Really, that isn’t my take at all. (nor Gervais’s intention). I understand that your dislike of him might be hard to shift but I hope you appreciate that the ending shows…
David changes, from the moment he starts to be appreciated (by his date) for what he is rather than what he tries to be. He relaxes completely. His language and demeanour changes immediately, less insecure. Witness what he says to Finchy and the look, he gives him. See how he speaks to his previous employees at the end and how they start to respond to him. It isn’t full redemption for the previous arseholish-ness but it strongly hints at a new beginning and decent person underneath.
So I’m perplexed that you didn’t get any of that from it, or perhaps you did but don’t buy his potential for change? I’d understand that but, being a hopeless romantic at heart, I’m sticking with my interpretation.
I haven’t seen the US version, but how much of an asshole must Dwight be that Gareth seems benign in comparison? He’s one of the most unlikable non-villain characters I’ve ever seen - crude, mysogynistic, homophobic, stupid and completely unaware. How can Dwight top that? Does he kick puppies?
I can definitely see that David starts changing for the better at the end of the Christmas Special, but I think that’s Laggard’s point, it’s the very end. Literally the last few minutes of the episode. If I remember right, David in the beginning of the Christmas Special is at his most obnoxious, which was starting to sour me on the whole series until the end.
He is also at his lowest and most vulnerable. For the first time, he actually has some sense of self-awareness and realizes (maybe on a deeper level) how much of a failure he really is. The last episode is really about redemption.
The ending at least provides hope that he may be capable of becoming a decent person.
I have to say also that the Tim/Dawn relationship was much more satisfying then Jim/Pam. Maybe because it didn’t drag on for what seemed like four seasons.
I seem to be alone in this, but I think one of the biggest changes from the UK to the US is the attractiveness of Tim and Dawn vs Jim and Pam. The US roles are filled with people that are far better looking than the UK roles, and I think that damages the pathos a bit. With Tim and Dawn, maybe it’s just me, but since they’re just, I don’t know, normal-looking, I really feel for their straining for a real, strong relationship. These aren’t people that are destined to end up with someone sooner or later. Whereas in the US version, I get the feeling that either Jim or Pam could easily attract a good partner without too much trouble. I know that’s superficial and all, and there’s probably a good bit of projection going on, but Tim and Dawn always provoked more sympathy in me. Open any US Office thread, on the other hand, and you’ll see people complaining about how perfect Jim and Pam are. I think a good bit of that difference is down to the actors’ looks.
Ha! I am sure this is going to make me sound really shallow, but one of the things that made it hard for me to get into the Tim/Dawn story was how unattractive they both were. Especially with Dawn, I kept thinking, "Gosh, get rid of those split ends and stripper nails and improve your makeup and dress more flatteringly . . . " I guess for TV I found them distractingly ugly (although they would be pretty average in an American office, I guess.)
Jim and Pam give off serious smug vibes. I never got that from Tim and Dawn, despite the fact that they both know their jobs are ridiculous. And I agree that the Tim/Dawn “will they or won’t they” story ended at the perfect stopping point.
Steve Carell made for a much more sympathetic boss, though. I felt no pity for David Brent until the Christmas special, when he delved into seriously pathetic territory and you could see just how unhappy he really was.
They are not “ugly”, especially not “distractingly” so.
They’re ordinary looking people. That’s the point of the show. It’s pretty scary that people are publicly condemning normal people as “distractingly ugly” to the extent that they can’t get into a TV show featuring some deformed, hideous creatures.
So, yeah, sorry man. I think that makes you sound really shallow.
UK office at it’s best is better than the US office at its best.
That said, the despair of the UK office can become oppressive. It’s literally hard to watch some moments of the UK office (David firing Dawn for ‘theft’) and that makes it both better and worse than the US Office where Michael can be a doofus, but never cruel (that I can recall). The highs are higher and the lows are lower for the UK version.
I like both quite a lot, but the UK version is often ‘art’ while the US version is more… mainstream.
Though I am in awe of the supermodel that is Dwight in the US version. Man is he dreamy… glad he’s so good looking that he doesn’t put me off watching him.
Not all TV characters have to be supermodels. In particular, those not playing supermodels should not look like supermodels.
Do you have trouble watching Robert DeNiro, or Robin Williams, or Helen Mirren, Judi Dench, Meryl Streep, Jack Nicholson, Harvey Keitel, and Bill Murray because they’re not supermodels?
That’s what makes the UK version brilliant for me: it really does look like a real office they are filming. The US vesrion is fine, but clearly a sitcom. Even though Gervais is somewhat out there, he is far more real than Carell…not to mention jim/pam and tim/dawn. The office US is a nice sitcom, the oddice UK is brilliantly realistic in a way we pobably won’t see again.