TV Series of the Month – The Office (U.S.)

This month’s TV Series: The Officer (2005-2013)

The workplace mockumentary follows the employees of Dunder Mifflin Paper Company’s Scranton, PA, branch, both their work and personal lives. It is a remake of the British series of the same name.

The show is created by Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant, who also created the British series; however, it is developed for American audiences by Greg Daniels.

The show has a great cast. It is stars Rainn Wilson, John Krasinski, Jenna Fischer, Steve Carell, Ed Helms, Craig Robinson, Leslie David Baker, Brian Baumgartner, Angela Kinsey, Phyllis Smith, Kate Flannery, Creed Bratton, Oscar Nunez, B.J. Novak, Mindy Kaling, Paul Lieberstein, and Ellie Kemper. During the show’s long run, it also featured many fun supporting performances from Zach Woods, Melora Hardin, Andy Buckley, Catherine Tate, Rashida Jones, James Spader, Idris Elba, and Amy Ryan (among many, many more).

In many ways, The Office was able to differentiate and maybe even outshine its British counterpart. The first season was a bit rocky as it tried to find its place, but from the start of season two the series found its voice, creating a very funny and heartfelt show. Yet, as funny as the show is, its best attribute is its great characters. Over the course of nine seasons, these characters are developed and become people the viewer comes to really care about. It is one of the best sitcoms of recent memory.

Trailer: Here

Available on: DVD and Video On-Demand

Jeff, Who Lives at Home (2012) – Review

Review: Jeff, Who Lives at Home is funny and dramatic, and while it is a non-secular dramedy it seemingly plays as almost a spiritual piece. The film is about Jeff, a slacker who lives in his mom’s basement thing to figure out what his purpose in life is. He gets a wrong number call in the morning that sets him off on a journey following what he believes to be signs from the universe pertaining to his purpose. He runs into his brother Pat who suspects his wife is cheating on him, and Jeff and Pat merge their efforts (not to give too much away). Before delving into the narrative too much, the visual style that writer-directors Jay and Mark Duplass employ adds nothing to the film, and if anything is distracting and annoying (though, here, it is nowhere near as prevalent or awful as with their last film Cyrus). The constant quick zooms in or out, simulating some sort of amateurish documentary style greatly detract from everything else going on in the film (i.e. the performances, the tone, the other aesthetics; and while I am not certain, they even look as though they were added in post). It is one thing to implement an aesthetic touch that serves the narrative or tone of the film; it is another to just do it because that is your style regardless of narrative or tone, serving nothing, contributing nothing and being pointless. The Duplass Brothers’ visual style feels pointless and hurts their films. That tangent aside, the Duplass Brothers seem to approach the character of Jeff and his journey of self-discovery from almost a spiritual place. Without pegging any one set of beliefs, Jeff seems to believe he is given signs from the universe telling him where to go, but the Duplass Brothers make it a point that Jeff still has to make the decisions once he gets their – as if the universe is nudging him in a certain direction, but Jeff must choose how to act. And through this journey, Jeff to some degree finds himself, but more so he helps others around him (the basketball player, his brother Pat and his wife Linda, his mother, and Kevin). The Duplass Brothers easily could have wound up with something that felt very hooky, but they writer Jeff to be warm and likable (also this is due to Jason Segel’s great performance) which makes his actions and motivations feel real. The audience likes Jeff and thus is behind him on his journey. Jeff’s warmth stands out as well as the other characters are all disillusioned, disheartened and disenchanted – basically, they are stuck in neutral just plodding forward void of true connection or meaning. They need someone to jumpstart them, and this is where Jeff comes in (though, as a slacker 30-year old who lives in his mother’s basement, Jeff seems the unlikely hero). Jeff, Who Lives at Home is a feel good film that makes the audience care about its characters and may even have them thinking about their own lives and what they are doing with them, but it is tripped up a bit by some of the Duplass Brother’s pointless visual aesthetics and some slow pacing (even though the film is only 82 minutes long).

