The removal of Holly I can understand, but the presence of Charles only happened after Michael quit (specifically, gave his two weeks). Charles was the interim manager until they found a new one, IIRC. Charles treated him badly, but with complete justification - he was drinking at work and acting ridiculously.
I guess it depends on what you mean by “the presence of Charles.” Charles had set up shop at Scranton before Michael quit, and it led to him quitting.
Charles was the one who initially told him he couldn’t have his anniversary party. I don’t think it was the party per se that alienated Michael, it was the idea that this corporate person was in a position to interfere in how he ran his branch, and in such a sour and condescending way. If I were Michael (now there’s a stretch), I’d feel like that was a poor reward for being successful. Even after the party was restored, Michael realized that David Wallace thinks he’s a childish idiot and was merely placating him, not understanding WHY he felt that way. I think it was a moment of clarity for Michael, and his quitting and starting the MSPC was a way for him to affirm to himself and Wallace that yes, he is a force to be reckoned with and not someone to be treated in such a cavalier and patronizing way. And to Michael’s credit, it worked, when it very well could have been a horrible disaster.
“So the turntables…”
I think the most ridiculous part of this episode was Wallace’s rehiring of Ryan. He hired Michael and co. back mostly because he didn’t want to explain to the board how the only profitable branch of the business started losing money after Michael left, but I think he’d have a much harder time explaining to the board how he hired back the guy who defrauded the company and cost it “hundreds of thousands of dollars”.
Also, I guess they missed their chance to have a “Where’s Wallace?!” moment on the show. I was both dreading and hoping for that reference to The Wire to get made.
Very true, but all those comments were made to people with no real power over her, or whom she doesn’t respect. David Wallace is the Big Cheese, and it seems extraordinarily gutsy of her to make such a comment to a boss, in front of the entire office.
Was Oscar in this episode, btw? Didn’t see him at all.
Actually, David Wallace never said “I’m sorry.” He just did not. And I think his failure to use those simple words were his downfall. Sometimes the inability to apologize can be fatal.
In addition, it absolutely was not about the party – that was the impetus for the initial disgruntlement, but Michael was never given a reason to be, uh, gruntled. First he’s given a cold prick of an uberboss who’s incredibly hands-on, which in itself isn’t terrible but Charles’s monolithic decisions and overrides probably felt like just the start of a reign of terror. Then this was topped by David’s increasing distance toward Michael and his refusal to accept Michael’s calls.
Michael had the most profitable branch along with fifteen years of loyal, productive service in which he’s been chronically underpaid and undervalued. He deserved the simple respect of accepting his calls. This on the heels of having been told he was never in consideration for Jan’s job (again, despite having the most profitable branch) and the Holly transfer. I think Michael had just Had Enough, and I don’t blame him in the least.
Woops, you’re right. I was thinking Charles was brought in after he gave notice, but I’m misremembering. Still, I think David Wallace has been very reasonable, even generous, in how he has treated Michael, so it doesn’t really ring true as comeuppance. I understand more Michael’s perspective, though.
This is the sort of problems you can run into when you alternate between attempt at realistic drama and cartoon. Michael goes Homer Simpson is allowed to do things constantly that no one would reasonably tolerate - so if you have his bosses punish him after seasons of this behavior, the audience either views it sympathetically from Michael’s perspective and thinks the boss is being mean, or they view it from a more realistic perspective in which case they say “wtf, of course he’s going to have more oversight or be punished, he’s acting completely unreasonably”
I disagree completely with this conclusion. Even if everything you say is true, no one is Michael’s position is owed a hotline to the C.F.O., nor is he owed the right to date an employee. Yes, that’s what set Michael off, but that’s because he’s childish and immature. A normal person in his position would be making an argument that he deserves better compensation in the form of salary.
Charles turned out to be a bad fit for the Scranton branch, but more than 50 percent of that problem is Michael’s fault. If he had kept his head down and not behaved like a spazz while Charles was around, Charles would not have canceled the party.
