedigree‘‖? Quality pedigree

is a culmination of an artifact‘s creator‘s experiences and credentials that are conducive to

production. Each of these will tie in to an analysis of the artifact and its characteristics via

proposed research questions.

The other chief terms in the five remaining criteria which will be used in relation to my

research questions. A large ensemble cast is a cast including a copious quantity of performers

whose personalities appropriately conflict to develop relationships between viewers and the

characters in addition to inciting drama. Controversial is introducing socially opposing views

(ideas), usually of a moral, ethical, political nature. Memory is sense and execution of accurate

self history. Genre is a category marked by a distinctive style, form, or content (including all

recognized categories claimed to be television genres). Noble struggle against profit-mongering

networks and non-appreciative audiences is loosely defined effort to maintain artistic goals in

production put forward by the show‘s creators in opposition to other factors.

Other terms may have definitions which could become limiting. Stockholders include

anyone who has any type of investment in the artifact, explicitly producers, writers, and fans.

Stakeholders are those individuals or groups who have financial connections to the artifact.

Pressures of commercial success include any fiscally related demands on the artifact.

Definitions can be referred to in comprehending the study.

Office Criticism 16

Purpose of the Study

This systematic evaluation and analysis of the The Office focuses on the first season.

Obviously much will still be applicable across the series due to patterns and personalities of the

show‘s writers and producers. Conclusions drawn from analyzing and evaluating the artifact,

The Office (Season One) will be applicable to other similar seasons.

Interest

I have several personal reasons for choosing this artifact. I have been a ‗fan‘ of The

Office from its inception and appreciate it most for its clever humor and mockumentary style.

Studying Communications and Political Science while attending Adrian College, I began to learn

of some criticism paradigms and spent a semester writing about them. I noticed the extreme lack

of literature on ―The Office‖ and felt compelled to create some literature of my own.

Justification for the Study

In addition to generating the first actual criticism of The Office this study should in effect

update the paradigm through the production of a critique of a modern television show. The

results can be compared with quality shows from the early years of television and a comparison

will establish the differences between communication eras. The approach of this project is

somewhat innovative as it does more that simply judging how a television show measures up to a

set of standards.

Prior to evaluating the artifact‘s ‗overall‘ quality, isolated aspects of the artifact that

relate directly to quality will be explored and analyzed. Normally critical publications illustrate

the series as they compare it to criteria and then make the statement that it is or is not a quality

Office Criticism 17

program. This is a somewhat unique investigation as it extends to the root of quality with a

description of how each characteristic of the show that is an addition to its quality. In this way

one can garner knowledge regarding those components which are crucial to developing valuable

television. The accumulation of this knowledge is immediately significant to the future of

television as it relates the practical applications of a criterion to its fulfillment.

As mentioned before many examples of criticism can be found using the methodology of

applying a paradigm to a television series. Specific examples were pointed out in which

Thompson‘s criteria set was used directly. One such example is an article on The Simpsons by

Dan Korte (2009) who uses the exact same methodology.

Literature Review

The Office, a remake of the British television series, first aired in March of 2005 (Walter

2005). Since then, no critical work has been written and the only academic writing is irrelevant

to evaluating the artifact itself in any way. It is a tongue in cheek philosophy discussion using

the show as a resource for examples (Wishewski, 2008). The lack of sources and nonexistence of

evaluative literature begs an application of an acclaimed criticism paradigm. This is necessary

for comparison to other artifacts and for the extension of the accepted knowledge in the field.

But it is also of highest importance to edify the fans and admirers of the artifact and salvage their

pride by producing a long awaited evaluation.

Since the first sounds were uttered to the public assembly by the orators and sophists of

Ancient Greece, one-to-many mass media and its influences have concerned the educated.

Starting with the review of such rhetoric and continuously evolving to apply to each new

medium, culture, and context, criticism of Communication and the arts flourished (Vande Berg

Office Criticism 18

& Wenner 1991). Assigning value took differing forms but two main forms of evaluation seem

to exist in an ‗objective‘ format. Either the masses evaluate the artifacts by their collective

popular opinion, or the elite and educated shape informed ideas about the artifact (Vandeberg

1991, 1999). In order to more objectively evaluate an artifact in context requires a system

(paradigm; theory) for organization (Brummett 1994; Bourdieu 1986; Burke 1966; Littlejohn

1999; Stoner & Perkins 2005).

Television was commercially available in 1930 (O'Connor & John 1983). Shortly after

the inception of televised communication academics noticed the political, social, and educational

far reaching implications of such a powerful tool delivering emotional, vivid images animated

with synchronized sound (McLuhan 1964, 1967; Jenkins 2006; Baker and Dessart 1942; Fiske

1994; Sayeau 2004; Marc 1995; O‘Connor 1983; Spigel and Olsson 2004). Some have disagreed

and generally claim that television is destructive and worthless. These critics would likely call

‗quality television‘ an oxymoron as they hold great prejudices against the medium itself (Marc

1995). All however accept that television is vastly powerful and important whether they think is

a destructive or beneficial instrument.

Thompson‘s first set of twelve criteria claim to cover all television up to the point of a

major shift in television during the mid 1950s. He simply supplied a logical solution: ―Quality

TV is best defined by what it is not. It is not ‗regular ‗TV‖ (Nelson 2006; Thompson 1996, p. 3).

Since then everything has changed. Due to the extreme proliferation of value studies applied to

television which all seem to respond to these criteria, the publication of Television's Second

Golden Age (1997) is widely accepted as the beginning of the ‗quality‘ television discussion.

Many accredited scholars are heavily invested in discussing television in terms of ‗quality‘ (Feur

Office Criticism 19

1984; Brunsdon 1990; Corner 1994; Thompson 1996; Nelson 1997, 2006; Jacobs 2001; Janovich

and Lyons 2003).