Technical, aesthetic and acting achievements: I thought the Duplass Brothers would realize that their quick zooms only detract from their films after Cyrus, I was wrong. They are otherwise good directors and I have to believe will outgrow it. Producer Jason Reitman’s influence is felt on the film, as Jeff’s narrative journey feels aligned with his own work, being one of self-discovery, while still seemingly left largely unchanged at the end. The work of composer Michael Andrews, cinematographer Jas Shelton and production designer Chris Spellman all essentially places the narrative in the real world – unflashy, just average and normal. Jeff, Who Lives at Home is built on its performances and dialogue. Rae Dawn Chong, much like Segel’s performance, brings a lot of warmth to the film. She is another entity that tries to insight change in the mundane live of Sharon (Jeff’s mother). Susan Sarandon is very good as Sharon. She seemingly has completely given up hope and yet desperately wants to be rescued from her own life. Judy Greer plays Linda as someone fed up, grasping at anything to feel something. It is another good small supporting performance from her (as she was also great in The Descendants in 2011). Ed Helms plays Pat as sort of a darker version of his The Office character Andy. Pat is a bit clueless; and much like Linda, he just wants to feel something again. Segel gives the best performance of the film. His opening monologue is some of his best work to date – emotionally intense but still with an overtone of this likable average relaxed cool guy.

Summary & score: Jeff, Who Lives at Home offers its audience a few laughs, some good dramatic moments and maybe even something profound. 7/10 

The Hangover Part II (2011) – Review

Review: The Hangover Part II is funny enough, and maybe would be a better film if The Hangover did not already exist, but it does – so this is not. Director Todd Phillips and Warner Bros. seem to be more interested in making money than a compelling narrative (when with a compelling narrative this still would have made the same money, if not more). The story and narrative structure are almost exactly the same as the first film, but Phillips has little regard for the characters and their growth – rather he is mostly concerned with exaggerated jokes that go over-the-top to make this seem even crazier than the first (and I guess we all saw this coming, but forgave it for the potential of another very funny and well done comedy). Sure there are moments of hilarity, but without the character work and strong narrative those moments do not really mean anything and exist on a plane outside narrative filmmaking, falling more under pure spectacle (and this film plays that way, which hurts it gravely). The first was so successful because it was innovative and had relatable and memorable characters. In part II the characters are mere caricatures of themselves (something that sadly seems to be common in sequels) driven by the expectations of fans of the first (with the “dance for me monkey” mentality, and there a monkey in the film!). They no longer feel like real people and thus the audience does not relate to them, and almost regardless of how funny the comedy is and how crazy the misadventures are the film will not be good without the connection with the audience. Phillip’s narrative is also sloppy and built around gags rather than character arcs. It is wholly unsatisfying and even mildly insulting to its audience, especially the third act. Phillips had the opportunity to make another great comedy, working with very funny people, which makes it all the more disappointing that the goal seemingly was to throw something together as close to the first as possible with the aim for dollars and not quality (and the average moviegoer would lap it up anyway, which they have). It almost plays a bit like a parody of itself, which could work given the right tone and crafting, but here it is more the result of shoddy filmmaking than seemingly a conscious effort. In a vacuum (the first film not existing), this would be a mediocre comedy with some really funny parts. As is, The Hangover Part II is just really disappointing and not very good.

Technical and acting achievements: Director Todd Phillips has an up and down track record. He has done some very funny stuff like Old School and The Hangover, but often he gets carried away with gags and jokes and forgets that the most important ingredient to any film is the characters (and secondly the narrative, both of which are weak here, but somewhat saved from sheer terribleness due to some funny stuff and performances).  Christopher Beck’s score is good and fits the tone of the film. Though, his work is somewhat overshadowed by the found-music pieces that fit very well. The cinematography by Lawrence Sher and the production design by Bill Brzeski are probably the best part of the whole film. Both do very good work (especially for a Hollywood comedy). The cast is a little iffier, in terms of good work. The main three actors (Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms and Zach Galifianakis) are good and all are funny (if only their characters where actually given better material and growth), but due to the tired narrative they seemed to be going through the motions a bit (both in performance and their characters confronting the situations). Justin Baratha is not really given anything to do. The same goes for Jeffrey Tambor and Jamie Chung. Ken Jeong plays Mr. Chow as a cartoon version of himself (which you would think would be hard given how crazy he is in the first) and Paul Giamatti is completely uninterested in his performance (probably due to it being poorly written) and it shows as he just phones it in.