If you were the CFO, wouldn’t you prefer an employee who was happy with an anniversary party instead of a salary increase? It’s so easy to make Michael happy. He’s a cash cow, why not take his occasional call and let him have a party? Clearly the show bore out the fact that Wallace should, in fact, have indulged Michael.
Well, this is clearly false, because the problems went on and on well after Michael left. Charles is a bad judge of character and didn’t understand how Scranton worked. Dwight is his right hand man? Stanley is the productivity czar? Jim is a worthless buffoon? Charles seemed very prone to ass-kissing and flattery, not actual numbers and demonstrated success. You can’t blame that on Michael.
Totally disagree. Michael is very high-maintenance when he’s not getting his way – and with his infantile sense of entitlement, he’s very often not getting his way. “Occasional” call? Really? One of the main reasons Wallace started ducking Michael is because the calls were anything but occasional.
Michael might not be very demanding salary-wise, but he’s a time sink, a resource sink, and just flat out annoying. There are two ways for an executive* to deal with a person like that – either fire the offender, or insulate yourself by putting in a middleman. Wallace took the latter, kinder strategy, and I think it’s a perfectly reasonable step.
- = Have we ever seen any other officers besides the CFO?
Actually, it’s not. Half this season has showed how much time Wallace has had to waste babysitting the man-child. He’s the C.F.O. He’s got other responsibilities. Michael was used to having a boss. First it was Jan, and then Ryan. There were plenty of conflicts in those days, but Michael managed not to throw a hissy quit if he couldn’t go over their heads.
He’s not really a cash cow. He’s an anomaly. He manages success in a manner that can’t be learned or imitated or adopted throughout the company. In any real world company, the success of a single branch like Scranton would not make the difference between sinking and swimming. Realistically, Dunder-Mifflin is in trouble and the fact that Michael seems to do well is more a curious event than a model for a way out.
That’s only accepting the deus ex machina terms of the show, and it shows you how the show fails to live up to its own terms. I’m approaching this from the point of reality, which is how I see The Office, since it’s in the form of a documentary.
Michael’s no better a judge of character and you can see that given enough time, Charles does realize that Dwight is a moron. The way the show presented the sequence of events, you can’t blame Charles for thinking that Jim is a dunderheaded goof-off and that Dwight is a successful sales person. Jim failed to show his best side to Charles and any reasonable person seeing him in those circumstances could have come to the same conclusion.
Essentially, Charles didn’t show himself to be a bad manager, but really the weirdness of the Scranton branch showed itself to be ungovernable by someone who was used to dealing only with normal people.
And Charles’s choice of Stanley was not patently unreasonable. He didn’t yet know everyone at Scranton and it’s not fundamentally a bad idea for a new supervisor to just pick someone and give him responsibility to see how he or she does.
Babysitting the man child? How so? Wallace sent him on tour of the DM offices to give speeches about how he succeeded. If Wallace were so aware of Michael’s foibles, he never would have done this. I think Michael works best when left alone. The fact that his success is undefinable and unanalyzable is all the more reason to leave him alone.
He a cash cow AND an anomaly. Why tamper with something you don’t understand? If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Wallace learned that the hard way this season.
Why should he be a model or a way out? If he succeeds and the reason escapes you, would you put someone like Charles in there to fuck with it? That seems colossally stupid to me.
You have admitted that you are insisting on viewing the show without accepting it on its terms. Why would you do that? The show has repeatedly indicated that Michael is an idiot-savant when it comes to sales. If you want to call that “deux ex machina” and it harms your appreciation for the show, then that’s too bad. I think, if you accept the show as stated, it’s more enjoyable. I loved this episode and was surprised to see people bitching about it. It’s been internally consistent. No, it’s not real world consistent, but I think it begs for a willing suspension of disbelief.
The way Michael operates, which is to be incredibly loyal and protective, and to let his staff work as they see fit, seems to be the recipe for success. Micromanagement, bullying, and creating an atmosphere of fear and asskissing ala Charles does not work.
A different boss would not jump to conclusions as Charles did about Jim. He made a snap judgment and clung to it. He never really gave Jim a chance, because we know that Jim is a great salesman. Dwight got where he was with Charles via ass kissing, which speaks ill of Charles.