There has been much consideration lent to the similarities and contrasts between ‗good‘

and ‗quality‘ television. Sarah Cardwell (2007) concludes that ‗quality‘ television and ‗good‘

television are both really our timid attempts to hide our critical judgments. In effect, those

programs which we value, study, and respect, constitute the real quality television without

inverted commas. (2007)

Although drastic development did occur in the field in the last two decades few theories

or paradigms seem to be more frequently used and accepted than those of Thompson (1996) in

his earlier writings (Vande Berg 1991, 1999; Nelson 2006; McCabe & Akass 2007; Kotre 1997).

One of the most well known authors in the field, David Lavery, consistently uses Thompson‘s

criteria in his critiques. Lavery has criticized everything from Seinfeld to Buffy the Vampire

Slayer and is an active member of the field. No one, however has criticized The Office in terms

of quality via any paradigm. Using the most respected narrative television criticism paradigm

found (Thompson, 1996) and the application methodology of Lavery (2001), this study evaluates

the quality of the artifact and analyses the components that dictate its quality.

Research Questions:

RQ 1 What approach is taken in developing relationships between the principle performers of

the cast toward developing „good television‟?

RQ 2 What role do experiences and credentials of the artifact‟s creators play in shaping the

artifact toward „quality television‟?

Office Criticism 20

RQ 3 How does The Office introduce controversial material?

RQ 4 What genres are mixed to create a new genre represented in The Office?

RQ 5 What part, if any, does a sense of self history play in the establishment of the artifact as

„quality television‟?

RQ 6 What strategies do The Office‟s stockholders employ in the struggle against the pressures

of commercial success?

RQ 7 What are the strengths, if any, of The Office, Season One establish it as „quality

television‟?

Office Criticism 21

Chapter Two

Opening

To more fully understand the quality of The Office as per Thompson‘s criteria I have

developed, defined, and made operational those terms from each criterion which are the

determining variables in judging a series as quality or ‗trash‘ television. The analysis will focus

on those parts of the program which are relevant to the criteria, and more specifically relate to

the variables embedded in the criteria with which the quality of the show will be evaluated. A

number of criteria suggest quality and each of these criteria includes at least one variable. To

complete a successful analysis each criterion must be clarified and if possible quantified to

produce a working measure of success or failure as applied to the series. The show and relevant

material concerning it must then be examined in terms of information pertaining to each criterion

represented by their respective variables. Upon completion, the compiled data will allow for

separate discussions, suggest judgments concerning each criterion, and provide the necessary

tools for constructing an overall ruling on The Office‘s quality.

Operationalizing the Criteria
The six criteria which constitute the foundations of my first six research questions can

each be defined in detail for the benefit of more accurate and focused analysis. Embedded in

Thompson‘s paradigm are the six criteria which can each be measured through their central

terms: ensemble cast, pedigree, controversial (subject matter), genre (blended), memory (self

Office Criticism 22

history), and noble struggle. Each criterion is explained below including the method with which

it will be used to directly measure The Office.

Quality TV tends to have a large ensemble cast.
Critics perceive two consistent indicators of a quality ensemble cast. The first is the

sheer quantity of recurring characters. Korte concludes his criticism of The Simpsons‟ a

quantitative statement: ―Over one hundred characters have been portrayed on The Simpsons,

easily attaining the ―large ensemble cast‖ criterion of the quality TV formula as defined by

Robert J. Thompson‖ (2009 p.7). Secondly, the characters must be diverse and dynamic enough

to create relational conflict. Whenever this criterion is applied to a series the study cites ―the

core‖ characters and proceeds to sort them into types or personalities to explain their collective

dramatic potential (Wilcox & Lavery, 2001 p. xxii; Korte, 2009 p. 6,7).

It is generally understood that the true core cast of a show must include upwards of four

preferably at least six recurring characters which are featured in nearly all if not every episode. I

will set the bar at five. Five characters must play a major role in each episode‘s conflict

consistently for at least 90% of the season. Further, the cast members meeting this requirement

must collectively create a personality/character type conflict. To measure this I have selected

one commonly accepted personality type categorizing charts reflecting the four temperaments.

A recent discussion is found in the material published by Florence Littauer (1992). To qualify, a

series must display characters meeting the standards for recurring which exhibit ‗opposing‘

(opposite sides of the chart) personality types (Figure 1). A minimum of five relational conflicts

Office Criticism 23

must exist, as represented by polar opposite personality types within the group.

[Figure 1]

Office Criticism 24

Quality TV usually has a quality pedigree.
Wilcox and Lavery describe pedigree in terms of the creator‘s cachet which is then

summarized as a short living obituary of their education, publications, and career success (2001,

p. xxi). As Korte explains, quality television is produced by those ―who have honed their skills

in other areas, particularly film‖ (2009, p. 4). Thus, pedigree can be developed through gaining

experiences or/and credentials. These two contributors to excellence in the field are often

validated by awards, publications, and public interest. Literary, genre-oriented, or professionally

relevant experiences which are publically recognized are mentioned in a resume or referenced in

an article which would characterize pedigree. Examples include a Grammy award or a

Communication degree from an established university.

To meet the criteria for quality pedigree the series must have a media lineage, such that

the creators have at least three experiences or/and credentials (qualifications) validated in

nationally available publications or awards.

The subject matter of quality TV tends toward the controversial.
In describing this criterion Thompson points out that quality shows often include

messages of ―liberal humanism,‖ examples including ―AIDS, abortion, homosexuals, racism, and

religion‖ (1996 p.3). Critics suggest that quality TV forces audiences to confront important

unsettled issues with an air of caution and responsibility or at least exposes them to the heavy

subjects for consideration (Korte, 2009 p. 9,10). Controversial material then must provoke and

confront viewers with opposing views. This can be measured through recognition in the form of

awards or through recognition of those subjects which are socially considered liberal in the

current context, i.e. health care, prisons or alcohol. In my study controversial subjects will be

identified using a list of contextually relevant conflict-ridden issues compiled by Santa Ana

Office Criticism 25

College in 2006. Obviously issues move in and out of public scrutiny and this standard is not

necessarily one hundred percent representative of our societal views, but it should serve well as a

benchmark. A quality television show will expose audiences to at least five of the listed

controversial topics in a season. An article or award directly attributing progress toward any

issues‘ positive resolution also counts toward my threshold of five.

