Just caught up with The Office (US) - nice, but less Carell! (SPOILERS)

So I didn’t think much of The Office (US) when I first heard about it, but now that I’ve caught up through the most recent ep, I think, as a whole, it’s surpassed the original British version. It’s funny, clever, and insightful in ways that most comedy programs (especially this side of the pond) never reach.

I’ve read some disapproving reviews of the show, but one common complaint that the show sometimes gets too dramatic doesn’t hold much water with me. I like that the show doesn’t just look at everything through the comedy angle; sometimes the better, more natural story is darker and sadder, and I like that. Having the full range of emotions also makes the humorous moments stand out better. Jim’s comforting of Dwight in the stairwell, followed by his abrupt exit right before Dwight’s seeking a hug was just a brilliant example of firing on all emotional cylinders.

Another thing that gets slagged on is the Jim/Pam romance, but really, with all the dysfunction in the show, how is having one successful relationship bad at all? They’re cute and believable (the romance was earned, dammit) and have great chemistry together, and while it very occasionally verges on the schmaltzy, most episodes give the romance itself (post-consummation) very little airtime. And the relationship can still lead to the funny, such as in the chairs vs. copier episode (“just kidding… I need four”). It’s also weird that these two sometimes get singled out as douchebags, as they’re far less douchey than most of the other characters and most people I know IRL, for that matter. Most people don’t actively help out “enemies” like Dwight and insane bosses like Michael when their emotions are crushed. My main hope with these two is that if they stay successfully coupled, the show just stops trying to depict their romance at all, unless it’s natural or really funny. Season 5 has taken to throwing in random artificial obstacles (like Pam’s sad Dad subplot), and it’s annoying. We get it; Jim and Pam are happy, move on.

And finally, I don’t mind the mugging for the camera, from Jim or anyone else. It’s perfectly in character and I still find it amusing, even five seasons in. It’s quite common that something is really funny to you but there’s nobody around that shares your humor or it wouldn’t be proper to express it; the camera serves as a handy all-purpose comedic catharsis. I admit this is a matter of taste, though.

The only real complaint I have with the show is cartoonification, namely Michael Scott. He annoys the crap out of me. Yes he’s a sympathetic character sometimes, but that’s only when Carell is playing a less extreme version of him. All too often, he’s just such an extreme caricature, driving cars into lakes, then going back to a potential client to take back a gift basket and threaten him by rubbing wet/dirty selves on furniture- are you KIDDING me?. It’s just not funny, adds nothing to the character, and sabotages the subtle insight and humor elsewhere. The frequency and magnitude of idiocy seem to be increasing, which is a shame since the show is definitely at its best and funniest when the characters are at least partially human. Dwight, Kelley, and Angela seem to be skirting the edge, but they’re still OK. Not sure about Tight-ass licking her cats, though…

One final gripe is that in the most recent season, there doesn’t seem to be much fallout from the Angela-Dwight-Andy thing being brought to light. The show’s usually been so good about continuity of stuff like that; I wonder what’s up.

The Office has set a high bar, and this most recent season is definitely its weakest (but still quite strong). Most shows do end up faltering over time, but I really hope this one pulls it together.

I concur that Michael is the weakest element of the show, to the point of even prompting me the change the channel when he starts doing one of his irritatingly embarassing presentations.

Dwight’s the man.

Michael’s funny as hell. I think you are taking over-analyzation to an extreme. Comedy’s supposed to have elements of the absurd. You’re dissing a comedy for having a character who you describe as a caricature? Really?

You could think of it this way: Michael is believable as a character insofar as the emotions and events that drive his character are real and believable. His responses to those emotions and events are way over the top of how any real person would act, sure. But that’s why real people in real offices are not featured in prime-time comedy series.

For me, the aspect in which the American Office has surpassed the original is the development of the secondary characters.

Creed is a perfect example of how well the American version has done this.

I,too, just caught up with the most recent episodes. I didn’t like the show when it initially came out, but I’ve since watched some of the season DVDs and it’s now one of my favorite shows.

I loved this show seasons 1-3. I’m not entirely sure why, but last year, and definitely this year, something has been off about it for me.

It’s entirely possible to have a character that contains “elements of the absurd” without devolving into a caricature. See, for example, every single character of “The Office” prior to Season 3.

I think Michael’s still intermittently funny, but he became significantly less so (not to mention a far less compelling character) when the writers decided to move him towards complete idiocy/ insanity. Same goes for Dwight.

I agree with every word of the OP.

I disagree with those that say the Office(US) has surpassed the Office(UK). The American version is cartoony & zany. The original was dark & filled with pathos. The original only ran for 12 episodes–the American version had to develop the secondary characters more since the run has been so much longer.

The main defect with the American version is actually summed up in the Season 1 commentary from the Office(UK) DVD-- Ricky Gervais & Steven Merchant are talking about why they cut a scene between Tim & Gareth…they said it was too contrived and “sitcomy”, and it took you out of the feeling that this was a “documentary”. I can’t see the writers of the American version ever having this discussion…