We talked a little in class about the similarities between Twenty Twelve and 30 Rock, considering both are programs detailing what goes into producing something. While watching it, I found more parallels to The Office, mostly because of its style. 30 Rock doesn’t have interview segments or any sort of mockumentary feel, so The Office felt like a more natural comparison to me.
One clear difference though is the narration and that the interviewer’s voice is heard. The narrator will frequently talk over the dialogue of the characters in Twenty Twelve, which sort of gave me the impression that what the characters have to say isn’t always going to be funny or interesting, whereas nearly every line in The Office seems to be going for some sort of comedic value. For example, in this clip–which actually was very funny–the narrator speaks over Ian Fletcher, signaling that sometimes what he says doesn’t matter:
More interestingly though, when characters are being interviewed on their thoughts during an episode, you hear the questions that they are asked. The Office has some of its best moments in interviews with the characters, but you never hear the questions from “the camera crew,” although occasionally a character will reference them in the show.
Take this clip. It’s a very well known line from The Office, and think some of its humor comes from the fact that we don’t know what question Michael Scott is being asked. He might be off on this tangent on his own.
Sometimes we hear someone’s interview answer, and we think, what question could they have possibly been asked to spark that response? It’s part of the humor of the show.
Do you guys think Twenty Twelve would be funnier if we couldn’t hear the interviewer’s questions? Or is that factor a welcome addition to the mockumentary format?
I hadn’t really thought about the actual presence we feel/hear of the interviewer in “2012” until you brought it up in this post. Thinking about it, I think it’s possible that “2012” might be funnier if it followed “The Office” and left out an interviewer, but at the same time, I’m not entirely convinced that that would be the case. “The Office” uses its documentary conceit to set up a certain premise, but however-many seasons in, the “documentary” quality of it is just a part of the show, not something that dictates the way stories are presented anymore, as we discussed in class. “2012,” on the other hand, seems to be trying for something much more “realistic” with its documentary style, and having those interviewer’s voice be heard reminds us that we are supposed to be watching a documentary. I do not think of “The Office” as a documentary anymore, nor do I think of “Parks and Rec” as one. It’s a style, but its not a narrative tool. In “2012,” it seems that it might be a narrative tool. The camerawork seems a little less clean, the situations much more “right place at the right time” and the interviews much more, well, interview-y. Would it be funnier? Who can really say. But I wouldn’t want to compare the styles of “The Office” and “2012” too much.