Quality TV creates a new genre by mixing old ones.
Thompson, like critics applying his criteria, supplies an example and lists those ‗old‘

genres that compose it (Wilcox & Lavery, 2006; Korte, 2009; Thompson, 1996). To qualify as

representing a new genre (quality TV) the artifact must reflect the characteristics of multiple

genres while maintaining a hybrid nature as defined by the Wikipedia genre lists (Figure 3).

Although it may seem amateurish to use Wikipedia as a source, I believe I am justified. Sorting

genres requires definitions that are direct reflections of a socially constructed television category.

It is also vital that this ‗list‘ is fairly recent. The resulting genre must be a combination of at

least two known categories.

Quality TV has a memory.
―Thought it may or may not be serialized in continuing story lines, these shows tend to

refer back to previous episodes. Characters develop and change as the series goes on‖

(Thompson 1996 p.3). The concept of self history (memory) is when characters in relationships

notice evolutions as they unfold and remember them along with fans. The most accurate way to

define memory for measurement is in terms of back reference or number of allusions to previous

material. If the series is a serialized program it will always qualify. Thompson‘s memory

suggests the quality series commonly refers to changes and evolutions made in previous

episodes; this will be measured by requiring as a benchmark that a quality series must refer to

Office Criticism 26

some aspect, instance, or change found in previous series material at least twice in each

individual episode.

Quality shows must often undergo a noble struggle against profit-mongering networks and non-
appreciative audiences.
Thompson (1996) points out that most quality television begins with poor ratings or

income loss due to the strong loyalty of the creators to their artistic vision. Lavery strongly

agrees with this criterion and the title of his book Fighting the forces (2001) is in fact a reference

to the many outside pressures placed on writers and producers of television shows which

constitute the art/commerce battle. This criterion‘s model may be compressed as the noble

struggle of the art/commerce battle revealed by publications expressing the uncommon nature of

network success in light of series troubles affecting ratings, time slots, money, or popularity. At

least three such publications must exist for the program to qualify. The Office is a complicated

but clear example of this fight mostly waged with the producer, who both wrote and funded the

series. The key seems to be innovation. It is possible to be successful and, at the same time,

protect the artistic essence of the series.

Methodology
This study will be conducted in several steps or procedures. First the appropriate

paradigm will be selected for application to the show. This paradigm will be used to develop

specific terms variables and questions. Suitable standards for the medium will then be developed

to explore those aspects of the program which are most relevant. A direct examination of the

material is conducted yielding the information for discussing and evaluating the series. A

discussion led by important questions developed from the theory will then be carried out to

expand on the significance of the collected data. This section focuses on the strengths of the

Office Criticism 27

television show; in other words, it explores those characteristics of the series which fulfill the

criteria for quality television. Conclusions will be drawn by evaluating the show‘s strength in

relation to each criterion. These conclusions then will create the basis for future studies to be

conducted.

Analysis

Procedural Analysis



Applying the standards in Thompson‘s criteria, I examined The Office in a focused and

revealing manner. The first criterion requires an analysis of the show‘s characters, their number,

and their measure by personality standards. The total number of characters featured in the series,

up to the 84th episode of The Office comes to 58 cast members. Of these, 27 appeared in the first

season. According to the established measurement a recurring character would be featured in 5.4

episodes in the first season or within the entire cannon 75.6 episodes. Eleven characters make

the full cannon cut and eleven characters also qualify for the first season. Of the eleven with five

or more episodes in the first season, ten were in 100% of each episode. Each of the four

personality types is represented amongst the recurring characters. Of the group there is one

Choleric (lion), five Phlegmatic (golden retrievers), two Melancholy (beavers), and two

Sanguine (otters). Having a member of each personality type ensures the maximum amount of

conflict types –six.

Office Criticism 28



The second criterion is a review of the show‘s creators‘ credentials and awards to

establish the program‘s pedigree. Analysis of the awards and publications proclaiming The

Office‘s media lineage confirm that it easily meets and surpasses the benchmark of three

pedigree credentials or experiences. The executive producer alone could satisfy this

requirement. Gervais was an English actor, author, comedian, producer, director, and pop

musician. His continued work has gained him countless awards and accolades including three

Golden Globes, and 16 other wins as well as 22 nominations for awards like the Emmy.


Using liberal humanism as a standard for controversial subjects, I combed over the first

season of The Office for examples that would satisfy the criterion for quality television. I found

eleven controversial subjects that were explicitly mentioned in the list in the show‘s first season.

This meets the benchmark of five instances of controversial subjects in the season.


Gathering data concerning the genre of the program consisted of comparing the elements

of the show mentioned in each listed genre‘s definition and evaluating it in the artifact as

representative of each genre. A full review of the listed genre‘s definition‘s combined with my

accumulated knowledge of the show, reveal that The Office has created a new genre which mixes

fourteen known genres, both literary and those specific to television. This clearly surpasses the

Office Criticism 29

minimum combination of two genres. It should be noted that many of these categories overlap,

combine, or have spawned other genres.



I then scoured the first season of The Office for instances of self reference to analyze the

program‘s memory. A qualifying series must either be a serial program or allude to itself at least

twice per episode. The Office is a hybrid serial/episodic program. It maintains a continuous

story line but also applies as an episodic program with each episode working with an isolated

plot line. This writing style automatically establishes the show as a program presenting a quality

sense of memory.



The sixth criterion, embodied in a noble struggle, requires that three publications must be

oriented toward describing low ratings, low funding, related innovations, or artistic struggle. To

fully understand the essence of the struggle I analyzed those expectations involved in the noble

struggle and, subdivided them by social, artistic, and economic pressures affecting the artifact

(Appendix A). My investigation results indicate nine relevant publications described the

creator‘s efforts and stance in the face of opposition.


television‟?

Office Criticism 30

My analysis of The Office has produced sufficient data for evaluating the show‘s quality,

according to Thompson, and produced an indicator of the program‘s specific strengths and

shortcomings in quality. According to the preliminary analysis The Office is quality television.

This introduces an opportunity to talk about the specifics of its strengths.

