I’ll be honest – I cheered (a little) when Michael nailed David Wallace’s balls to the wall with his little speech about how he just had to wait for the fall of the CFO, not the fall of Dunder-Mifflin. But in retrospect, that little speech, as good as it made me feel, was way, way out of character for Michael. The man can sell, but he’s shown zero (maybe even negative) aptitude for politics and internal wrangling. That shrewd analysis would have made sense coming out of Oscar’s mouth, but Michael has repeatedly shown that he absolutely cannot see with such insight.
And thus the speech was a hamhanded plot device, and it has left a sour taste in my mouth. I much would have preferred it (just as an example) had Michael made some analogy to wrangling in a movie that accidentally applied to his situation. Let David Wallace do the thinking to see that there’s a kernel of truth in the analogy, rather than have Michael do all the heavy lifting.
Just out of character, that’s all, and jarringly so (to me). But c’est la vie, we’re back to Michael Scott and Dunder-Mifflin, and Charles, aka Buzz Killington, seems to have moved on.
Am I the only one who felt that Charles didn’t really want to hear out Dwight about the broke MSPC because he really just wanted to get the hell out of Scranton.
I loved when Michael gets on the elevator agreeing he shouldn’t say anything and then the next scen is him bent over worried he is going to say something.
Where did Ryan get his MBA? Do we know, because he clearly learned nothing.
like I said up thread… it’s stretch, but I’ve surprised myself in situations I was certain I would blow. It’s funny how at the end he’s like; “I don’t know how I got on this high, I don’t even want to question it, I just want to enjoy it”.
I think Wallace still likes Michael on a human level which helps.
quixotic78 - I disagree. I don’t think Michael is supposed to be (that) stupid. Just naive, oblivious and overeager with a strong desire to please. He’s been running the Scranton branch for 15 years. If nothing else, he is probably well aware of David’s need to make numbers for the quarterly shareholder meetings. It just wouldn’t occur to him to use that as a strategy.
He had a similar revelations the past. During the deposition hearings during Jan’s lawsuit (“you expect your company to screw you over, not your girlfriend”), on his phone call during the business trip with Oscar and Andy (“what you did with Holly sucked”) and again when he quit. Normally he just goes about doing what he is told, more or less blinding himself to the reality of the situation. But once it reaches a certain point, he does seem to see clearly what is going on and tale appropirate action. He just has a big problem with being devious or assertive.
Did you notice Ryan declined the glass of champaign?
Jim had nothing to lose really. And he just made comments that seemed innocuous on the surface but he knew would send Dwight into one of his tirades.
Yes, that’s what I was referring to. We weren’t shown explicitly that he is an alcoholic, but it’s implied that his substance abuse included alcohol, not just cocaine.
I don’t know how people generally treat themselves for substance abuse, but I think a lot treatment programs, (all of them?) ask you cut out most things of addiction, except for smoking. I would assume because it’s legal and you can do it while driving a car. Like I said, I don’t know though. You don’t need to be in treatment to know that anything can do you harm if you have an addictive personality.
I agree that Michael isn’t supposed to intellectually deficient, he has a very low emotional IQ, but is at least normal, and in some ways fairly bright on the rare occasions that he can think his way clear of all his insecurity and neediness. Selling is negotiation, and I don’t think it’s a stretch that Michael would know how to focus his instincts in the same way to negotiate the buyout – especially when it’s with people he no longer cares about being liked by, like David and Charles. Take away the emotional baggage, and Michael is perfectly functional, even exceptional, as a salesman and negotiator. He’s still not anything close to a natural leader, but it him just barely plausible as being able to get to, and keep his position. We never saw that with David Brent, who was all jackass all the time.
“Boner patrol!”
"Hey boss, I’d just like to point out that I’ve been here less time than the rest of the guys…I just think the bar should be lower for a newbie…I don’t want to have said that…but I think it’s important that you know it.
Dwight hovering behind Charles during his camera talk was hilareous.
Did anyone notice Charles & Dwight and David and Jim both had the same shirt/tie combos
A lot of addiction programs basically treat all drug addiction as the same. It’s a disease which causes the brain to get stuck in a mode where it constantly, and urgently wants to feed its reward system, and the specific drug doesn’t really matter. Alcoholism and cocaine addiction aren’t really different diseases, just different manifestations of the same disease. Basically, you’re not really treating the disease unless you cut out everything.
