Experimental and Mundane

Despite only running for 14 episodes the original version of The Office is arguably one of the most influential TV shows of the 21st century, which can largely be boiled down to three things.

First, it helped to cement and popularise the single-camera, no-laugh-track sitcom format. A rarity in the British TV landscape at the time. This was helped by its use of a mockumentary style. This made the production feel more real. Allowing us to relate more to the characters and thereby making the funny and poignant moments hit harder.

Secondly, it focused on scenarios and characters that were incredibly relatable for viewers. From workplace romance to the cringe-worthy boss trying to be a friend to his employees without realising the power dynamics in the relationship, to the threat of downsizing and the awkward interactions and personalities you encounter in office work, many viewers were able to identify with what the Office brought to TV.

And lastly, it acted as a platform/launching pad for some great UK comedic and acting talent. The show would catapult most of its central cast, with relatively small CVs at the time, including Ricky Gervais, Martin Freeman and Mackenzie Crook into lengthy media careers. Plus it included bit appearances from future big-hitting UK talent alongside established names. Including Stephen Merchant, Ralph Ineson, Olivia Colman and Martha Howe-Douglas. Among others.

International Appeal

Since the Office ended in 2003 it has been remade in many different countries. These include Germany, Brazil, the USA, France, Canada, Chile, Israel, Sweden, the Czech Republic, Finland, India, Poland, Saudi Arabia and now Australia. These projects have had mixed responses. The US version is considered to be just as good, if not better than, the original series. The German and Brazilian adaptations also have high audience ratings on IMDb. Some adaptations may not be rated highly like Poland, Israel and Finland but they were at least popular enough to have several series made of them. Meanwhile, some remakes that only ran for a single series are rated very highly (Chile) while others are viewed very unfavourably (Canada).

Does It Always Work?

With so many different adaptations, all of which adhered to the mockumentary style, writing that focuses on realistic or/and relatable situations and most of them helping to give platforms to up-and-coming as well as smaller already active talent, what else is crucial for other adaptations of The Office to succeed?

This is a much more difficult question to answer. Many would say that it has to bring something new to the table rather than just parroting the original. And with examples like the more slapstick and over-the-top antics of the US version and the darker streak of Germany’s version that would appear to be the magic ingredient.

However one can argue that adapting to a different cultural context alone provides a reason for a remake to exist because office culture differs across geographical boundaries. For example, the commentary on racism in the Israeli and Chilean versions are pointed observations on racism in both countries. Yet one is looked on more favourably than the other. Additionally, the focus of the Australian version on the boss being a woman places a lens on workplace gender politics. A unique thing for a normally male-dominated franchise. The series has not been received well though (discounting review bombing from hate watchers).

A Missing Ingredient

Ultimately for a new Office project to work it doesn’t just have to do something new with the old formula while also recapturing the surface elements that made the original show work. It must also create characters that draw us in through compelling personalities that audiences attach to. The scenarios, presentation and stars are part of The Office’s appeal and a unique take on the material is a great thing to have. Although without an emotional anchor, The Office is just as dull as actual office work.

Also Read: Ten Great Mockumentaries To Watch

The post The Global Legacy of ‘The Office’: What Makes Some Remakes a Hit and Others a Miss? appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

What’s Going On?

The Favourite is a film set in the court of Queen Anne in the Eighteenth Century. Queen Anne was a real queen of England and most of the characters in the film are also based on real people. However, I don’t think the film pretends to be entirely historically accurate or even wants to be. The film focuses on the rivalry between two women at court who are trying to be Queen Anne’s “favourite”. At the beginning of the film, this position is unquestionably held by Sarah Churchill (Winston Churchill is a descendant of her) who not only dictates many matters at court but settles a lot of state business as well. This position is challenged by the newcomer, Abigail Hill, a young cousin of Sarah’s. Their feuding escalates throughout the film, having consequences not just for the court but for the whole nation.