Office Criticism 31

Chapter 3

Opening

This chapter will focus primarily on the interpretation of the findings discussed in the

previous chapter. First I will restate the purpose of the study. This will be followed by the

research questions. Next I will explain what the data is and give examples for each criterion.

The data in numeric form will then be stated and described in terms of the research question it

answers. Finally my interpretation will start with a short introduction followed by my answers to

each research question. Following my interpretation is a short conclusion.

Purpose of the Study

This systematic evaluation and analysis of the The Office focuses on the first season.

Obviously much will still be applicable across the series due to patterns and personalities of the

show‘s writers and producers. Conclusions drawn from analyzing and evaluating the artifact,

The Office (season one), will be applicable to other similar programs. The primary purpose of

my study, is to answer the research questions providing practical insight into the process of

creating quality television creation. Upon completion my study will also provide a replicable

method that can be reproduced to evaluate other programs.

Research Questions





Office Criticism 32





RQ 6 What strategies do The Office‘s stockholders employ in the struggle against the pressures



television‟?

Data

My analysis of The Office has produced sufficient data for evaluating the show‘s

quality, according to Thompson, it has also produced indicators of the program‘s specific

strengths and shortcomings in quality. Data refers to any evidence which meets the variables

requirements to contribute toward quality. For instance, a quality show has developed a mixed

genre requiring two old categories to directly apply to the program. Fourteen ‗old‘ genres

combine in the newly formed genre of The Office. Specific evidence includes the definition of

one such genre: Mockumentary. This has been described by our list as a story that isn‘t about

true historical events; rather, it uses the documentary ‗style‘ to cover fictional, and generally

humorous, events or characters. This process of analysis builds a context for objectively judging

media. In effect, I have established units of measure for each variable. The given example,

mockumentary, is one genre unit.

Office Criticism 33

An ensemble cast is slightly more complicated as it holds a unit to multiple criteria. One

qualifying character, Michael Scott (Steve Carell), played active roles and was credited in 100%

of the first season‘s episodes, thus meeting the qualification of ninety percent screen time per

season. He fulfills the second standard through his personality type; as a Sanguine (Otter), his

personality conflicts adequately with other members.

To find a candidate with a pedigree, experience or credentials must be possessed by a

creator. One such creator is the executive producer Ricky Gervais who won an Emmy. The

Emmy award indicates quality television pedigree.

A controversial subject must be easily represented in the show itself. Racism is an

example of a subject which can be controversial. An award presented by the NAACP for the

show‘s ability to responsibly confront controversial and racial issues qualifies racism as a

potentially volatile topic for television. The sensitivity of this particular subject can be pulled

directly from the program in a quote: ―Michael: Wow, that is a great story. That's the American

dream right there, right? Um, let me ask you, is there a term besides ‗Mexican' that you prefer?

Something less offensive‖ (season 1, episode 2)?

Memory is indicated by self allusions or by the continuity of serial television style. One

example would be in the fourth episode, ―The Alliance.‖ The name of the episode, its plot, and

the entire script reflect a scheme about downsizing which is a reference to the first episode, ―The

Pilot,‖ during which corporate tells the boss they will be downsizing or reducing the work force.

Office Criticism 34

Noble struggle can be embodied in an article entitled ―'The Office' Star Turns Down

Exclusive Deal‖ published 22 March 2005 [Figure 4]. This article is a clear indicator of the

program‘s creator‘s struggle for their artistic vision against fiscal forces.

Using this data based on six of Thompson‘s criteria, The Office makes the grade and is a

quality television show.

Findings

Each set of data is an indicator of the show‘s ability to qualify as quality program. This

measure however will be described further in terms of each research question. Every one of the

first six research questions relates directly to a specific criterion. Thus the data extracted as a

result of each criterion is valuable in answering the research question. The final question simply

summarizes the results of the evaluation and simplifies the resulting conclusions of the study. In

essence, the answers for each of the questions will point to a more complete understanding of

how to make television better.



The data establishes that The Office has a quality ensemble cast. Eleven characters

appear in five or more episodes of the first season asserting their status as core recurring

characters. Each of these characters appears in the program with a directly converse personality

type. The Office establishes the maximum of six personality type conflicts qualifying over the

minimum of five. This data provides insight into the process of constructing and developing a

quality ensemble cast. Combined with a rudimentary analysis the benchmarks for establishing a

Office Criticism 35

criteria qualifier constitute a process or approach which the creators of The Office have executed

to build a successful quality program.


artifact toward „quality television‟?,

The Office was created by producers and writers who far surpassed the benchmark of at

least three nationally validated experiences or credentials. Knowledge of the experiences and

credentials found in the creating cast allows for the discussion of how specific parts of a show‘s

pedigree contribute to its quality.


Using the list of controversial materials a review of the show will provide the process

with which the material is actually introduced. The data itself consisted of eleven subjects which

were mentioned on the list. This exceeded the benchmark of five.


Fourteen known literary and television genres were combined to create The Office‘s new

genre. The list of these genres combined with evidence that The Office belongs to each category

will provide the names of the genres involved and answer the research question.



To answer this, an analysis should establish the show as serial. Then evidence of this

genre being quality and pleasing audiences should be attained to fortify the connection.

Office Criticism 36



Nine articles discussing the ‗noble struggle‘ along with other available information on

The Office contribute to a greater understanding of the stockholder‘s game plan. The data is a

cannon which provides the story of the stakeholder‘s resistance to outside sources.


television‟?

This question seeks to understand the program as a whole. This question begs for a

summary of the conclusions gleaned from the answers to questions one through six. In this way

the conclusions allow for an interpretation of how The Office became successful. Hypothetically

the resulting process could be used to create a new quality program.