Addiction should be distinguished from physical dependency, though, which is a whole other thing.
Regardless of the efficacy of the disease theory, it’s still very common for a lot of addiction programs to forbid drinking during recovery, even if alcohol wasn’t your drug of choice (12-step does this, for instance).
I agree that he is naive and oblivious. His speech was not the product of someone naive and oblivious, but rather of someone cynical and observant. Hence, out of character.
None of these examples show him being the slightest bit savvy or, even intelligent. During the deposition, he constantly talks about a “love contract,” is blindsided by the fact that Jan wrote in her journal that he’s an idiot, and he makes a “that’s what she said” joke – all in character. I don’t remember the particulars of the call where he said “What you did with Holly sucked,” but that sounds like something a 10-year old would say, as opposed to his very adult speech in this episode. And he didn’t quit for any strategic reasons or to gain any sort of leverage; he threw a temper tantrum because he wasn’t getting a big 15-year anniversary party.
All of these instances (and inordinate others) show him to be immature and oblivious. They’re in character; they’re a large part of his character! But his speech is definitely outside of his character.
Yes, and that made me feel a little better about Jim’s sittuation, as if the directors were reaching out to the audience in some way that David and Jim were still ‘on the the same level.’ I know msmith537 said Jim had nothing to lose, but the guy’s still his superior.
You guys… I’m so Michael Scott. :smack:
It’s ridiculous. msmith537’s post about him could very well be said about me. I can be naive, oblivious and overeager with a strong desire to please. I’ve gone into it in length before and I wont as much now except to say my mouth can beat out my brain in a race against time almost all the time. At work I’m very loyal, and good natured. If something REALLY bothers me at work I usually stay quiet and let things role off my back without putting up much of a fight because I can’t determine if I would be justified in doing so. There HAVE BEEN time, however, when I feel like I KNOW I’m really ‘in-the-right’ about something. Unlike Michael I seek a lot of counsel from my peers individually, and asses each one’s opinions along with how to address any arguments on their end that may come up in the process, or any arguments I may not have thought of. I have taken the gloves off, and I think as a result had come away from it with my superiors a little surprised and perhaps even a little impressed.
He wasn’t aware of what a budget surplus is. I didn’t buy that he came up with the strategy on his own, and it made David Wallace look weak. I didn’t like it.
I did like Dwight on Angela: Been there, done that.
If people are arguing about his inconsistencies, I can only agree in a broader sense. This ISN’T the only example of Michael knowing how to handle a situation. He still made ‘flubs’; “Our ball’s are your in your court”. I like this Michael much better though. I’ll just chalk it up to a little growth in character.
There was a time last season where I was HOPING that the writers would – I don’t know – mention Michael being “medicated” or have Dwight find out he was seeing a shrink. And maybe he doesn’t believe in mental therapy or prescription drugs, (sighting that if he had a problem growing up on the farm, he would have to do something weird, like be forced to live out in the out-house for 3 days and 3 nights, cutting him off from all the pleasures the Schrute residence had to offer… something trivial like a bigger mirror so he can shave. So while Michael’s absent, (maybe seeing his doctor), Dwight addresses the whole office, pleading them to be easier on Michael, then letting slip that Michael was seeing a professional. And at the end Michael can just tell the crew something like; “Yes! I am currently, I’m seeing a psychiatrist and she’s, (yes, I said ‘she’… and ‘she’ is a solid 7 and a half), got me on something – a few things, so, we’ll see if that does anything”, just leave it broad without saying exactly what it was or what it was for… and the result would be the type Michael we’ve seen the past few episodes.
I know prescription drugs may not specificly help Michael in real life, but just an excuse to keep him from giving ex-costumers gift baskets, then demanding them back, or driving a car into a lake.
She’s been a little flakey every now and then this season. Perhaps she was being sarcastic, but after the advisor “crunched” the numbers again, and she seemed to be holding on to a string of faith that it would ‘do something’. There ARE other examples that I can’t think of right now, but I hope to see Pam resorting to logic as much as she used to. She and Jim were originally the characters to put the absurdity of the office in perspective to the viewers by relating to situations with a sense of realism.
Works for me!