Q&A with Michael Schur: Part 2

Monday, July 9th, 2007 | 65 comments

In Part Two of my conversation with The Office’s Michael Schur, we talk about character development and what it’s like to work with the other writers.

Things get a little out of hand.

Tanster: You mentioned earlier that “most of what I’ve written needs to be thrown out” and that it “takes a while to remember how to write these characters.” Can you elaborate? Which characters are hardest to write and why? Would you really “throw out” stuff before it’s read?

Michael: I was just being panicky. But the process of writing this show is very laborious … if there’s a fun way for something to be laborious. The plots are really complex (if we’ve broken the story well), and there are a ton of characters, and the dialogue needs to be funny (ideally) and also naturalistic and “real”-sounding. And every one of the actors is great, and you start to freak out if you get to page 27 in the script and realize you haven’t written one good line for Stanley or Andy or something.

So, yes, in the initial writing stage, the writer will throw a ton of stuff out. Sometimes in the group-rewriting phase someone will suggest something that you threw away before anyone had even seen it, and you’ll say “Oh — I actually wrote a version of that scene and threw it away,” and they’ll say, “Why did you throw it away? It sounds way funnier than what you wrote,” and you’ll say, “Shut up, Mindy, why do you always pick on me?” and she’ll snarl, “Go to your office for fifteen minutes. You need a time-out,” and then you’ll go to your office and cry and cry and she won’t even come in to check on you because she is mean, Tanster. Just flat-out mean.

Tanster: You know Mindy is gonna read this and then kick your ass, right?

Michael: She abuses me, physically, every day anyway. I’m used to it.

And to answer the other question, none of the characters is “hard” to write for. It’s like you’re a kid and you have fifteen awesome toys to play with. The only bad thing about it is there is just not room in every script for all of them to shine, and that bums you out sometimes.

That’s why an episode like “Traveling Salesmen” was so fun to work on — the story of all the salesmen going out on sales call, which Greg came up with I think, gave a lot of different characters a chance to get some meaty scenes.

Tanster: “Traveling Salesmen” was one of my favorite episodes of the season! This episode shows, perhaps for the first time, why the Dunder Mifflin crew is still employed — because they’re actually competent salespeople. I was beginning to wonder …

Michael: That was always one of the big goals we had for Michael — to show that he was a great salesman, who was just promoted one level too high for his skill set. Second season we specifically designed “The Client” to be one of the first few episodes, in order to get that idea across. The British show could have David Brent be a complete boob right from the beginning, because they knew 12 episodes in he was going to be made redundant, but we (hopefully) need Michael around for a long time.

I think it was also nice to see Phyllis coming through with a sneaky little sales strategy. And the shot of her and Rashida in the car after the make-overs is one of my favorites from last season.

Tanster: Is it easier or harder to write scripts, now that you have more fully developed characters to work with?

Michael: I’d say it’s easier because the characters are more fully-developed, but harder because we’ve already done so many episodes. We are now at the point where we find ourselves pitching ideas that are just too similar to ones we’ve already done. Maybe we’ll just write them and hope nobody notices.

Tanster: Do you have a long-term outline for each character?

Michael: Before we start talking in specifics about any individual episode, we spend weeks talking about the long-term stories for the main characters.

Last year, coming back from the big kiss in Casino Night, we knew Jim would be in Stamford for 6-8 episodes, the branches would merge, and by the time they did, Jim would have a girlfriend. We also knew that Pam would get upset and backslide into Roy’s arms, that it would be a disaster, they’d break up, and that the whole second part of the season would be from Pam’s point of view as she summoned the courage to tell Jim how she felt. Season Two was from Jim’s point of view, and Season Three was from Pam’s.

We do a lot of refining and readjusting and stuff as the season goes on, but we don’t ever start writing until we at least have a basic outline of where the season will take us.

Tanster: Casio Night? I think I missed that episode. Is that where Dwight buys a new calculator watch?

Michael: Smartass. I changed it above so you have to delete this. I win.

(Michael’s original answer referred to “Casio Night”; he later corrected it without authorization. Advantage, Tanster.)

Tanster: How often is it when you’ve been in the writers room all night racing toward a deadline, you’re brain dead, and everything sounds ridiculously funny? Do the writers pull “all nighters”?

Michael: The best part of the job, hands down, is the time spent in the writers’ room when everyone is giddy. It is a happiness I cannot describe.

Tanster: Do you plan on doing any more collaboration with Gene, Lee, Paul, or other writers? How does collaboration come about?