Interpretation



This first research question is framed from the perspective of Thompson‘s criterion:

―Quality TV tends to have a large ensemble cast (Thompson 1997 in Wilcox & Lavery, 2002, p.

xxi),‖ the principle performers are those who qualify with five or more episodes, namely:

Actor Character Personality

1. Steve Carell Michael Scott Sanguine

2. Rainn Wilson Dwight Schrute Choleric

3. John Krasinski Jim Halpert Phlegmatic

Office Criticism 37

4. Jenna Fisher Pam Beesly Phlegmatic

5. B.J. Novak Ryan Howard Melancholy

6. Leslie David Baker Stanley Hudson Choleric

7. Brian Baumgartner Kevin Malone Phlegmatic

8. Angela Kinsey Angela Martin Melancholy

9. Oscar Nunez Oscar Martinez Phlegmatic

10. Phyllis Smith Phyllis Lapin Phlegmatic

11. Kate Flannery Meredith Palmer Sanguine

The above listing also includes the personality types which Lavery and Thompson suggest are a

major part of the quality casting development process. One common method of describing a

program‘s aptitude in casting, used in criticisms of Buffy, The Simpsons, and The Sopranos, is to

simply list all the major performers with a short description of each in order to display the

diversity, variety, and personality of the characters (Wilcox & Lavery 2002; Korte 2009; Nelson

2006).

One such description can be gleaned from analysis. The Office features a nerd with

authoritarian values and decisiveness, a cool guy who likes pranks, middle aged men without

dreams, the overly clingy talk a lot prissy girl, attractive women, gruff truck loaders, and

presumptuous bosses. It is well known that such a selection of personalities enables viewers to

empathize with one of them and connect while possibly creating an uncontrollable enmity

between the viewer and one of the characters which is also addicting. The program

accomplishes this by presenting the mentioned types. These characters often form interesting

and realistic relationships based on their respective personalities.

Office Criticism 38

A quality cast will provide the right differences in character traits to be conducive to

various plot lines or to the creation of conflict. As Thompson states in his summary of this

criterion ―The variety of characters allows for a variety of viewpoints since multiple plots must

usually be employed to accommodate all the characters‖(Wilcox & Lavery 2002, p. 3). The

success of The Office in qualifying as a quality show as well as the massive amounts of fan

commentary on their love for the characters is evidence that the program creators have selected

carefully selected a multidimensional and versatile cast. Due to the general lack of more

generally accepted criteria for diversity such as race, economic class, sexuality, and lifestyle it

seems that the brunt of the character distinctions must originate elsewhere.

I suggest that The Office is able to ‗get away with‘ a lower level of visually recognized

diversity through the clever use of personality characteristics. In this was the producers can best

maintain a realistic mockumentary genre while providing themselves with plot options. The

approach was to select a few members for their personal ability to provide controversial material

and then cast an office building filled with different personas so as to instigate a level of

interpersonal conflict. Like any good office of late, The Office has clearly been subjected to

‗equal opportunity‘ employment and other forms of political pressure to include a minimum of

non-middle class white males. It is evident that Oscar‘s character provides a way for the

program to introduce the controversial issues of racism and homosexuality. Stanley, the one

African American man in the office area, also contributes greatly to the introduction of race

oriented plot devices. The same can be said of character flaws. Flannery, for instance, is a

raging alcoholic. This form represents the classic introduction of character diversity. The Office

however has carefully introduced an intricate assortment of personalities to promote better

character development.

Office Criticism 39

With the intent of creating plot flexibility, allowing for controversial issues, and inserting

conflicting personality types for character development and conflict the producers of the office

selected their cast carefully. Another quality which diversity in persona produces is the ability to

relate to audiences or at least to interact with them by incorporating familiar personality types

that a fan can love or hate. The principle performers in the first season collectively produced all

the available personality tensions that could arise according to the selected personality measure.

The cast consists of two Sanguine (Otter) personalities. Michael and Meredith both consistently

display the fun loving, fickle, and emotional characteristics, with all the charted indicators, of the

Artistic Performer. The same comparisons can be made for each of the principle performers to

reveal that the first season includes two Sanguine, two Choleric, two Melancholy, and five

Phlegmatic. It is especially important that the Phlegmatic personality be represented with greater

numbers as most view this personality as the standard. In the description of the Golden retriever

type it mentions they are the status quo. This weighted representation of what most people view

as normal will emphasize the distinct and humorous personality types of the others in the office.

One writer points out how the Phlegmatic type appeals to many of us in a review of the program:

The show‘s hero is a young, ordinary worker – named Jim Halpert
– who somehow thrives in this strange world, overlooking the
boss‘s mistakes and finding entertaining ways to covertly
antagonize Dwight. ―Jim: Sometimes I send Dwight faxes, from
himself, from the future…‖ Each episode includes intriguing
glimpses of the side characters…
(Zilla 2002, p. 1)
This short example is clearly a result of a well planned continuous tension between a Choleric

Dwight and a Phlegmatic Jim sitting one desk away. Analyzing the program has helped me to

see that nearly every development between the characters can be described in terms of

Office Criticism 40

personality types whether it be a romance, a spat over working weekends, or a decision about

where the water cooler goes.

The question: What approach is taken in developing relationships between the principle

performers of the cast toward developing „good television‟?, can be answered as follows. The

Office has produced a quality ensemble cast by selecting unique and identifiable characters

whose personality types constantly conflict.

The creators of The Office used a complicated selection process based on the ingenuity of

their writers which had several influences. First and foremost was the task of reciprocating the

basic characters in the British version and the quantity. It was also important to make each one

unique and interesting. The cast also needed to provide opportunities for controversial issues to

arise. Finally and most importantly the cast was chosen to relate to one another and to the

audience based on personality types.



This research question is best approached through the data provided via the second

criterion: ―Quality TV usually has a Quality Pedigree (Thompson 1997 in Wilcox & Lavery,

2002, p. xxi).‖ The data quantified in publications of experiences and credentials reflects my

previous understanding prompted by Wilcox and Lavery as well as Thompson. This criterion,

―Quality Pedigree‖, evaluates artifacts based on their creator‘s ‗media lineage‘. Some

characteristics of this distinction include, the directors ‗cachet‘, the directors experience,

training, education, and relevant degrees, as well as the variety of the persons training, how

Office Criticism 41

diverse their experiences have become. A description of their education, internships and

experience with publishing would be relevant to the second benchmark of this criterion. In more

abstract terms the creator of a quality film tends to have some sort of qualified or interesting

background that somehow prepares them to make quality television.

