Slumberlord
Monday, March 27, 2006
Apple, apple, apple, come on candy bar... Hey, I know you, you're that first apple I didn't want!
I have a deep and abiding love for the refrigerated vending machine. I’m not talking about a soda pop vending machine or the rare ice cream vending machine (although that is wonderful in its own way) but instead that crossbreed between the vending machine and the household refrigerator.
Like its conventional cousin, it exchanges small sealed foods for toll change and nickels you raked out from underneath the payphone in the lobby. Unlike the typical vending machine, however, it is not limited to candy bars, unsalted nuts and stale muffins. It offers drinks, snacks, and even small meals. Why? Because there’s a lot of evil in this world and there ought to be something standing up for the good folks. This is it.
It’s a glorious thing to behold: Clear shelves rotate around a central column, basking in a pale white glow, displaying foods that would leave the conventional vending habitué stammering in wonder. A turkey wrap? Now I’ve seen everything. Some of these items even have “best by” dates. Get it now: Pierre didn’t go through six years of gourmet school to let that grilled cheese sandwich waste away on a shelf!
Someone refills these machines – possibly God, but more likely, an angel. And if said divine entity decides to put an item that costs $1.75 inside the $2 slot, hey, no problem; they just slide a quarter in there next to it. How cool is that?
In conclusion, some people have support groups, some people have the bible, some people go on pilgrimages, but people seeking real truth and beauty in life gaze in reverent awe at the full-service vending machine. God’s peace (and a small can of Dole pineapple) be with you, child.
I have a deep and abiding love for the refrigerated vending machine. I’m not talking about a soda pop vending machine or the rare ice cream vending machine (although that is wonderful in its own way) but instead that crossbreed between the vending machine and the household refrigerator.
Like its conventional cousin, it exchanges small sealed foods for toll change and nickels you raked out from underneath the payphone in the lobby. Unlike the typical vending machine, however, it is not limited to candy bars, unsalted nuts and stale muffins. It offers drinks, snacks, and even small meals. Why? Because there’s a lot of evil in this world and there ought to be something standing up for the good folks. This is it.
It’s a glorious thing to behold: Clear shelves rotate around a central column, basking in a pale white glow, displaying foods that would leave the conventional vending habitué stammering in wonder. A turkey wrap? Now I’ve seen everything. Some of these items even have “best by” dates. Get it now: Pierre didn’t go through six years of gourmet school to let that grilled cheese sandwich waste away on a shelf!
Someone refills these machines – possibly God, but more likely, an angel. And if said divine entity decides to put an item that costs $1.75 inside the $2 slot, hey, no problem; they just slide a quarter in there next to it. How cool is that?
In conclusion, some people have support groups, some people have the bible, some people go on pilgrimages, but people seeking real truth and beauty in life gaze in reverent awe at the full-service vending machine. God’s peace (and a small can of Dole pineapple) be with you, child.
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
Rookies, big bats and thugs
What better to talk about on the first day of spring than baseball? I know only one of the four people who reads this blog cares about baseball, but I never promised to write about things that people care about.
This year I joined a fantasy baseball league. If you don’t know (and I didn’t know, not so long ago), in a fantasy league a small number of people make teams of real-life baseball players. Then, as the season goes forward, they follow those players’ and calculate how their team would do based on the individual statistical performances of their players. It all begins with a draft, which happened last week for me, and I think I made out ok.
Infield
B. Molina (Tor - C)
D. Lee (ChC - 1B)
J. Cantú (TB - 2B,3B)
P. Polanco (Det - 2B,3B)
J. Uribe (CWS - SS)
I used my lunch break the day of the draft to plan things out in depth, and of course, when the draft began, all that went out the window. Well, I had my eye on Cantú and Polanco as high candidates, and Molina was definitely on my radar. But I was not expecting to grab Derrick Lee as my first-round pick, or end up with Uribe as a hometown favorite later in the draft. Lee was just too good to pass up with Pujols and Santana (my preferred first round choices) gone. And on the off chance that Uribe actually delivers offensively as Ozzie Guillien desires, I’ll have a top-to-bottom solid hitting lineup.
Outfield
A. Jones (Atl - OF)
G. Sizemore (Cle - OF)
A. Kearns (Cin - OF)
I enjoy this outfield. I don’t expect Andruw to post 51 home runs like he did last year, but he should post enough to justify his second round pickup. Sizemore gives me some speed (the only offensive area where my team is notably lacking) and Kearns is a solid power hitter.
