The Office -- Season Finale -- Open Thread

Darren Erstad: Aging sportswriters::
British Office:Office fans

I support Pam’s desires to escape.

I can see where, on a superficial level, one might see that. Yes, there is the rather obvious sense of doom and hopeless from being in a dying town in a failing paper business. Yes, all the characters are flawed, make bad decisions, and seem to go around in circles. In other words, they’re human beings.

I know what I wrote was stream-of-consciousness and not very clear, but let me reiterate: Toby is a good person who is the voice of reason, and is abused unfairly by Michael. But if the show was just about a jerks and nice people, well, then it would suck as bad as anything else on TV. If people still think Michael’s character, for example, is just a stupid jerk who might have a few good qualities but whom is only very rarely sympathetic, well, frankly, I can’t imagine any adult seeing the show that way. [Even on the Holy British Version, David Brent ends up coming off a bit sympathetic by the end (and, after listening to the commentary and documentaries, more likable and less obnoxious than the real-world Ricky Gervais).] But people do tend to watch TV, probably because of the way sitcoms have traditionally worked, with “good” characters on one side, and “bad” ones on the other.

Michael is at the center of the show, because his character, more than any others, smashes that distinction. In the beginning, he clearly is a jerk, and stupid, and so on. But it becomes quite notable, particularly in the second season, that not only does his behavior have roots in certain needs conditioned by its past (which would only be an explanation, not a justification), but that he has good qualities as well. He isn’t Todd Packer, for example. Even better, I think the contrast between Michael and Ryan is the one that illustrates this (and that is another reason why Ryan’s character might not be needed in the show anymore). The first impression of Ryan is that he’s a normal guy, and that he’s decent, as in the scene (directly taken from the British version) where Pam is brought in and “Punk’d” by Michael, with Ryan obviously sitting there thinking it is idiotic. And this continues. But during the second season, we see that while Michael embodies so many idiotic things (to the extent that pointing it out is silly), he also has good qualities (loyalty, caring, good with kids, sensitivity, good salesmanship) that he simply doesn’t recognize in himself, and thus they get distorted by his neediness and insecurity. Michael is a perfect representative of the obsolete, local business and small town. Ryan, despite his nice appearance and “normal” demeanor, turns out to be the perfect embodiment of postmodern flexible specialization—not tied down to a locale, no loyalty, willingness to relocate/stab anyone in the back, using Kelly, and so on. But the complexity remains, as, despite this, he’s still able to be insightful (Jim will never go to Australia [whatever happened with that, by the way?], and, my favorite, when he clearly notices Pam’s mistreatment of Jim around that same time [Pam doesn’t catch it, of course, at least at the moment]).

My point with Toby, which admittedly gets lost as I got sidetracked onto different things (as in the paragraph above), was that despite his obvious niceness/reasonableness (and, again, these aren’t exceptional, but only see so in the face of Michael’s stupidity, etc. that hardly need to be pointed out), he’s flawed. He allows himself to be victimized by Michael - particularly odd, since he doesn’t report to Michael. Indeed, he embodies many of the flaws of the main characters, that is, not standing up for himself/taking chances. He had many opportunities to “make a move” on Pam, but, one suspects like many watchers, wants to be the nice guy in the PG-13 movie. Yes, that’s a Swingers reference, and it fits perfectly, since Toby acts just like Mikey - he wants to be the “nice guy” who just gets the girl/better job or whatever just because “he deserves it.”

Hey, I understand. I used to view the world that way, as well. But it doesn’t work that way. You don’t have to be a sleazeball like Trent or Ryan to get what you want. But you do have to try and not just allow the world to conspire against you. I don’t mean to rip on Toby as if he’s evil. He’s not. But he isn’t less fallible than everyone else on the show, and he even can slide into Michael-territory, as when he lets his own inability to do anything about Pam (her own slight revelations about thinking Toby’s cute [although “cute” is damning in its own right] point out his lack of initiative) prevents him from objectively seeing Ryan’s blatant unfairness toward Jim (and if people really think that Jim doesn’t care about his job and is good at it… try watching the show again…. I’ll leave it at that).

My point is getting lost again in my sidetracks. In fact, Toby is one of the more admirable and likable characters on the show. He’s a minor character, so we can’t get a full portrait. But given that he is so apparently “good,” the way in which his flaws are brought out this past season forcefully brings home the point about the complexity of human character.

When I say he’s a “loser” relative to other characters on the show, I don’t mean he’s “bad.” Loser isn’t a moral category. But, despite what they all share, Toby is a guy who isn’t only a victim, but he allows himself to be, and, until/unless he goes to Costa Rica, seems to be wallowing in it. He has chances to get out. Some people take it. Jim’s move to CT was a way out. Whatever we make of his choosing Pam over Karen, it was what he wanted to do, he didn’t just allow circumstances to dictate his choices. Pam finally says how she feels. She finally gets going on a career she can do something about. Even Michael has his moments, although he constantly undermines himself, like Toby (which is what makes his abuse of Toby all the more galling). Maybe Toby finally had his moment in his escape to Costa Rica. If so, good for him.