I think he was a bad manager. Perhaps he was only bad in the context of Scranton, but that’s all we saw of him, and he sucked. The proof was in the sales numbers and the office morale. The only person who was happy was Dwight.
Charles made a decision about Stanley without adequate information. Another idiotic snap judgement. Charles was an arrogant, overbearing jerk and his style failed utterly. I don’t see how you can argue that. You might say, it wouldn’t have gone down that way in the real world, but this patently isn’t the real world.
And on that tour he made a fool of himself and of Wallace while failing to convey any useful information to other branches.
This was one of Wallace’s several failed efforts to try to use Michael’s apparent skills to benefit the whole company.
Michael also has cost the company a lot of money in legal bills. And now he’s forced them to bring back a felon who cost them hundreds of thousands. In any realistic view, Michael’s a wash; he’s not going to save the sinking ship.
If your C.F.O. is spending significant time babysitting a single regional manager, it’s perfectly reasonable to get someone else to take that off his hands.
Because otherwise he’s irrelevant and it’s not worth the time and energy to keep him happy.
No, I said that the show fails to live up to its own terms. I’m not going to let it go when they violate their own premise. The principal premise is that this is real. So the things that happen have to have verisimilitude.
That’s not actually what Michael’s M.O. is. He repeatedly interferes with his staff to make them follow his whims and schemes, and he often distracts them from work with his tantrums. Whether or not that’s effective, it’s definitely not letting them “work as they see fit.”
That’s not how I see it. Jim repeatedly made himself look bad in front of Charles, partially just out of bad luck. Given enough time, Charles would have probably figured it out. But it was entirely realistic that someone arriving on the scene without prior experience with these folks would start off with a negative opinion of Jim.
I think he was a bad manager. Perhaps he was only bad in the context of Scranton, but that’s all we saw of him, and he sucked. The proof was in the sales numbers and the office morale. The only person who was happy was Dwight.
Charles made a decision about Stanley without adequate information. Another idiotic snap judgement. Charles was an arrogant, overbearing jerk and his style failed utterly. I don’t see how you can argue that. You might say, it wouldn’t have gone down that way in the real world, but this patently isn’t the real world.
[/QUOTE]
One thing I would like to ask, if Wallace had a problem with dealing with Michael, why would his first step be to higher someone with the, (possible), intention to hover over him and provide a kind of atmosphere that would intimidate ANYONE in Michael’s position, rather than have a discussion with him first?
If Michael’s character were a little more fleshed out, I think you would see a man who put in fifteen years of his life into a middle management position at a paper company. No higher education. A fruitless love life. And a lot of frustration adapting to the world around him. However he takes pride in what he does because he’s excepted it, (like when he told Jim that he, himself, thought he wouldn’t stay there for as long as he had, after Jim expressed that he’s not looking to stay forever). He probably embraces paper and the paper business because that’s been a constant in his life for so long, (one of the few). He’s a passionate guy and he found passion in that.
It being his fifteen year anniversary, and the fact that he was under the impression that he was becoming ‘a star’ in the company… in comes Charles. After that, his party is canceled. If it wasn’t such an important time for him, I doubt he would have had the reaction he had, but this was the day that marked something he’s worked for for 15 years of his life. Some may say that he WAS getting paid thos fifteen years, but it’s not all about money with him.
I don’t like the use the term “midlife crisis”, because my father’s “crisis” years were some his and my mom’s more fun and laid back years. Results very though, (just saying it’s not always a crisis). I think Michael felt threatened on a day where he was probably reflecting a lot on his past. Wallace agreed to his party at the end, but it just made Michael realize that it wasn’t just about the party. I’m not saying his actions were well thought out. He may have overreacted, but in doing so, he showed his superiors that he can, in fact, come through when all is said and done.
He knows on SOME level that he can say and do inappropriate things, but asking him to stop would be like asking him to be a vegetable on life-support. Perhaps deep down he needed to prove himself to others, and possibly himself.
Wallace was like: OK, you can have this, this and this. It will be great, happy? It’s not about the party so much as it is respect.