Utility and Bench
Mi. Sweeney (KC - 1B)
R. Mackowiak (CWS - 2B,3B,OF)
I grabbed Sweeney in the 13th round. If he stays healthy, he could be one of the nicest surprises on my team, as he’s always been a dangerous hitter. In this league, the utility spot is essentially a DH slot that can be filled by anyone, which means you can have two power first basemen like Derrick Lee and Mike Sweeney playing at the same time.
Mackowiak may be another vanity pick, but I expect big things of him with the Sox this year. And if he doesn’t pan out, I can drop him without losing too much sleep over that 19th round draft slot I spent on him.
Starting Pitchers
F. Hernández (Sea - SP)
D. Haren (Oak - SP)
F. García (CWS - SP)
I had vaguely conceptualized a pitching-strong team, and while my three starters are a pretty solid group, they’re far from what I might have expected. I ended up favoring young guys with huge potential – Hernández is expected by some to become the next Johan Santana, and Haren is one of the younger cogs in Oakland’s impressive pitching machine. García is of course the oft-overlooked number four starter for the White Sox and a model of reliable day-to-day pitching.
Relief Pitchers
N. Cotts (CWS - RP)
K. Farnsworth (NYY - RP)
R. Betancourt (Cle - RP)
I was feeling about in the dark in this category more than any other. Neal Cotts (the fourth and last White Sox player on my team) may be the closest thing to a pure vanity pick, as he comes from my alma mater and is one of my favorite players. I’m sure I could get burned with him, but he put up great numbers last year in the regular season and the post-season, and I think he could have an ever-growing role with the Sox this year.
Farnsworth was a complete shot in the dark, and if nothing else I will enjoy having an excuse to watch this goon’s antics. He seemed to do ok for Atlanta last year up until that disastrous outing against Houston in the NLDS. Betancourt I know nothing about, but he was the best of what was left in relief by the time I got around to filling the final slot.
Pitchers
M. Cain (SF - SP)
E. Santana (LAA - SP)
D. Cabrera (Bal - SP)
These slots can be filled either by starters or relievers and I haven’t quite decided what to do with them yet. They were all later-round acquisitions. I think Cain (another young pitcher) could really do well pitching in baseball’s weakest division, and Ervin Santana (not the other Santana, regrettably) was solid for the Angels. Cabrera I need to research more, but like Betancourt, he was the best of the rest by the time I got to filling this slot.
Bench
B. Backe (Hou - SP)
O. Hernández (Ari - SP)
Backe continued to float around late in our draft, so I went ahead and picked him up in the final rounds. He’s not an ace like Clemens, Oswalt and Pettitte, but he out-pitched all three of them in the World Series, going round-for-round against Freddy Garcia. Hernández was my final pick, and it looks like I might have to dump him, as he isn’t doing too well injury-wise. I wouldn’t mind picking up another every day position player to back up Mackowiak and Sweeney.
And that’s it, my first fantasy league draft. If nothing else I hope it will allow/force me to keep better track of baseball at large rather than just the American League and the Central Division especially. And as the last days of cold weather slip from Chicago, it’s a nice thought indeed.
What better to talk about on the first day of spring than baseball? I know only one of the four people who reads this blog cares about baseball, but I never promised to write about things that people care about.
This year I joined a fantasy baseball league. If you don’t know (and I didn’t know, not so long ago), in a fantasy league a small number of people make teams of real-life baseball players. Then, as the season goes forward, they follow those players’ and calculate how their team would do based on the individual statistical performances of their players. It all begins with a draft, which happened last week for me, and I think I made out ok.
Infield
B. Molina (Tor - C)
D. Lee (ChC - 1B)
J. Cantú (TB - 2B,3B)
P. Polanco (Det - 2B,3B)
J. Uribe (CWS - SS)
I used my lunch break the day of the draft to plan things out in depth, and of course, when the draft began, all that went out the window. Well, I had my eye on Cantú and Polanco as high candidates, and Molina was definitely on my radar. But I was not expecting to grab Derrick Lee as my first-round pick, or end up with Uribe as a hometown favorite later in the draft. Lee was just too good to pass up with Pujols and Santana (my preferred first round choices) gone. And on the off chance that Uribe actually delivers offensively as Ozzie Guillien desires, I’ll have a top-to-bottom solid hitting lineup.
Outfield
A. Jones (Atl - OF)
G. Sizemore (Cle - OF)
A. Kearns (Cin - OF)
I enjoy this outfield. I don’t expect Andruw to post 51 home runs like he did last year, but he should post enough to justify his second round pickup. Sizemore gives me some speed (the only offensive area where my team is notably lacking) and Kearns is a solid power hitter.
