I don't think that's the heart of the show at all. Maybe Season 1, which was rather poorly received. From then on, I'd argue that the show goes out of its way to cast Michael in a favorable and sympathetic light in spite of his insensitivity. And I think that's very true to life! Think of the trope of the older relative who uses outdated language or tells off color jokes but who is also beloved by the family and generally warm and kind to the people in their life. Michael throws parties, cheers for his people, talks to them about their issues; he goes through heartache and finds love. His final appearance in the show is akin to a family patriarch reflecting on how much he loves his kids.There definitely wasn't more to it than a glance from Jim. But, that was the point. The point was Michael was this ignorant guy, and that in offices all around the country people like Michael and even Todd Packer existed, and got away with stuff because they were rarely confronted or had power.
But, I would argue the heart of the show was that people like Michael (at least how he was portrayed in the early seasons) and Todd were wrong. That the system is broken, and that sometimes there isn't any justice. But, it was all just done with a comedic tone. With a show like The Office you can't just pick out one singular act done by Michael and say, "he wasn't called out for it". You have to look at the overall character.
I just assumed they (Michael and Andy) picked up whoever they could, but didn't make the connection that they were supposed to be the "ugly" versions. I always assumed this was part of the "they all look alike" joke that the episode was going for. That bit of info was news to me.I've always wondered why the waitresses they brought back to the office were different. It's never mentioned and it's bothered me since I first watched it.
I think this is the worst part of the story and lends credence to what she’s saying. This was made to show that “Michael didn’t get with the hot girl and brought home the ugly one”. It felt like the joke was related to assigning value to their looks. That’s pretty sexist.
usually when Michael is superficial with a non-starring white woman on the show, we’re supposed to laugh at him. In the case with these Asian women, their looks were what the writers wanted you to laugh at. It’s hard to not notice it.
I just assumed they (Michael and Andy) picked up whoever they could, but didn't make the connection that they were supposed to be the "ugly" versions. I always assumed this was part of the "they all look alike" joke that the episode was going for. That bit of info was news to me.
I fully agree Michael being moved from essentially a Dbag in seasons 1-3 into a loveable doofus by the end is an issue. I mentioned that earlier. I would argue through about season 4 Michael is portrayed pretty harshly. Season 5 is where I stop on rewatches because the show goes off the rails quickly.I don't think that's the heart of the show at all. Maybe Season 1, which was rather poorly received. From then on, I'd argue that the show goes out of its way to cast Michael in a favorable and sympathetic light in spite of his insensitivity. And I think that's very true to life! Think of the trope of the older relative who uses outdated language or tells off color jokes but who is also beloved by the family and generally warm and kind to the people in their life. Michael throws parties, cheers for his people, talks to them about their issues; he goes through heartache and finds love. His final appearance in the show is akin to a family patriarch reflecting on how much he loves his kids.
And listen - this is all a very realistic portrayal of how people behave and interact with one another. My wife's boss is dismissive of women, and thinks he'd be a good head of the diversity committee as an older straight white man. He's commented on her poster of strong women about how "they're not all that great." But he also allows her to take time off for family issues, doesn't have a problem when she's home with a migraine, and asks about me and her family. People are not one dimensional; people are not 100% good or bad. But if you're telling a story, and part of that story includes behavior that needs to be addressed, and it isn't, that's not really demonstrating that you as a storyteller saw it as a concern. Yes this stuff goes on, but when a character (or ultimately a few) do and say some of the things they do, and people acknowledge it but no one stops it, and you wrap your show up with a nice little bow and a mostly happy ending, I think it's reasonable to view that as a tacit endorsement. Saying you can't look at one single act or episode - sure. Was he ever really called out for things? Maybe a couple times? And was there anything lasting that came of it? That side of his character experiences no real growth and at the end of the day no one really seems to mind.
Listen I'm a huge fan of The Office, I think it's a fun show, I think it's very realistic to how people are and that people should be free to watch it and make their own judgements. I just don't think the show wants to be a particularly biting social commentary, nor do I think it does a good job at it, and so in today's culture I can just get how people would be offended by it as social attitudes shift.
it’s not about how she feels but about how she was cast. She is aware of that, they admitted they were making jokes about their looks, though they “failed”. The portrayal of Asian women being centred around their looks is not new in Hollywood, and that’s what happened here in a way that didn’t happen with other non-starring white women in the show. That’s racist to me.They aren't ugly. I think that's where I'm getting confused. If she feels that way then I feel p. bad about her not having higher self esteem, or about there having been people who made her feel that way.
it’s not about how she feels but about how she was cast. She is aware of that, they admitted they were making jokes about their looks, though they “failed”. The portrayal of Asian women being centred around their looks is not new in Hollywood, and that’s what happened here in a way that didn’t happen with other non-starring white women in the show. That’s racist to me.
I also think it’s problematic to point fingers at them for going on a show they knew featured racism in it. There aren’t a lot of jobs for actors and they can’t pick and choose which racist show not to be a part of. Especially back then, they didn’t have much of a choice because most shows stereotyped Asians to a degree at some point. Saying that ignores the environment they are trying to work in, what they deal with, and the sacrifices they have to make to try and follow their dreams in an industry that constantly marginalized them. It’s also easy to say in 2021; if you even talked about this stuff back in 2007,you would be looked at like you were delusional, whining too much, reading into it something that’s not there, that you should have thicker skin, Etc.
The portrayal of Asian women being centred around their looks is not new in Hollywood, and that’s what happened here in a way that didn’t happen with other non-starring white women in the show. That’s racist to me.
That's why people who say "cancel culture doesn't exist" aren't paying attention to what's actually getting "cancelled." They hear naughty words or touchy subject matter and go "nope."The funny thing is Diversity Day is satire about racism in the workplace.
We should call this the Blazing Saddles Rule.Besides it's racist to pretend racism doesn't exist.
It is a hot fan base and they did it in a major tourism hub, so you technically could plan to see the big city and meet some beloved celebs.The entire notion of an Office Con sounds fucking atrocious to the point of being a scam.