Behind The Scenes

The film is based on a book by historian Ophelia Field. The book is a biography of Sarah Churchill and it seems that the film has only picked certain aspects for the film. The film directed by Yorgos Lanthimos, a director who is having a run of successful films (The Lobster, The Killing Of A Sacred Deer) and expectations for The Favourite were high.

In Front Of The Camera

The stars are of the film are a trio of brilliant actors: Olivia Colman (Queen Anne), Rachel Weisz (Sarah Churchill) and Emma Stone (Abigail Hill) and all of them are amazing. Colman portrays Anne as a weak ruler who is too easily swayed by those around her. She excesses in food and drink (Sarah often challenges Queen Anne on her diet), dotes on pet rabbits and can switch from praising a person to striking them in a moment. Of course, at this time the queen was still ruling the country, so her temperament had a huge effect on England.

Emma Stone gives a great performance as Abigail Hill, technically a member of the aristocracy who has fallen on hard times and is always on the lookout for ways to improve her position.

I would say it is Rachel Weisz who gives the best performance. Sarah Churchill is many things in this film and they are often contradictory; she is a loyal friend and a bully, a confidante and a blackmailer, a conscientious agent of government and a seller of influence and Weisz conveys this complex character perfectly. Weisz’s Sarah is a determined and forceful woman who will impose her will on politicians and even the Queen.

Does It Work?

The film is amazing – at times funny, at times touching but whatever is going on you are unable to look away. I’ve already stated that the three principle actors are all superb but this is just the start of how good it is. The film effectively creates an eccentric court life nearly completely cut off from reality. We catch glimpses of scullery maids and there is a brief moment spent in a brothel and that’s about all we see of ordinary people. Some of the politicians talk about the needs of the people but you get the feeling that’s only a convenient political weapon. Speaking of the court it is very helpful that the two political parties, the Tories and Whigs, each have their own distinctive style and so are easily recognised – with Nicholas Hoult looking especially ridiculous.

The rivalry between Sarah and Abigail is played out wonderfully. Sarah is a lifelong friend of the Queen, they have a history of decades of shared jokes, anecdotes and acts of friendship. Whereas Abigail perhaps brings something new and exciting. There is an interesting counterpoint between the two competing favourites. Sarah is not always pleasant to the queen, for example saying that she says she looks like a badger when going to meet a delegation from Russia. The Queen is upset and lets Sarah go in her place. Is Sarah being honest to an old friend to spare her embarrassment or is she simply manipulating her so she can exercise power? Again, Sarah does handle a lot of political matters; is this because she knows the Queen is ill-equipped to handle this and the country needs a leader or she wants power for herself? Certainly it seems the Queen is easily led, often taking the lead from whoever last spoke to her. Conversely, it is made clear that Abigail purely tells the Queen what she wants to hear as and only takes an interest in politics when it benefits herself. Abigail’s analogy that sending reinforcements to an army is like arriving late to a party is not based on strategy but purely on wanting the support of the Leader of the Opposition. What makes things even more complicated in this rivalry is that Sarah’s husband is the man commanding this army; no reinforcements could mean his death.

But I would hate to give the impression that Sarah is completely innocent in all of this. At the beginning to the film the Queen shows Sarah her new “present” – she’s going to build her a palace. While initially Sarah says it’s an extravagance the country cannot afford during wartime (something the Queen didn’t seem to quite understand) she does still get the palace. Also her honesty often overlaps with cruelty and she is shown to be every bit as vindictive and grasping as Abigail.

Aside from the rivalry for favourite the film also paints a vivid picture of English politics where a monarch who has no understanding of the issue has final say. A country where friends can exert influence that will make them rich at the country’s expense or change the course of war. It is shocking to think that for a long time this was how countries were ran.

In short this is a masterpiece of a film with three actors giving three of the best performances you’ll see all year.

Verdict: (4.5 / 5)

The post Review: The Favourite appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.