Utility and Bench
Mi. Sweeney (KC - 1B)
R. Mackowiak (CWS - 2B,3B,OF)
I grabbed Sweeney in the 13th round. If he stays healthy, he could be one of the nicest surprises on my team, as he’s always been a dangerous hitter. In this league, the utility spot is essentially a DH slot that can be filled by anyone, which means you can have two power first basemen like Derrick Lee and Mike Sweeney playing at the same time.
Mackowiak may be another vanity pick, but I expect big things of him with the Sox this year. And if he doesn’t pan out, I can drop him without losing too much sleep over that 19th round draft slot I spent on him.
Starting Pitchers
F. Hernández (Sea - SP)
D. Haren (Oak - SP)
F. García (CWS - SP)
I had vaguely conceptualized a pitching-strong team, and while my three starters are a pretty solid group, they’re far from what I might have expected. I ended up favoring young guys with huge potential – Hernández is expected by some to become the next Johan Santana, and Haren is one of the younger cogs in Oakland’s impressive pitching machine. García is of course the oft-overlooked number four starter for the White Sox and a model of reliable day-to-day pitching.
Relief Pitchers
N. Cotts (CWS - RP)
K. Farnsworth (NYY - RP)
R. Betancourt (Cle - RP)
I was feeling about in the dark in this category more than any other. Neal Cotts (the fourth and last White Sox player on my team) may be the closest thing to a pure vanity pick, as he comes from my alma mater and is one of my favorite players. I’m sure I could get burned with him, but he put up great numbers last year in the regular season and the post-season, and I think he could have an ever-growing role with the Sox this year.
Farnsworth was a complete shot in the dark, and if nothing else I will enjoy having an excuse to watch this goon’s antics. He seemed to do ok for Atlanta last year up until that disastrous outing against Houston in the NLDS. Betancourt I know nothing about, but he was the best of what was left in relief by the time I got around to filling the final slot.
Pitchers
M. Cain (SF - SP)
E. Santana (LAA - SP)
D. Cabrera (Bal - SP)
These slots can be filled either by starters or relievers and I haven’t quite decided what to do with them yet. They were all later-round acquisitions. I think Cain (another young pitcher) could really do well pitching in baseball’s weakest division, and Ervin Santana (not the other Santana, regrettably) was solid for the Angels. Cabrera I need to research more, but like Betancourt, he was the best of the rest by the time I got to filling this slot.
Bench
B. Backe (Hou - SP)
O. Hernández (Ari - SP)
Backe continued to float around late in our draft, so I went ahead and picked him up in the final rounds. He’s not an ace like Clemens, Oswalt and Pettitte, but he out-pitched all three of them in the World Series, going round-for-round against Freddy Garcia. Hernández was my final pick, and it looks like I might have to dump him, as he isn’t doing too well injury-wise. I wouldn’t mind picking up another every day position player to back up Mackowiak and Sweeney.
And that’s it, my first fantasy league draft. If nothing else I hope it will allow/force me to keep better track of baseball at large rather than just the American League and the Central Division especially. And as the last days of cold weather slip from Chicago, it’s a nice thought indeed.
Monday, March 13, 2006
Pirate shirt really not that much worse than normal attire
Occasionally I will catch a Seinfeld rerun in endless syndication on television. Between our local Fox affiliate and TBS, there is something like four to six episodes shown each day. I always admired the show more for its flawlessly efficient writing than I ever enjoyed it for its actual humor, but I still find it worth watching now and then.
Although… recently I have noticed something I never had before: Jerry Seinfeld’s wardrobe is awful. This man looks like he was dressed by a coalition of well-meaning but unqualified Kohl’s sales associates diving the bargain rack.
The show’s run begins in 1990, and Jerry was keeping the spirit of the 1980s strong with a selection of eye-scarring pastels and mock turtlenecks. Later seasons didn’t get much better; misallocated denim, tight pants, and queasy patterns abound.
It seems unfair to target a guy who we most frequently see lounging around his apartment, but what were the wardrobe people thinking? He’s a comedian who dates a preposterous number of women – he should be fairly well dressed. A show about nothing shouldn’t involve a significant suspension of disbelief.
Jerry is on average even worse than his dud friend George, who at least settles on an unspectacular but ignorable set of holiday sweaters and bad sport jackets. Elaine, almost by necessity, possesses some fashion sense and benefits by almost always dressing more formally than the others.
