 I'm always impressed with efficiency in storytelling. A 22-minute cap on a television episode demands the writers, directors, editors, and everyone involved with production to find the best way to tell a story. As discussed in my video on the Twilight Zone, in order to tell a complete story with a beginning, middle, and an end, it requires an effective use of the basic cinematic tools, but it also relies on the fundamentals of storytelling, effective structure, use of subplots, conflicts, and payoffs. Without adhering to these rules, telling a story in just 22 minutes would be really hard. I feel like the TV sitcom is the perfect medium to discuss the sufficient style of storytelling. I want to examine the structure of a few episodes from the U.S. version of The Office to see how to tell a complete story as efficiently as possible. But to begin, a quick few words on the medium, because there are some storytelling advantages of a serial television show. The biggest point that I want to make is that introductions aren't necessary. There is an expectation that the audience is familiar with the characters, who they are and what drives them. Obviously there's going to be personal growth and development of different characters, but who they are as people doesn't change. Tuning into Season 2 Episode 3 is going to give you the same Michael Scott as Season 5 Episode 11. The writers can effectively use this to focus less on characters and more on conflict, and I feel like no episode shows this off better than Dinner Party. It begins with a very simple setup. Less than two minutes into the episode, the groundwork of the story is set. Michael is having a dinner party, Jim, Pam, Andy and Angela are coming and Dwight once in, but isn't invited. This was achieved primarily through dialogue, but also through the talking head segments, a great and natural way to reveal expository dialogue. This helps to introduce us to the story, but it doesn't introduce conflict, and the conflict here is unique. Pam and Jim are arguably the protagonists of the episode, and their goal is not to be rude to their boss while getting out as soon as possible, while Michael and Jan act as the antagonistic forces in their very own unique way. Throughout the entire episode, we watch as conflict builds and builds, almost every single moment makes both Pam and Jim and us the audience more uncomfortable. As the episode goes on, more is added to the already unorthodox situation. Dinner is three hours away, uninvited guests arrive, and an actual fight breaks out. The irony here is that there are no real stakes, so there's also nothing that the protagonist can reasonably do to leave, so they go to unreasonable measures to try and escape, but the forces of antagonism are stronger than that. At the very end of the story, we are finally given relief. This continues the pattern that has already been established. Conflict is built to such a degree that outside forces are able to save our protagonist, and in the last three minutes of the episode, resolution is achieved. Given these short run time, resolution and setup take less than 20% of the episode's run time, whereas in a more traditional story, they may take a third or even a half. This allows the writers to spend more time creating conflict. Dinner Party only focuses on one storyline, but one thing that a lot of episodes from the office do extremely well is use subplots. One episode that does this remarkably well is stress relief. The narrative beat that runs throughout the entire episode and helps tie everything together is dealing with Stanley's stress. In the cold open, he has a heart attack, and in the last few minutes, it's resolved. The conflict is everything that happens in the middle. But of course, there's a lot more going on than just resolving Stanley's stress. For one thing, Dwight needs to get a signature from everybody else in the office. It's an easy way to introduce a simple conflict that needs resolution, and what is so great about this is that the resolution allows for more comedy. It takes up just a few minutes but provides for good laughs, the ultimate purpose of any sitcom. But the most important side plot is another derivative of the main story, Michael's reaction to the main plot. Welcome to the roast of Mr. Michael Scott. He goes off the rails and behaves, well, very much like you'd expect Michael to behave. He takes a story to a brand new place, his actions are a direct result of the story that has already been building, and is able to introduce a new element to the story. The writers use this to ensure that the episode is able to maintain its momentum. The story doesn't go the way that we'd think it would. While all this is happening, a new element is introduced, Pam and Jim's subplot about Pam's father. This has nothing at all to do with the overarching narrative of the episode, but it is of the utmost importance to the entire series storyline about the relationship of Pam and Jim. The two stories say separated from one another reinforcing the show's biggest theme as an evaluation of two ordinary people in the most absurd working conditions. This storyline, in addition to providing a few laughs via Andy, is able to move the entire series' biggest story forward. Two co-existing stories are being told. One is resolved by the end of the episode, the other is years in the making. I also want to look to see how the office handles payoffs, and especially what I'll be calling the anti-payoff. And for this, I want you to contrast two episodes, one that does it right and one that doesn't. To begin, Casino Night does it right. After being unable to avoid a very avoidable situation, Michael puts himself in a position with two dates coming to the warehouse, Casino Night. Two queens on Casino Night. I am going to drop a deuce on everybody. And recruits Dwight to help him keep them separated and not have one figure out anything about the other. Around a third of the episode is devoted to planning this until they both arrive and Michael. This is the anti-payoff. It would be very easy to think that the entire episode is going to play out like a Mission Impossible S sequence, keeping Jan and Carol away from one another. But it's much funnier to have that completely fall apart. It also adds the element of uncertainty that is so great for comedy. We expect the episode to go one way, and then it gets completely derailed. The story could literally be about anything from here on out. With that in mind, let's look at an episode that doesn't work, Mafia. The entire premise of the episode is based around dramatic irony. The audience knows something that these three characters don't. Look at all the facts. He seems like a mobster. Of course Grotty isn't actually tied to the Mafia, but the entire episode plays out like he is. Dwight Nandy are able to easily convince Michael that he either is or isn't part of the mob. Next time you look in the mirror, you're going to be looking at a guy who stood down the Mafia. But it doesn't lead to anything. There is no payoff through a reveal of information or anti-payoff. What we know at the beginning is exactly what we know at the end, and the episode just fizzles out. I don't want to take anything away from this episode in terms of its jokes. There are a lot that work well. But in terms of structuring comedy into the narrative, this episode doesn't succeed while so many others do. I think it can be easy to write off television comedies as mindless and conventional. But if you take a closer look into their storytelling, they're using the same fundamentals as any other stories, and using them just as well to tell an effective story and make you laugh. Hey everyone, I hope you enjoyed. The office may be my favorite TV series of all time. I love having it on in the background while doing regular activities, but when you stop and break down the structure of almost every episode, the amount of care that is put into every story is remarkable. I highly recommend watching an episode or two and just following the story beats and what the writers do to keep you on your toes. I'd also like to mention that this video is made possible because of Patreon. If you're interested in supporting the channel, that is the best way to do so. There are a lot of great rewards over there, including early access, a bonus audio commentary, and even getting a say in what videos come next. So if you're interested, there's a link on screen. There's also a link to my last video in which I looked at Aaron Sarkin and how he develops his characters. So if you're interested in that, check it out and thank you for watching. This is an environment of welcoming, and you should just get the hell out of here.