Wallace’s intent was to hire someone to fill the job vacated by Jan and Ryan. It’s not the C.F.O.'s job to babysit a single regional manager.
Yes, because Michael’s secret to success is indefinable. He’s also a terrible communicator outside the realm of sales. The company should value him for what he is and not try to make him something he’s not.
Making a profit in a shitty economy benefits the whole company.
What legal bills? Jan cost them money in legal bills, not Michael. Wallace could have refused to hire Ryan back. I sure would have. Can’t blame Michael for asking. I don’t think it’s fair to ask him to “save the sinking ship.” He’s the manager from one branch for chrissake. Let him do what he does. The ship is probably sinking because they promote blowhard, micromanaging idiots like Charles, psychos like Jan, embezzlers like Ryan, and spineless vacillators like Wallace in their upper echelons. If Michael were left alone, he’d be fine.
I honestly think you’re blowing the whole “significant time babysitting” thing out of proportion. Also, answering the phone occasionally is a small price to pay to placate the manager of the most successful branch in the company.
That’s just ridiculous. He’s manager of the most successful branch in the company but he’s irrelevant if he can’t teach someone else how to do it? I don’t think so. I think doing your own job well is relevance enough.
I completely disagree that the premise of the show is that it’s real. It’s not a reality show, it’s a mockumentary, emphasis on the mock. Did you have the same problem with Spinal Tap? It’s a spoof, a send-up of office life. It’s not supposed to have verisimilitude. There were many situations when there really couldn’t be a film crew present during the history of the show, but we believe they were present because we willingly suspend out disbelief for this premise.
I think the entire staff of the Scranton office would tell you that Michael was much less invasive than Charles. Despite all his wackiness and annoying bullshit, Michael and his staff are successful. You can complain all you want about his methods, but the show has repeatedly stated that it works.
Charles’ hostility to Jim started very early. He never gave Jim a chance, and we the viewers know that Charles’ impression of Jim was wrong, so I don’t think Charles was justified in his attitude towards Jim. He also thought Dwight was great, despite having ample time to know otherwise. It wasn’t until he was embarrassed in front of Wallace that he saw through the sycophancy, which says volumes about him.
But that seems to be what some people are arguing, that he was there to be a babysitter. Why have such a hardass C.F.O. when your best branch will suffer as a result?
Charles’ MO also seemed to be based a lot on humiliation and conformity. If I were Michael, I’d be incredibly insulted by Charles’ presence and attitude, towards both me and my staff. That’s no way to reward success. It was unjustified and turned out to be a horrible idea. Despite his insanity and weirdness, the lesson for Wallace and DM in this story arc was Let Michael Be Michael. It shouldn’t work, but it does. Charles didn’t. End of story, right?
One thing, **Idris Elba **really gave this character his all. Never saw ‘The Wire’, but I’ve read interviews and heard him talk about his character, and it seems that he knows exactly who he’s playing in his own mind. This episode was a perfect example as it showed different sides of character like his being a kiss up. I think it’s the first time his character’s made me laugh; like the look he got on his face when he finally got a sense of how Dwight’s just a big goof, or later during the meeting when he holds up his hand, partially obscuring his face. and asking Dwight in a low tone; “What is wrong with you?”. I would love to see his character fleshed out more.
The soccer episode was a good indication that Charles likes having his ass kissed. And now we know he’s also an ass kisser himself. The problem is, he uses other people as an example to make himself look better. The day we met him, it seemed he used Michael and Jim as examples, which is not a tactic I think it right at all.
Though I should watch again to see if I remember right.
Charles came in immediately after Michael’s near-disastrous Golden Ticket idea. It almost cost the company a ton of money (50% off on its biggest client’s orders). Michael behaved extremely unethically afterwards, shunting blame onto a subordinate; when the idea backbackfired, making money for the company, Michael humiliated Wallace in a conference call with Wallace’s superior (the shareholders? I forget who was on that call).
Wallace was completely disgusted with Michael at that point; it makes sense that he’d hire a hardass manager over Michael, thinking to himself that he’d given that jackass too much leeway and he needed to tighten up ship. It turned out to be a bad move, but a wholly understandable one.