Counter-intuitively, Kramer’s wardrobe ages the best. The greatest strength of kitsch is its resiliency to the changing tides of fashion, and 1970s gear straight out of a door-to-door encyclopedia salesman’s estate sale holds its value as well today as it did then. It's much better than a purple button-up over faded jeans, certainly.
Occasionally I will catch a Seinfeld rerun in endless syndication on television. Between our local Fox affiliate and TBS, there is something like four to six episodes shown each day. I always admired the show more for its flawlessly efficient writing than I ever enjoyed it for its actual humor, but I still find it worth watching now and then.
Although… recently I have noticed something I never had before: Jerry Seinfeld’s wardrobe is awful. This man looks like he was dressed by a coalition of well-meaning but unqualified Kohl’s sales associates diving the bargain rack.
The show’s run begins in 1990, and Jerry was keeping the spirit of the 1980s strong with a selection of eye-scarring pastels and mock turtlenecks. Later seasons didn’t get much better; misallocated denim, tight pants, and queasy patterns abound.
It seems unfair to target a guy who we most frequently see lounging around his apartment, but what were the wardrobe people thinking? He’s a comedian who dates a preposterous number of women – he should be fairly well dressed. A show about nothing shouldn’t involve a significant suspension of disbelief.
Jerry is on average even worse than his dud friend George, who at least settles on an unspectacular but ignorable set of holiday sweaters and bad sport jackets. Elaine, almost by necessity, possesses some fashion sense and benefits by almost always dressing more formally than the others.
Counter-intuitively, Kramer’s wardrobe ages the best. The greatest strength of kitsch is its resiliency to the changing tides of fashion, and 1970s gear straight out of a door-to-door encyclopedia salesman’s estate sale holds its value as well today as it did then. It's much better than a purple button-up over faded jeans, certainly.
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
What is more important than quality? Equality.
I’ve been pleasantly surprised both by the success of “The Office,” which NBC has picked up for a third season. The first few episodes felt like a wobbly copy of the UK original, in which the day-to-day doldrums of the world’s worst boss, the ever-suffering receptionist and the wry salesman unfold. Over time, however, the US version plot has developed quite differently and proven its worth.
The American version is much more an ensemble comedy compared to the British version, where the personalities of most of the supporting characters were implied rather than expressed. The US show isn't quite as bleak and focused on the monotony of working life as the UK version, and has instead broadened its scope and explored life outside the workplace (for example, the UK version studiously avoids showing us where these people live and where they go when they’re not at work, but the US version goes there when it so desires - the US version in general spends a lot more time outside the Office itself).
I’m really pleased with both shows at this point and glad they have chosen different paths – nonetheless I feel compelled to mercilessly compare them to each other and I will do so by matching up the similar characters in the two shows.
The Intolerable Boss
UK: David Brent
US: Michael Scott
They’re the faces of their respective shows, and each is probably the main reason for the success of “The Office.” The romance story may power the plot, but the “world’s worst boss” tag is what initially draws viewers to the show. Ricky Gervais’ idiosyncratic performance as David Brent put the original show on the map, and Steve Carrell’s success in “The 40-Year-Old Virgin” quite possibly has kept the American “Office” popular.
Advantage: UK – there’s no topping Gervais’ as the boss who is simultaneously cruelly callous and tragically sensitive. Carrell, however, deserves his own recognition for successfully recreating an unimitatible character.
The Callow Toady
UK: Gareth Keenan
US: Dwight Schrute
Gareth and Dwight are at once like the bosses they envy (committed to the workplace and the ideas that it embodies) and unlike them (not bound by the crippling need to be loved by their coworkers). Both are duds, but neither indulges in nerd clichés, instead carving out characters that combine elements of macho goonery with laughable desktop nebbishness.
Advantage: US. I know it’s a controversial pick, but I have to go with Dwight by a hair on this one. Both characters are great, but Dwight taps into some weird nether region of American male consciousness that television only rarely acknowledges. His relationship with Angela puts it over the top.
The Cynical Sales Representative
UK: Tim Canterbury
US: Jim Halpert
Tim and Jim are the respective heroes of their shows, although both series betray a greater fondness for their hapless boss characters (who relish the office) over their tragic heroes (who doom themselves to it). Tim and Jim do keep both shows moving forward and provide the backbone of story, as well as the reference point for (male) viewers.
Advantage: UK. The US series has so far played Jim as someone who is less depressed and embittered than Tim, and even puts more of the pressure on Pam with Jim seemingly more aware of the futility of their situation than Tim was in the balanced Tim/Dawn situation. Arguably the US Office is just not as recalcient with its dramatic payoff, but the UK version does reap slightly greater rewards.