Summary & score: All in all The Hangover Part II is a failure (unless you are Warner Bros. and have a big hit on your hands without much effort). Hopefully the third will be better (but I am not holding my breath). 5/10

Cedar Rapids (2011) – Review

Cedar Rapids is very funny – mixing a lot of crude humor with small town heartfelt morality, something not often seen in comedies anymore. Director Miguel Arteta crafts a story of a naïve man who faces the corruption of the big city, but what makes this particular telling of the story interesting is how there is certainly a moral lesson and code to the story but the characters mostly sort of rest in the grey area. In the film the initial villains are not so bad and the good guys are really the devious fellows (not that this has not been down before, it is just that it works very well here). Yet, neither good nor bad completely defines any of them, which in term makes them feel real and more relatable to the viewer. Arteta also allows for the performances of John C. Reilly, Anne Heche and Isiah Whitlock Jr. to play big, which works very well considering star Ed Helms is at his best when reacting to those around him. Helm’s character Tim Lippe is a bit of a man-child (somewhat resembling that of many Will Ferrell roles), but unlike most representations of the role he is not a man-child because he is immature and never grew up rather he is merely naïve and without experience outside of his small town. This nuance makes him much more relatable to the audience which in turn engages them in the narrative past just watching it for laughs, and really elevates the comedy and drama of the film. The audience does care about Lippe and his journey’s outcome and are not there merely to laugh at/with him. The film plays out a bit like The Hangover (though on a much smaller scale), and focuses on a few of the same motifs like friendship, but this is not just a film about a crazy weekend with friends. Arteta creates an interesting juxtaposition between the crudeness of the jokes and language used and the overall message – one of being a good person and doing right is above business success and personal success. The film in a sense plays out like a parable, pitting greed and personal gains against sacrifice, friendship and honor, and a coming-of-age story. It is different, and ultimately something that sets this film apart from the barrage of crude comedies. Despite its outside perception of being an exaggerated wild weekend comedy, the film actually feels real and down to earth, which directly stems from its relatable characters and willingness not to pigeonhole characters and situations into one thing. Cedar Rapids is a very good mix of heart and crude humor (something also done well by Judd Apatow).

Technical and acting achievements: Miguel Arteta is a comedy director that also has a strong sense of drama and deeper characters, making his films feel more honest (which is not necessarily something needed in comedy, making it an odd genre, but certainly can only make a film better). I think this is his best film to date. Producer Alexander Payne also has a strong track record of comedies with deeper characters (Sideways being a good example). Aesthetically, the film is fairly straightforward allowing for the performances and comedy to be the focus. That being said, the technical work on the film did not really standout, but fit the mood of the film and style very well. Composer Christophe Beck’s (who does practically ever comedy, well not really, but he does a lot) score is playful and takes full advantage of the film’s local. Visually, the film never felt confined or restricted even though it mostly takes place in a hotel thanks to the work of cinematographer Chuy Chavez and production designer Doug J. Meerdink. The performances, however, are really what make this film great. Sigourney Weaver, Alia Shawkat and Stephen Root are all funny in their supporting roles. However, the stars and soul of the film is the foursome of Helms, Heche, Whitlock Jr., and Reilly. They are all fantastic – each with their moments of sheer hilarity and dramatic emotion (I especially liked the work of Heche and Reilly).

Cedar Rapids is a great comedy, not just because it is funny (which it really is) but because its characters are so charismatic and draw the audience in. 8/10