Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
248 of 310 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
That is our building. And, we sell paper., July 9, 2007
By the end of Season 3 of The Office (US), we get the sense that the series has finally established its independence from its European ancestry. Throughout Season 3, the BBC series continues to serve as a very basic template for the NBC series: the awkward merger, the upper management restructuring, the romantic role reversal (boy-chases-girl becomes boy-gets-new-girl/original-girl-now-chases-boy). The one major plot development from the UK original that has yet to be explored is the regional manager's slow, painful march toward termination as he clashes with a new corporate supervisor. Could Season 3's final scene been an ominous sign that a similar fate is in store for Michael Scott down the road? The popularity of this series, and the apparent commitment of all involved to keep it going for at least a couple more seasons suggests this doom will be postponed, at least for a while. In the meantime, much cheerier things seem to be on the horizon.
And, it is on this issue that The US version of The Office is finally transcending its English heritage. Are we actually going to witness the development of a (presumably) healthy, happy relationship between two people who belong together, free from any melodramatic roadblocks? To follow such a path would represent not only a significant departure from the British series (which actually ended when the two romantic leads finally got together, after a similar last second change of heart based on a parting "gift"), but it would also be a risky move for a TV comedy of any kind. People think they want to see romance on TV, but they don't. What they want is romantic tension. Remove the tension, and it's just a couple of people hugging, kissing, shopping, sometimes arguing over mostly trivial things, and occasionally going out to dinner. Those are real relationships, right? Maybe we'll have some "Meet The Halperts" style wackiness to keep things interesting, featuring guest director Ben Stiller.
Sarcasm aside, if there is any show in the history of TV comedy with the talent and insight to delve headfirst into a realistic relationship - avoiding predictable TV contrivances in favor of delighting in the subtle nuances of ordinary human interactions - it will be this group of writers and performers. Even the other office relationships on the show, which are all deeply insane, provide charming and hilarious little character moments that defy expectations and manage to surprise (e.g. Kelly infantilizing Ryan by feeding him French fries on a double-date and insisting that he does, in fact, love ketchup). This sort of thing is, of course, one of the two main aspects of The Office that make it so endearing. The other is, obviously, cringe-inducing embarrassment.
When I think and talk about The Office, I find that I'm usually most impressed with the subtle aspects of Jim and Pam (whose evolution throughout Season 3 was nothing short of inspiring). But, Michael and Dwight are really the anchors of the show, and the reason most people watch in the first place. If "The Office" was a rock song, I think that Michael and Dwight would be the rhythm section, and Pam and Jim would be the vocals and lead guitar. Yeah, it's a silly analogy, and oversimplified. But, my point is that Jim and Pam provide those rare, soaring moments that really stand out, but that Michael and Dwight keep the show grounded, ironically enough, with their madness. It's their indulgences and whims that keep the show's pace, and advance the plot on an episode-by-episode basis. I've read other reviewers point out that, if this were a traditional sit-com, the "normal" characters of Jim and Pam would be the focus, and the "oddball" characters of Michael and Dwight would be the ones that pop in for the occasional zaniness (think Laverne, Shirley, Lenny & Squiggy). I think that this perspective shift from traditional sitcom formulas, coupled with the dry, documentary-style presentation, is the key to the success of "The Office".
Another impressive aspect of the US version of the show is the fleshing out of the secondary characters, which really began taking shape in Season 2, and expanded in Season 3 to include the Stamford branch of Dunder Mifflin, which was eventually assimilated (decimated?) by the Scranton Branch. The contrast of the seemingly more professional Stamford office with the Scranton office offered some really significant insight into this show. I can point to two specific moments where this contrast was used to make an important point: The first is when the "talented" Josh uses his upcoming promotion at DM to land himself an executive position at Staples instead, prompting Jim to note that "Say what you will about Michael Scott, but he would never do that!" The second is when Andy's constant sucking up to Michael reaches toxic levels, eventually leading to Dwight's resignation and rehiring, inspiring Michael's epiphany that "I don't want somebody sucking up to me because they think I'm going to help their career [Andy]. I want them sucking up to me because they genuinely love me [Dwight]." The point is that Stamford was the more professional of the two offices. Stamford did better business. Scranton is a better family.
This family theme is the emerging element of Season 3 that distinguished it from Season 2. How else can one possibly explain a group of workers willing to tolerate a "boss" like Michael Scott, unless they no longer think of him as a boss at all, but just some crazy uncle, or a 10-year old boy in a (bisexual) suit that they're babysitting, who forces them to watch movies and throw parties? The women in the office, especially, can only be excused for allowing themselves to be subjected to such disrespectful and inappropriate behavior because they clearly have more pity for Michael than fear. If they were even the least bit intimidated by him, his transgressions would be a very serious problem. But, his obnoxious antics are born from profound immaturity, not a desire to dominate them. Sex is something to giggle about for Michael, not something used to wield power... unless you're trying to withhold sex from a female superior in order to receive a modest, scheduled pay raise, as Toby explained it.
By the way, Jan's downfall this season was indeed as spectacular as a dying star collapsing on itself (although a supernova may have been the better analogy, given her explosions in the... chesticles... region). She became the Rebecca Howe of "The Office", as her carefully constructed executive facade slowly crumbled and turned to dust.