Although the massive and complex writing crew for The Office is comprised entirely of

individuals who exemplify impressive pedigrees, I have chosen to illustrate the show‘s lineage

by focusing on the three central producers. The Office has a quality pedigree as a result of the

qualifying experiences and works of Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant, executive producers,

and producer by Greg Daniels. Consulting producers Larry Wilmore and Lester Lewis combine

with the writing cast of Daniels, Gervais, Merchant, Michael Schur, Jason Kessler, Lee

Eisenberg, Gene Stupnitsky, Jennifer Celotta, Brent Forrester, Justin Spitzer, Steve Carell,

Mindy Kaling, Paul Lieberstein, and B.J. Novak also contributed a massive wealth of writing and

producing experience from various genres and acclaimed works. Rather than one person‘s

cachet, The Office has several head producers with successful professional histories. Gervais,

executive producer was an English actor, author, comedian, producer, director, and pop

musician. His continued work has gained him countless awards and accolades including three

golden globes, and 16 wins as well as 22 nominations for awards like the Emmy. A description

of the awards is available in the following link:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0315041/awards.com. Gervais was involved with or wrote more

accredited works than most any director or comic. .

Merchant, executive producer of The Office, like Gervais, also holds a British Comedy

award, a British Academy of Film and Television award, an Emmy, and a Golden Globe award.

Office Criticism 42

He has experience as a British writer, comic, actor, and director. Gervias and Merchant are well

known friends and co-producer/writers who have worked closely with one another on podcasts

and shows for most of their lives. Two time Emmy winner Daniels, the producer of The Office

worked with some of the most valued episodes of ―The Simpsons‖, co-wrote a Signified episode,

created King of the Hill, and Mike Judge. Daniels attended Harvard University. While there he

wrote for the Harvard Lampoon with Conan O‘Brian. The other writers and actors vary in

popularity and experience. Steve Carrel who plays Michal Scott in the series, is a very well

known celebrity in comedy. He has starred in the feature films, Bruce Almighty, Evan Almighty,

Anchorman, The 40-Year-Old Virgin, Little Miss Sunshine, Dan in Real Life, Horton Hears a

Who! and Get Smart. He has also won various awards and is commonly referred to as a brilliant

sketch artist.

The major producers and writers of the artifact have all had valuable and successful

experience with writing their own scripts, novels, ect. In the case of this program writers were

required to ingest the entire British The Office mythos while maintaining the vision of office

work in America before they were able to rewrite and script the new series. This extra literary

workout most likely strengthened the artifact.

This data suggests that the creators of The Office had been trained and practiced in many

forms of storytelling, comedy, and media. It is obvious the producers were well versed in

creating acclaimed works. Previous to The Office they had already collected a number of

internationally recognized awards. This would indicate that experience plays a role in writing

quality scripts. As far as the ‗role‘ played by a single pedigree in creating quality television, the

conclusions remain unclear. I find a correlation between experience or credentials and excellent

Office Criticism 43

television confirming what scholars said would occur, but the question remains ambiguous. It is

clear that pedigree affords skill and flexibility to a producer or writer. It is unclear however if

specific experiences translate as the creator puts his pen to paper.

The experiences and credentials of The Office‟s creators contribute to the creativity and

skill as well as the confidence and flexibility that combine to produce a quality script. As far as

practical application this simply means the best writers produce the best shows as per their

pedigree.


The Office introduces controversial material in a quality manner as previously discussed. The

subjects (material) qualifying as data in the first season is as follows:

Material Episode

1. Affirmative Action

2. Health Care Health Care

3. Homosexuality

4. Immigration Diversity Day

5. Medical Ethics Health Care

6. Mental health Health Care

7. Middle East Diversity Day

8. National Security/Nuclear Weapons Diversity Day

9. Racism Diversity Day

10. Sexual Harassment Sexual Harassment

11. Women‘s Rights Sexual Harassment

Office Criticism 44

These subjects were developed through Thompson‘s relevant criterion: ―The subject matter of

quality TV tends toward the controversial‖ (Thompson 1997 in Wilcox & Lavery, 2002, p. xxi),

a criterion celebrating human curiosity and emotions. Quantifying this criterion caused me to

frame the concept as follows. It recognizes the desire to learn and deal with complex or

emotionally loaded topics. The criterion can be characterized in terms of the artifacts capacity to

‗passively‘ or indirectly discusses terms, topics, or scenarios which are commonly considered

controversial and to considers controversial questions with a developed sense of responsibility.

Quality television not only recognizes what people want to think about but it also develops a

moral and ethical stance which can be exemplified in the analogies and symbols of the series. It

is not enough to simply shock the audience with raw controversy but it is nearly necessary to

quietly expose them to it in order for them to experience the scenario. This type of story arc

forces people to deal with tough and important questions.

It becomes clear that story arc or plot line is the primary way in which these subjects are

introduced. Here is an example in which the regional manager Michael introduces the

controversial topics of racism and immigration simultaneously:

Michael:…Oscar, right here. You're on.

Oscar: Okay, Michael, um...both my parents were born in Mexico.

Michael: Oh yeah...

Oscar: And, uh, they moved to the United States a year before I was
born.

Michael: Yeah...

Oscar: So I grew up in the United States.

Michael: Wow.

Office Criticism 45

Oscar: And, my parents were Mexican.

Michael: Wow. That is...that is a great story. That's the American
dream right there, right?

Oscar: Thank...yeah.

Michael: Um, let me ask you, is there a term besides Mexican that you
prefer? Something less offensive?

Oscar: Mexican isn't offensive.

Michael: Well, it has certain connotations.

Oscar: Like what?

Michael: Like...I don't...I don't know.

Oscar: What connotations, Michael?

Michael: Oh no, no, no, no...

Oscar: You meant something...

Michael: Now, remember that honesty...

Oscar: I'm just curious.

Michael: ...empathy, respect...

―Diversity Day‖, Season One, The Office

In this selection, Michael‘s ignorance, stupidity, and extreme insensitivity has been cleverly used

as a plot device to bring out these major issues. Dwight often does although his personality,

Choleric, frequently presents material in a way that is even more insensitive and less idiotic.

