Classical screen comedy is based on the mid-shot. As the visual style of Charles Chaplin definitively demonstrates, the sight gag requires that the camera should be far away enough to allow all the physical elements of the gag to form a comic composition. In addition, the camera cannot be too far away because the inability to see the actor’s faces would limit the power of displaying their reactions, one of the most powerful enhancements of the sight gag.¹² The mid-shot is the most balanced shot to achieve both aims. Essentially, this means shots ranging from a bit closer than plan américain to a bit further away than full-body shots. Thus, the simple direction techniques of NewsRadio were more efficacious than first appears. Scenes were often shot "with depth" — with foreground action and background action counterpointing each other. Sometimes three layers of depth were used, with characters moving from extreme background into foreground action without breaking the seamlessness of the ensemble cast. This allowed characters to move swiftly and smoothly in and out of a scene or gag as needed.

Also, the editing of the series was of a proficiency rarely seen in the cinema. Some may regard editing to the rhythm of action and reaction shots as easy. If so, then why does it seem like no one knows how to do it nowadays? The pacing of the comedy, and consequently the editing, was much faster than on other sitcoms, achieving that breathtaking efficiency that we associate with screwball comedy.

The importance of the reaction shot is still under-appreciated by most people. The gag itself must be funny, but it is usually the reaction to the gag (provided by another character or the perpetrator of the gag himself) that restores the frame of reference. For a gag to be deeply funny it must have some absurdity relative to the normal world. Without a reaction shot, we are left floating without a frame of reference, and the gag does not seem so absurd. The only cultures that truly understand this principle of comedy are the Americans, the British, and the Austrians (in the form of certain directors who migrated to Hollywood by the names of Lubitsch, Preminger and Wilder). Compare the comedies of these cultures with those of other countries and you will notice a stark difference in the use versus non-use of reaction shots. I would argue that the Russians, Germans, Japanese, Scandinavians, and Italians, all cultures with a rich history of great cinematic art, have never made a wholly satisfying comedy. (French farce is a special case — it lacks reaction shots but absurdity builds throughout the movie rather than occurring with each comic moment.)

While employing some of the finest directors in the business, notably James Burrows (generally regarded as the leading sitcom director) and Tom Cherones (who directed many episodes for Seinfeld), there is a large consistency between episodes that defies any individual directorial imprint. In fact, differences between directors are mainly noticeable only in terms of differences in pacing, with some episodes being slightly more incisive than others. Call it serendipity or call it a miracle, but NewsRadio falls into that extremely rare category of great film art where mise en scène is a result of collaborative forces and where the director is not the primary artist. Credit should go to Paul Simms for maintaining a unique vision of incisive comedy and for choosing writers to maintain that vision. Equal credit should go to the cast, an unheard of mix of supreme physical and verbal comedic talent. Certainly, we should also recognize the directors and particularly the editors for using a style that allowed the comedy and mise en scène to flow through the direction and editing.

¹² Incidentally, if you want the real reason why the visual style of Chaplin is so much superior to the visual style of Jacques Tati, whose comedy allows for very little character reaction, this is the answer.