If you read my list of the top 5 greatest sitcoms of all time you may have noticed that neither the American version of the Office nor Parks and Recreation was on it. With both shows now having come to a close, I thought I'd write this piece comparing the two shows.
If the list of five had been increased to ten either one, or possibly both, of these shows would be on it. I appreciate both in their own unique ways but I think they are interesting to compare because both were created by the same man, Greg Daniels, and both sometimes shared the same production and writing team. There was even a time the both had the same actress in a supporting role. What's even more interesting is that they shared the same format. This format was a mockumentary-style format that allowed for a shaky single camera as well as interviews with the characters. Both shows also eventually ignored this format for the most part.
Despite these similarities the shows were incredibly different. A lot of this difference doesn't just come down to the fact that the Office was set in the private sector while Parks was set in the public sector. The difference was both in tone, and quality of supporting character development. The tone of the Office was happier than the British version but still darker than your average comedy. If you want evidence of this taken to brilliant extremes, you can watch the best episode of the show "Dinner Party" which is a hilarious cringe fest. Parks and Recreation on the other hand, is one of the most positive shows ever to come out on modern television. In terms of character, the Office was more held to its British roots. Michael was a fully fleshed-out character and Jim and Pam were meant to be the "normal people", but the rest of the cast feel like outlandish caricatures. The supporting players are not developed as well and they are not as full of depth as Michael is. Even Jim and Pam cannot bolster the show on their own. This can be evidenced in the final two seasons following Michael's departure where the show saw a noticeable dip in quality. Parks, on the other hand, is filled with a cast of great characters which it takes time to develop. It is truly an ensemble show with most of the comedy coming from its character interactions.
These differences show why the shows developed differently and had different periods of high and low quality. It may seem like I was bashing the Office in the previous paragraph, but Parks really got off to a horrible start. The characters weren't working and at first Amy Poehler couldn't lead the show on her own. The Office started out strongly because Steve Carell's performance as Michael is one of the funniest performances on television ever. As Parks grew it got better quickly, developing its characters and allowing them to grow. As the Office ran out of things for Michael to do it began to get stale because the other characters couldn't pick up the slack. Jim and Pam's romance was too drawn out and the characters weren't that interesting. Dwight is outrageous but doesn't have much depth. The other cast members are basically "one-note". When Michael left, the show lost virtually all of its steam and had only a fraction of its former glory.
All of that being said, the Office was great at one time even if it was "the Michael Scott Show". At its best, the supporting players added a little drama and outrageous humor to compliment Michael. The best individual episodes of the Office are better plotted and stand-out more than some of the Parks and Rec episodes, but there are some great stand-out Parks episodes as well. In fact, I am struck at how hard it is to find a stand-out Parks episode because they are almost uniformly excellent when the show reached the peak of its powers. While Michael is a great character and the Office had some incredibly funny episodes, the Parks and Recreation team brought some of the best television comedy to the table consistently. At its best, Parks gave us great characters (Leslie,Tom, Andy, Ron etc.), funny writing, and a sense of warmth that no other modern TV comedy can match. add to this the fact that it finished strong and there is no question in my mind that Parks and Recreation is the better show.
If the list of five had been increased to ten either one, or possibly both, of these shows would be on it. I appreciate both in their own unique ways but I think they are interesting to compare because both were created by the same man, Greg Daniels, and both sometimes shared the same production and writing team. There was even a time the both had the same actress in a supporting role. What's even more interesting is that they shared the same format. This format was a mockumentary-style format that allowed for a shaky single camera as well as interviews with the characters. Both shows also eventually ignored this format for the most part.
Despite these similarities the shows were incredibly different. A lot of this difference doesn't just come down to the fact that the Office was set in the private sector while Parks was set in the public sector. The difference was both in tone, and quality of supporting character development. The tone of the Office was happier than the British version but still darker than your average comedy. If you want evidence of this taken to brilliant extremes, you can watch the best episode of the show "Dinner Party" which is a hilarious cringe fest. Parks and Recreation on the other hand, is one of the most positive shows ever to come out on modern television. In terms of character, the Office was more held to its British roots. Michael was a fully fleshed-out character and Jim and Pam were meant to be the "normal people", but the rest of the cast feel like outlandish caricatures. The supporting players are not developed as well and they are not as full of depth as Michael is. Even Jim and Pam cannot bolster the show on their own. This can be evidenced in the final two seasons following Michael's departure where the show saw a noticeable dip in quality. Parks, on the other hand, is filled with a cast of great characters which it takes time to develop. It is truly an ensemble show with most of the comedy coming from its character interactions.
These differences show why the shows developed differently and had different periods of high and low quality. It may seem like I was bashing the Office in the previous paragraph, but Parks really got off to a horrible start. The characters weren't working and at first Amy Poehler couldn't lead the show on her own. The Office started out strongly because Steve Carell's performance as Michael is one of the funniest performances on television ever. As Parks grew it got better quickly, developing its characters and allowing them to grow. As the Office ran out of things for Michael to do it began to get stale because the other characters couldn't pick up the slack. Jim and Pam's romance was too drawn out and the characters weren't that interesting. Dwight is outrageous but doesn't have much depth. The other cast members are basically "one-note". When Michael left, the show lost virtually all of its steam and had only a fraction of its former glory.
All of that being said, the Office was great at one time even if it was "the Michael Scott Show". At its best, the supporting players added a little drama and outrageous humor to compliment Michael. The best individual episodes of the Office are better plotted and stand-out more than some of the Parks and Rec episodes, but there are some great stand-out Parks episodes as well. In fact, I am struck at how hard it is to find a stand-out Parks episode because they are almost uniformly excellent when the show reached the peak of its powers. While Michael is a great character and the Office had some incredibly funny episodes, the Parks and Recreation team brought some of the best television comedy to the table consistently. At its best, Parks gave us great characters (Leslie,Tom, Andy, Ron etc.), funny writing, and a sense of warmth that no other modern TV comedy can match. add to this the fact that it finished strong and there is no question in my mind that Parks and Recreation is the better show.
No comments:
Post a Comment