In the presentation of such material The Office has the distinct advantage of its main

character not only running the plot of each episode but of this character being an ignorant, sexist,

racist bigot whose obvious selfish planning often leads him to be embarrassed and shamed. The

boss‘s attempts at humor and his serious persona both reek of ignorance as this blog header

suggests:

Office Criticism 46

Parents need to know
Parents need to know that the show's main character regularly
makes insensitive remarks about employees' race and gender, and
that he's treated like a buffoon as a result. The show also features a
fair amount of sexual innuendo. Characters are known to get drunk
at office parties.

Families can talk about rude and inappropriate behavior in
comedic television shows. What is the most outrageous thing
you've ever viewed? Do you think the line of what is considered
acceptable changes? When would you say television writers have
crossed the line into truly offensive? Is that line different for cable
and network shows? Should it be?

http://www.commonsensemedia.org/tvreviews/Office.html?show=
kid# 2008

Through the clever device of desensitizing people to absurd comments the director is able

to introduce important and controversial topics without disrupting character. The surrounding

cast of everyone except Dwight and Michal can then respond with disgust at the topics as the

viewers reflect on what they truly feel or believe about awkward and sensitive topics that have

been blurted out. The show has won awards for its ability to confront controversial topics in

ways they can be discussed. One such award came from the NAACP. The reactions of the

workers often show the reality of what most ‗average‘ Americans feel like and the way they

would respond to such issues. In any case Scott brings major issues to the table with blatant

irresponsibility and the viewer is always in a position to evaluate his or her own answer to

implied questions.

One other way in which controversial material is introduced was discussed previously.

Characters with specific characteristics can cause the development of a program to lead into or

Office Criticism 47

imply controversial material. The prime example of this is Meredith whose alcoholism

introduces the subject itself.

The Office presents controversial materials in three ways: character characteristics, plot

devices, and personality based comments. Character characteristics need not be spoken and are

inherent in a performer‘s race, beliefs, ethinicity, sex, ect. Plot devices are best realized by

analyzing a section of the program for its themes and direction but can also be identified through

the script. Personality based comments stem from the negative attributes of a character‘s

personality.

Subjects are primarily introduced through personality based plot devices. As described

about Michael or Dwight regularly have personality flaws which set in motion controversial

topics that are made most clear in related plot devices. In this way The Office introduces

controversial material habitually.


The selected chart of known genres has been used to describe the program, resulting in a list

of fourteen genres which have been combined in a complex way to result in the new genre of The

Office. The genres constituting the new genre of the show are:

1. Romance

2. Crime Fiction

3. Comedy

4. Comedy of Manners

Office Criticism 48

5. Parody

6. Romantic Comedy

7. Documentary

8. Mockumentary

9. Disaster-Thriller

10. Serial

11. Reality Show

12. Sitcom

13. Documentary [TV]

14. Docudrama

The Office, ―defies genre classification by creating a new one. It does so by mixing

several established genres‖ (Korte 2009, p. 7). The very term ‗mockumentary‘ consistently used

to describe the genre of ―The Office‖ is a mixture of two past presentation styles. Those styles

are satire or mockery like Oedipus Rex or Team America, and the other is documentary or review

such as Super Size Me or anything you can find on the History Channel. By cleverly combining

the classic sarcastic style of drama with the well known form of covering historical and epic

events, The Office celebrates a new sense of comic representation.

The program‘s ability to mock this vast variety of genres lends it an air of superiority.

When a disaster occurs in the plot the show mocks the Disaster Thriller genre while pretending

Office Criticism 49

to do a serious docudrama or documentary of the tragedy; All the while the program is mocking

this setting in a mockumentary satirical style.

The Office refuses to even make the decision to be serial or episodic. The program is a

complex hybrid which can be studied primarily as an episodic chapter program. New small

conflicts beset the characters each show. This, combined with the closed comic nature of each

scenario makes every episode stand alone with a plot of interest to a first time viewer. Each

episode is titled in a way that suggests it is an original conflict. For example the third show aired

was titled Health Care. Such a title suggests that people will be dealing with a prescribed

scenario regarding healthcare. Regardless of how familiar the characters are, viewers should be

able to relate to the unfolding plot. Although each episode brings new independent plot lines, the

characters also change continuously in logical ways. The Office is a complex hybrid show where

relationships develop and lives change but each new chapter offers its own excitement. The

program could just as easily be categorized as a serial program due to its extremely accurate

memory and cumulative story.



The question is best illuminated through use of the criterion ―Quality TV has a memory‖

(Thompson 1997 in Wilcox & Lavery, 2002, p. xxi). As Thompson states; ―though it may or

may not be serialized in continuing story lines, these shows tend to refer back to previous

episodes. Characters develop and change as the series goes on. ―Events and details from

previous episodes are often used or referred to, in subsequent episodes‖ (Wilcox & Lavery,

2002, p. 3). The Office, a complex episodic and serialized program is highly serial in this sense.

Office Criticism 50

The program has a story line that is chronological, continuous, and intensely precise. As

previously described this continuous review allows the show to carry viewers along with the

program‘s characters. Viewers are then able to experience the show as a member of a realistic

and developing world. This is far more exciting than the short story which has to develop

characters and is unable to introduce complex plot devices due to the lack of time. The Office‟s

format allows for allusions to self. When a quality program executes this type of reference they

reward the loyal audience members by giving them a more complete understanding of the

scenario. Many times such an allusion lets the attentive viewer understand an ‗inside joke‘ for

their amusement.

Thompson suggests characters can be developed though the reinforcement of injected self

history. ―As Ken Tucker observes, in Buffy ―people change‖ (Wilcox and Lavery, 2001, p.4). In

The Office people change, relationships develop and evolve as aspects of the office are altered

and the lives of the characters adapt to changes. Like any drama, the people in relationships

never forget who they were or who they were with. Characters even lead us to understand the

memory behind some scenarios. Take, for example, Pam‘s relationship with Roy, which we

learn about in a memory based answer to an interview question:

(Roy walks in, Jim straightens up)

Roy: Hey man.