The family theme played itself out in another, completely surprising way this season with regards to Ryan, the former temp. I wonder how long, exactly, the writers have known what his corporate fate would be. Early in the season, I got the sense that he was beginning the process of reluctantly settling into his new family at Dunder Mifflin Scranton. The episode where Dwight "hazed" him seemed to suggest this was the direction he was headed. Ryan's continuing failures as a salesperson also seemed to hint that he was going though a necessary humbling process on the road to becoming part of the group. But, then... everything changed within the last 10 seconds of Season 3, as I realized that this was not at all the point behind Ryan's character arc. He wasn't being groomed as a new member of the family. He was being set up to become just another, talentless, clueless executive with a fancy degree. This miserable kid who has never made a single sale will now be giving orders to Michael, his former mentor. Again, I wonder if the conflicts that emerge from this dynamic ultimately lead to Michael's firing, echoing the British series once more. But maybe, on a more hopeful note, Ryan's training may be the factor that saves Dunder Mifflin (at least for a while), and all of his scholarly insights into the problems facing this "dying" company lead to some real positive changes. Despite all of his shortcomings as a salesman and a human being, maybe the guy actually knows what he's talking about.
And, then there's Pam. Her story is the heart and soul of Season 3. The risk of putting her in a relationship with Jim in Season 4 is less significant than the risk it took to change her character in the first place to get her to that point. This is another sitcom taboo, where reliable, predictable characters are part of the comedy formula. How is Pam going to remain a meek receptionist after everything she went through this season? She walked through fire! Will she even be capable of being a receptionist now? Again, the family dynamic will probably ensure that she remains in place in spite of the obvious professional suicide that it signifies. I don't know how Pam views Michael - as a friend, a little kid? But, I do know that she sees him as someone to protect, in a bizarre sort of way. Think back to the eulogy at the bird funeral, one of the most touching moments this show has ever produced. And, Pam has gone out of her way to protect Angela and Dwight, both as a couple and individually, on many occasions, two people who clearly irritate her. She's not a pushover at all. A pushover doesn't defend her family members - even the irritating ones - with such devotion. A pushover doesn't stick up for people. Anyone who thinks Pam has ever been weak has not been paying attention, or doesn't really understand the definition of strength to begin with.
So, Season 4 should be fascinating, with big changes on the horizon and lots of questions to be answered, both corporate and romantic, and in all of the places where they mingle. Or, should I say, "merge"?
|
|
|
10 of 11 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Utterly fantastic, February 5, 2008
This is by far one of the most clever and creative shows on television. It delights in taking a politically incorrect stance about just about everything and, in so doing, shows how susceptible we all are to stereotypes and prejudice. To say that this show is a sendup of corporate culture is really only discussing one aspect of the show. It is a complex and colorful story whose characters continue to grow and to shock and amaze the viewer. It also happens to be one of the funniest shows I have ever had the pleasure of viewing.
This season is a standout because of the continuing evolution of the characters. Like real people, they sometimes act in ways that seem out of character but are the perfect example of the contrast between the face we put on in public and what really makes us who we are on the inside.
One of the best examples of the evolution of the character of Michael Scott can be seen in "The Job". As always, Michael assumes too much and thinks too little. He makes a terrible decision about a romantic relationship on the basis of some very sexist interests in a woman's appearance. However, in the end, he proves that he is actually a stand-up guy who is loyal to those who are not always deserving of this loyalty. His character has the mentality of an overgrown child in that he can be unforgivably cruel and petty one moment and then truly lovable the next.
One of my personal favorites was "Beach Games" because it exemplifies the development of Pam's character. Pam has long been my favorite but she is almost pathological in allowing others to walk all over her and take advantage of her good nature. Her outburst in this episode was great to watch because it shows how determined she is to finally take charge of her life. Throughout the season, she remains the nice woman she has always been but she begins to grow a backbone and to learn that being nice doesn't mean pleasing everyone at all times at the expense of her own happiness.
"The Negotiation" is also an excellent episode because it shows the petty side of Jim and the heroic side of Dwight. Jim's pettiness becomes more and more evident throughout the season and his seeming determination to hold Pam responible for Roy's actions and his cutting comments to her in the aftermath underscore just how mean he can be at times. As for Dwight, the season has served to show what a surprisingly great guy he can be and this episode exemplifies this as he refuses to allow Jim to thank him for something he considers to have been his duty.
Aside from the powerhouse main characters, the tertiary characters of this show continue to astonish. There is the often silly Kelly with the cheer I simply can't get out of my head ("This day is bananas. B-A-N-A-N-A-S"). There is the creepy Creed whose encounter with a fish in "Beach Games" made my husband and I roar with laughter. There's the rather pathetic Toby, who is constantly dumped on by Mike and who takes his lovelorn status to new levels in "Cocktails" where his act of kindness is brushed off by an oblivious Pam. I could go on and on for hours but, really, the best thing to do is to witness the series for yourself. You'll doubtless become every bit as hooked as my husband and I are.
|
|
|
7 of 7 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Painful, hilarious, October 8, 2007
OK, so it's an imitation of a British show. But it's a good imitation. The Pam/Jim saga is heart breaking and wonderful, the Dwight/Jim hostility is satisfying in a naughty way. The supporting characters are wonderfully real and flawed. Not to single any one of them out, as they're all worth watching (and how often can you say that about such a big cast), but Creed is a scream. How many layers of creepiness can one guy have? I haven't mentioned Michael Scott (Steve Carell) because his obvious comic brilliance is sort of compromised for me by the pain of watching his character in action. It's almost too painful to bear.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
