1, 2, 3, 4 Splendas in your coffee Stanley

“And we’re off like a pack of turtles!” neurotic boss Michael Scott exclaims within the first few scenes of the February 5 episode of “The Office.” This quirky line is just one example of the off-beat humor that is characteristic of the NBC hit show. Michael, played by Steve Carell, is self-absorbed and awkward, and seems to enjoy making his employees at Dunder Mifflin, Inc., squirm and roll their eyes at his antics. Either that or he is completely and blissfully ignorant of their discomfort. It was difficult to tell just from viewing one episode. As someone who had not seen a single episode of “The Office” before now, my only idea of the series was that its style was unique from most network sitcoms, and that it had a British TV predecessor that was different from the current, American version of “The Office.”
The show’s uniqueness from other contemporary TV comedies is the style in which it is filmed, the lack of a laugh track, and the actors’ relationship to and awareness of its audience. At one point or another, all characters directly address the audience by speaking “to” them, through the lens of the camera. It is reminiscent of a documentary, combining both “natural,” filmed action and personal, one-on-one interviews. The surge of reality TV shows in the last decade also employs this style and technique. When characters in “The Office” periodically give their commentary, it gives the viewer an insight into their personalities, and gives the characters an opportunity to say what he or she cannot or did not say within the context of a scene. This particular episode finds Michael Scott on a lecture circuit, touring various branches of the Dunder Mifflin company to speak about his sales success. He is assisted by sweet, mild-mannered Pam, the company’s receptionist who becomes his driver for the trip. At one lecture, Michael shows how he can memorize people’s names by pointing out physical—and pretty insulting—characteristics of a person (“Mole, lazy eye, sugar boobs, black lady”) and somehow connecting it to their names. The camera cuts to Michael telling us that part of his success stems from his “excellent” mnemonic devices and memorization tricks that have helped him in his career. For example, he memorized the Pledge of Allegiance by setting it to the tune of “Old McDonald,” a fact about which he seems very proud and pleased.
Actually, Michael seems really proud of just about everything he does, and fairly unaware of his employees’ reactions to his asinine and inappropriate remarks about every situation. One character, Karen, who appears to have been a key figure on the show in the past, greets Michael and Pam after not seeing them for several months. Karen is pregnant, and Michael responds by saying, “Oh my god, you’re huge! HUGE! Wow! I think my head just exploded…”
This is just one example of how Michael’s capacity for tactfulness is tiny, while his capacity for creating awkwardness is endless. He is also the character who seems to enjoy the presence of the camera the most, often saying a cheesy line, pausing, and then looking at the camera and grinning, expecting some kind of reaction or affirmation. Michael’s shtick seems like it could get really old really fast, and sure enough, I found annoyance rearing its head about ten minutes into the episode. However, the show’s creators, whether they are aware of it or not, give Michael a more humanizing moment, at least in this particular episode. Pam, previously nervous about seeing Karen, who used to somehow be involved with Pam’s fiancé Jim, says that she feels better and gains closure through her meeting with Karen. Michael’s deep well of ridiculous quips and comebacks runs dry, and for once he is dumbfounded by what Pam says.
Meanwhile, there are several sub-stories occurring at the main branch of Dunder Mifflin. There are many minor and major characters who interact with each other in various capacities, but surprisingly it was not that difficult to follow the “who’s who” of the show. Having worked in an office before, I chuckled at situations like that of Kelly, an employee who is angry because none of her co-workers or supervisors remembered her birthday. Subsequently, Dwight and Jim—the latter of which seems to be the most “normal” of the office bunch—try to collect money from the rest of the workers to buy Kelly an ice cream cake, and decorate a conference room with pathetic streamers and balloons that match the dull gray and brown shades of the linoleum carpet. (The office I worked in had a bulletin board up every month with every employee birthday marked, lest no one be forgotten and deprived, like poor Kelly).
Inter-office romance, rivalries, and the redundancy of the workplace seem to be common issues addressed in “The Office.” I watched this episode twice, and both times noticed that it contains elements of what an office is, and also what an office shouldn’t be. Viewers were left with a cliffhanger—Michael, pondering what Pam said about getting a sense of closure, decides to take a detour and gain some closure of his own, with a lost love.
“You remember Holly, from Human Resources? Blonde? Perfect boobs…not too big or too small. She was the love of my life,” Michael tells Pam.
Right. I found myself wanting to watch what happens next, if only to see whether Michael is serious or not, with a description like that. Only time will tell, I suppose. (Okay, I’m actually watching the next episode online right now).
“The Office” airs every Thursday at 9 PM on NBC. Full episodes are also available online at NBC.com.