Michael: I would definitely work with Gene again, but Lee kind of drags me down. He is the singularly least amusing person I have ever met. Including Paul, which is saying something. Because Paul is a Class-A jerk. All day, every day, it’s, “I’m so great. I’m Toby. Everyone loves Toby. Toby is the best character.” Seriously, he’s the most egotistical jackass. And loud. You would never know this, but his natural speaking voice is like bullhorn-level loud. He sounds like the Marine boot-camp leader in “Full Metal Jacket.”

Tanster: Don’t diss Toby! He wears killer suits. Except during the Christmas episode. (Jenna told me to say that.)

Michael: I don’t care what he wears. He’s a mean nerd.

But Gene I like, and would gladly work with again.

Tanster: Which one is Gene?

Michael: The one who’s not Lee. That’s all I care about.

Collaboration on our show is constant. The “writer” of the episode can be responsible for anywhere from 50-90% of what you see on screen. This is not because the writers are bad — again, except for Lee, who hasn’t got a funny bone in his body — but rather because every script is put through a rigorous rewriting process to ensure that we get the best possible jokes and scenes at every possible moment.

As for technical collaboration, like when Lee (ugh), Gene, and I wrote “Traveling Salesmen” and “The Return” together — that was borne out of necessity, as we were in a time crunch to get those two episodes written, and we pitched out a 2-parter about Dwight quitting to keep his relationship with Angela a secret, and we thought it would just be easiest for all three of us to write them together.

The same was true of “The Job” at the end of the year, with stupid lame Paul and me (and a significant amount of material from the rest of the staff — that was a true team effort), and “Beach Games” with Jen Celotta and Greg. Sometimes it’s as much about time management as anything else.

Tanster: So that if one of you “runs out of funny,” someone else can pick up the baton. Or some metaphor like that.

Michael: I like it. Nice work. I’m going to steal that.

As for future collaborations, I dare say we all like each other enough so that any two of us could be paired, for any episode, and have a good time working together. I’m sure there will be more of it. Although, if I have to work with Lee again I will freak the eff out.

(And since irony doesn’t always come across on the screen, let me add that I love Lee. I love him an almost inappropriate amount. Paul too. Gene, not so much. But Lee and Paul are great.)

Tanster: I am now totally confused as to who you really like and don’t like. I need a cheat sheet.

Michael: Love: Lee, Gene, Paul.
Strongly Dislike: Gene, Paul, Lee.

Tanster: What strengths do you bring to the writing team? (”Mike is really good at handling …”). Does each of the writers have a special writing superpower?

Michael: Here is each of the writers’ main strength in the room:

Mike: impeccable manners
Paul: typing
B.J.: making coffee
Mindy: fashion/shopping on-line
Gene: cell phone photographs
Justin: can shoot flames from fingers
Jen: very good at those mechanical claw games
Lee: handsome
Greg: has not demonstrated a talent yet
Brent: physical fitness

We also hired back Lester Lewis, who wrote with us on season one. His talent is also fashion, so he and Mindy will have to fight it out to see who wins. Ryan Koh’s talent, I’d say, is his encyclopedic knowledge of late-‘90’s hip hop. And Anthony Farrell has Death-Ray Vision.

Tanster: I kind of meant, like, WRITING superpowers. Not superhero superpowers. But whatever. And I would argue that fashion is a superpower, but being handsome is not.

Michael: Have you seen how handsome he is, though? Seems like a superpower to me. The guy stops traffic.

As for writing superpowers … honestly, everyone has something(s) they are good at. It’s the #1 perk of my job that I get to work with, and hang out with, this staff.

Just one example: when Mindy wrote the scene in “Take Your Daughter to Work Day” where young Michael Scott is being interviewed by the cat puppet, Edward R. Meow, she wrote that sad/crazy line about “I want to have a million friends so no one will ever not be able to be my friend” or whatever it is. And she followed it up with the all-time greatest stage direction: “Even though he’s a puppet, Edward R. Meow somehow manages to look confused.” It killed me. She thinks very visually. Her writing style, like everything about her, is unique.

Next up: Part Three — The origin of Dwight’s cousin, Mose

Q&A with Michael Schur: Part 2

Related links

Upcoming Episodes

Current Episodes

Notable Posts

Get Stuff

OfficeTally Exclusives

OfficeTally Archives

Stay Connected

This Week

NBC Store

Latest Updates

Search