Pam: Hey!

Jim: What's going on?

Roy: Hi baby.

Pam: Hey.

Office Criticism 51

CUT TO INDUVIDUAL SHOT OF PAM

Pam: Ah, Roy's my fiance. We've been engaged about, um, about three years.
And w-we were supposed to get married in September, but I think we're going to
gonna get married in the spring.

CUT BACK TO RECEPTION

Pam: Do you mind if I go out for a drink with these guys?

Roy: Uh, no. I don't...come on, let's get outta [sic] here, go home?

Pam: Okay, I'm going to be a few minutes, uh. It's only twenty past five, I still
have to do my faxes.

The viewer is able to construct an accurate view of the past through the eyes of Pam‘s memory

which serves as a logical practical reference. In later scenes a fan‘s recall of this interview could

allow them to understand a quip made by clever Jim as he makes light of Roy‘s long late

engagement. Self history in The Office plays the role of developing characters, introducing flash

back histories, rewarding viewers, and bolstering the program‘s realism.

RQ 6 What strategies do the office‟s stockholders employ in the struggle against the pressures of

commercial success?

The pressures of commercial success can be best defined by a discussion of Lavery‘s concept of

forces. Three major types combine to battle the artistic expectations of the creators of a program.

Television often encounters resistance in the form of opposing expectations and needs. The

Office is no exception. These pressures have been subdivided into social, artistic, and economic

expectations that affected the artifact. This real-world analysis of all the stakeholders and

stockholders actual scenario expose the fiscal constraints, the pressure to ‗sell out‘ and the

capacity to reach artistic vision felt by the creators and viewers of the artifact.

Office Criticism 52

Social expectations

Social expectations vary including the standard ideas for a new show. The Office: NBC

was a spinoff/remake/adaptation of The Office: BBC which was a television show which aired in

Britain. Luckily for the producers, the American demographics which the show would need to

accommodate had in large part not even heard of the show and if they had most had little desire

for the subtle British humor and style. However from a more informed standpoint the show was

viewed with great skepticism. It is common for remake attempts to fail dramatically and become

what many call a ‗shadow of its former self‘. The very fact that The Office boldly attempts this

statistically and commonly ‗suicidal‘ feat is a stand against predictable and commercial ‗bad‘

television. The campaign to reintroduce the show‘s concept in America was led by the star of

the British series. It seemed equally risky to attempt an entirely unknown form of television

known as mockumentary in America since there was not a known fan base from which to draw.

The dependence on actor Steve Carrel as a brand name helped. Over time fan communities

developed and communicated openly about their preferences and what they would like to see on

the show. This existed previous to the airing of the show because it was a remake. One such

forum can be found on NBC‘s official site. The discussion is titled: ―Things You Wish They‘d

Show‖ and is available under this hyperlink:

http://boards.nbc.com/nbc/index.php?showtopic=554119&st=0.

The producers‘ collective decision to base the first episode heavily on a British episode

and to select characters that would model the personalities of the British version both played out

splendidly as strategies for appealing to what fan base already existed and catering to their

Office Criticism 53

expectations. Further, as discussed above, the writing staff and stakeholders worked closely

together in order to pursue artistic and social freedom in script writing, production, and

development. This strict adherence to the plot and character development helped the show to

appeal to the viewers it naturally could have only without outside tampering. This description of

the show‘s reception and acceptance by American television audiences captures the social

struggle and finally the social success of the producers‘ attempt to remake or ‗Americanize‘ and

reform the humor of a show in a new culture:

Reception

The first season of The Office received mixed reviews among both
viewers and critics.[14] After the initial episodes, critics thought
The Office would be another failed remake of a British comedy,
much like how the American version of Coupling was in relation
to the original British series.[15] The Deseret Morning News
believed The Office was a failed remake, and said "Maybe, after
The Office dies a quick death on NBC, the network will decide
that trying to Americanize British TV comedies isn't such a great
idea."[16]

Despite these criticisms, a few thought the show achieved success
in its first season. Time magazine wrote that "It's ironic that NBC's
most original sitcom in years is a remake, but who cares? The
Office is a daring, unflinching take on very American workplace
tensions."[14] Boston.com felt that the first season of The Office
was good, and the differences between the characters of the
American and the original series added to the popularity of the
series.[17] Rob Owen of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette felt that The
Office succeeded in its first season, and that although NBC had
failed in the past with television shows such as Coupling, it had
found achievement with The Office.[18]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Office_(US_TV_series)_season_
1

Office Criticism 54

Artistic expectations

―The Office is shot in a single-camera setup, without a studio audience or a laugh track,

and is made in the form of a documentary, or ‗mockumentary‘. Although fictional and scripted,

the presence of the camera is openly acknowledged‘ (Wikipedia, 2008). Based on the bold move

of Ricky Dene Gervais, who was the star of the British version, to become a major producer of

the American version it is safe to say the writers had some sense of what they want artistically

for this series even before it was released. The concept in theory was for the American version

to begin like its British counterpart and then to begin molding to the cultural allusions, humor

style, and preferences of the American people. The show could then take on its own identity and

create new comic story lines based on the set scenario. All of this worked extremely well and

the characters who had been chosen as representations of the British version each maintained

their identity. Joanna Ostrow spoke of this success in the Denver Post commenting ―it retains

the quiet, desperate, hilarious mock-umentary style of the original. More surprisingly, it respects

the intelligence of the American audience‖ (2005, p.1). The majority of viewers who choose to

analyze the American version after becoming loyal fans of the British version often write it off as

not living up to the expectations or the comedy of the original. As discussed in this giant forum,

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0386676/usercomments the artistic expectations of the British

audience differ greatly from the American ones and those negative comments are likely not

thought through since many of those who post had watched little of the American version. Here

is an example from the mentioned forum of one such person who praises the show for fulfilling

expectations and even surpassing them:

Communication senior research

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Communication senior research

Similar to Communication senior research (20)

More from Josh Emington

More from Josh Emington (20)

Communication senior research