Taxi to the Dark Side- a documentary review

A piece of art so rarely ingrains itself in one’s mind to the point where you find yourself thinking about it when you are awake and when you are asleep. After viewing Alex Gibney’s documentary “Taxi to the Dark Side” at University of San Francisco’s Human Rights Film Festival, I had vivid dreams for two days in a row that referenced the devastating and disturbing images of detainees at Bagram, Abu Ghraib, and Guantanamo Bay prisons, as detailed in Gibney’s film. As the clichéd phrase goes, “A picture is worth a thousand words…” As most clichés go, this one very much rings true in the case of “Taxi to the Dark Side.”
The film’s title refers to the story of an Afghani man named Dilawar, a taxi driver from a small town who is stopped, arrested, and eventually taken to Bagram prison for suspected terrorists and those with ties to Al-Qaida or the Taliban. However, though the film goes into depth about Dilawar and his situation, it is clear that he is just the focal point used to tell the story of many other Arab persons who experienced harsh and often life-threatening forms of treatment when imprisoned in these and other detainment centers. Gibney used footage of interviews with Dilawar’s co-workers and family members, as well as showing his home and where he worked. This is extremely effective in humanizing Dilawar and causing the viewer to connect to him from the get-go, instead of causing one to feel like “something happened to that guy over there,” and now it is over, so who cares? This is not to discount an audience’s ability to associate with who or what they are seeing onscreen. However, frankly, it is sometimes the case that presenting someone of a different culture, ethnicity or circumstance makes us forget that they—whoever “they” are—are also human beings, just like us. Showing Dilawar’s former, daily life is a hook, albeit a terrible and sad one, for the rest of the film.
Gibney lays the foundation of his film by simply yet cleverly combining footage from interviews he personally conducts, and archived footage of government officials. Clips of Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, and others from past press conferences and interviews are interposed between Gibney’s footage. In this way, the filmmaker is letting members of the Bush administration “speak for themselves.” Most often, they seem to be speaking against themselves. This is a smart technique, since what these higher-ups said at a given time is recorded and cannot be contested, and goes hand in hand with one of the many points that Gibney is trying to make—people in power abused that power, and lesser people, both prisoners and soldiers, suffered because of it.
Of course, the film is arranged in such a way as to highlight the major fumbles and contradictions of those in power at the time. There are tidbits, like the percentage of detainees found to actually have terrorist ties (apparently a very low number, below 5%), and information, now seemingly incredulous, is presented through the mouths of government “talking heads.” It is simply not conceivable to want “Taxi” to be more fair and balanced; to say so would be missing the point of the documentary. Gibney himself brings the perspective of a liberal American who was shocked and completely dismayed by the happenings at these prisons, and wanted to bring it to light for other citizens of the U.S. and of the world. However, whether or not a person identifies himself as a conservative or liberal, or as a supporter of the Bush White House or not, to see the pictures taken of the tortured prisoners strikes a very human chord—horror—an emotion that has no political or social implications.
The images are indeed some of the most troubling and disturbing that I have ever viewed; I found it very difficult to watch, turning away and looking down at my notebook at several points throughout the viewing. By the middle of the film, I felt nauseated. Seeing the pictures without explanation would have this effect, but might cause one to not go beyond what he or she was seeing. However, giving context for these pictures and digging deeper into the events surrounding these images is what brought them to reality. Even Gibney, in a post-viewing Q&A session, described the toughest task for creating this documentary as having to look at the images of tortured men on a day to day basis. Several techniques are employed throughout the documentary, such as the use of filming reenactments of torturous events in the prisons, filmed in black and white, and ominous, melancholy background music. In my opinion, the most saavy and impressive feature of “Taxi to the Dark Side” was the interviewing of military interrogators who were sentenced to jail time for their actions in the detainment centers. By doing so, Gibney is not avoiding these people, the supposed perpetrators of torture, but directly hearing from them as members of the military, subordinates in the military, and as human beings. His interviewing of these people also reveals that Gibney does not believe that the men and women who tortured prisoners are completely at fault for their actions. While he does not seem to take the blame totally off them, his attention on their unique perspective does not incriminate the interrogators either. Rather, it makes a comment on how easily one can become just one small part of a bigger issue that grows exponentially out of everyone’s control.
Gibney won the Best Documentary Oscar for “Taxi” this year, and while I am certainly no connoisseur of documentaries, I believe that this one was definitely deserving of official recognition. I highly recommend seeing “Taxi to the Dark Side,” and keeping an open mind about its content, regardless of opinions and thoughts you may have concerning the United States government’s handlings of the war on terrorism.