A blog dedicated to the analysis of episodes of The Office seen through the eyes of a Canadian and an American.

Sunday, November 18, 2007

"The Deposition"-- Canadian Perspective

This episode was written by Lester Lewis who recently returned to “the Office” as a writer. And what an amazing episode it was! Let me preface this recap by telling about my first “encounter” with Lester Lewis. At the Scranton Convention, I was sitting in the front row of the Writer’s Block and when the moderators opened the floor for questions, I immediately raised my hand. Much to my chagrin, the moderators chose to get questions from the back of the theatre, essentially ignoring me and my hand at the front. I kept it raised for the remainder of the show, until one of the moderators said that this would be their last question (from someone in the back, of course). Lester Lewis then proceeded to interrupt the moderator and told him that before they finished things up, he wanted me (yes, me!!) to get to ask my question as he’d been watching me with my hand up for the course of the show and it made him feel sorry for me. Well, thanks to Lester I got to ask a question! So I certainly have a soft spot for him.

But this episode-- Lester Lewis’ kindness aside-- was fabulous. The darkness of Michael’s battle with the deposition was perfectly contrasted with the hilarity of the battle between Kelly and Pam.

I think you have to be a special type of cruel if you didn’t feel some semblance of sympathy for Michael as he faced the rapid fire questioning from the two attorneys. My heart really went out to him, as his private journals were put on display for the executives of Dunder-Mifflin.

Interestingly enough, here in Canada court cases have one very distinct difference. The prosecution (or the Crown, in criminal cases) must relinquish all details of their case. They, by law, can not withhold any information from the defence attorney. Poor Michael (in Canada, that is) would have been shown in advance his performance reviews and would have been prepared for the back-handed slap that was the deposition. In Canada (as far as I’m aware, anyway), there would be no surprises… but then again, that doesn’t make for good television.

My love for David Wallace certainly grew, as the evidence pertaining to him demonstrated that he respected Michael enough to interview him for the corporate job even though he had no intention of promoting him. And the apology he gave Michael seemed sincere and made up (somewhat) for the lack of a (sincere) apology from Jan. Truly I believe that David Wallace is a good guy. It also helps that Andy Buckley has the Cinderella story to go along with his role.

Pam and her 12 year old Girlfriend

Yes, you read that right. I absolutely, positively thought Mindy Kaling owned every scene she was in with Jenna Fischer. Her smack talk (which is happening “right now”, natch) was brilliantly executed and I’m already trying to think up ways that I can employ them in my everyday existence.
  • What has two skinny chicken legs and sucks at Ping Pong?
  • You’re ugly and I know it for a fact ‘cause I’ve got the evidence and it's right there.
  • Your boyfriend’s so weak, he needs steroids just to watch baseball.
  • Jim couldn’t hit a ping pong if it was the size of a moon.
  • Were Jim’s parents first cousins who were also bad at ping pong?

Mm-hm, *snap*. You go, girlfriend. And it was sweet hilarity that when Pam finally challenged Kelly to pong it out, they both sucked.

I was also pleasantly surprised to see Mose and Dwight battle it out in the Schrute barn. It came as no surprise to me to learn that Dwight was a ping pong fan. It fits perfectly in sync with his characterization. Although, if he has a list of ping pong players who are his heroes, where does Hiro from “Heroes” fit in?

2 comments:

Heather said...

Here in the states it is the same. Both the prosecution and the defense must disclose all evidence to each other (a process I believe to be called, simple, Disclosure of Evidence). However, this does not mean that neither the prosecution nor the defense must tell the witness what they have up there sleeve. Yes, Michael was blindsided, but was it not Jan’s lawyer that introduced the journals into evidence thus allowing Dunder-Mufflin access to his whole journal (that is why they need to make copies – Oh Toby…). Another assumption is that the Dunder-Mifflin told Jan’s lawyer about the personal review was going to be submitted but again Jan did not tell Michael. In the end, Jan totally withheld what she was doing from Michael and that is why I see that Michael in the end stood up for Dunder- Mufflin... because you supposed to get screwed by your company, but not your girlfriend.

Chris, another fab review...

Chris said...

Ahhh, good point Heather. It totally passed right by me that Michael had no representation and thus no one looking out for his interests. Tsk, tsk, Scott-- next time (Hannah's deposition?) you'll know better...