The Receptionist
UK: Dawn Tinsley
US: Pam Beesley
Tim and Jim deal with their situation by not taking anything too seriously, while Dawn and Pam accept where they are in life and try to settle.
Advantage: …UK, but just barely. As with Tim, Dawn resonates a bit more because her situation just seems that much more hopeless than Pam’s situation. The brief appearance of Pam’s mother really made the difference for me here: It’s immediately uplifting (and thus counterproductive) when we’re reminded that these characters have families. The UK office almost never reminds us of that, and Tim lives with his parents.
The Intern
UK: Ricky Howard
US: Ryan Howard
BJ Novak’s inclusion as a marquee-credited character is one of the biggest differences between the UK version and the US version, since there is essentially one more main character, whereas Ricky Howard was just there to participate in a few episodes’ plot developments. Ryan is sympathetic to Jim, but as a younger, less cynical man, he’s also critical of him for his complacency (something we didn’t see happen in the UK version). It adds another strong element to the show, as well as some great extra comic relief.
Advantage: US, although this isn’t a very balanced comparison with the difference in screen time.
The Rude Salesman
UK: Chris “Finchy” Finch
US: Todd Packer
The creators of the UK Office described Finch as the only character in the show who is honestly dislikeable, and its no wonder why. Like Packer, he puts David/Michael in perspective and demonstrates a more collegial (albeit sophomoric) desire to be accepted.
Advantage: UK. Finch had a bit more screen time in the UK Office’s first two seasons than Packer, so he had more room to grow and interact with the rest of the staff. Packer and Michael have good chemistry as well (coming off “Anchorman” and should get more time together).
The Boss’s Boss
UK: Jennifer Taylor-Clark
US: Jan Levinson-Gould
David and Michael are both blundering sexists, and both live under the heels of female bosses. Each tries to be patient as their respective managers continually cross lines of appropriate behavior. The US version took the relationship in quite a different direction when in a moment of weakness Jan kissed Michael.
Advantage: US. The writers had some real fun with her character in “Boys and Girls” as Jan tried to work with the women in the office only to be needled about her fling with Michael.
The Boyfriend
UK: Lee
US: Roy
Dawn/Pam’s boyfriend has to be a thoroughly depressing choice compared to Tim/Jim, but at the same time someone you could reasonably see them settling with.
Advantage: UK. Lee and Roy are very similar in the two shows, but Lee is a bit more menacing, and his affection for Dawn feels even less sincere than Roy’s for Pam.
The Fat Weird Guy
UK: Keith Bishop
US: Kevin Malone
Keith was always a fan favorite on the UK version, and for good reason. His excema line in the performance review was one of the funniest asides in the original series. Kevin has already started to pick up steam on the US version and will probably also be a fan pick.
Advantage: UK. Keith/Kevin works better when his personality is more implied, less expressly stated. This is one of the few missteps thus far in the US version. More and more the US show has been overplaying Kevin and he comes the closest to the sort of goofy character you would see on a more traditional sitcom.
The Girlfriend
UK: Rachel
US: Katy
It’s arguable whether they are exactly comparable, as Rachel was a coworker while Katy comes from outside the office, but I think they fill much the same role in providing a temporary relationship that in the long run only emphasizes Tim’s (Jim’s) longing for Dawn (Pam).
Advantage: I missed the first episode with Katy, so I’m not going to make a call on this one.
The Rest
UK: Jamie, Ralph, Phillip, Emma, Sheila, Glyn, Donna, Jackie, Malcolm, Trudy, Oliver, Sanj, Alex, Karen, Simon, Anne, Neil
US: Angela, Oscar, Stanley, Phyllis, Meredith, Kelly, Creed, Lonny, Darryl, Madge, Toby
A few of these could arguably be matched up against each other (Malcolm and Creed, for example, or Glyn and Darryl) but I felt like their relatively low level of screen time would make comparisons arbitrary. Some of these are great (Angela, Ralph and Kelly especially) while others don’t work (I really don’t like Simon at all)
Advantage: US. The nature of the US show shifts more weight in favor of an ensemble cast. The advantage is that there’s more versatility, more heat vented from the main action, and fewer opportunities to stumble over redundant jokes or plotlines with the main characters. The disadvantage is that it reduces some of the tension and claustrophobia present with the UK cast.
I’ve been pleasantly surprised both by the success of “The Office,” which NBC has picked up for a third season. The first few episodes felt like a wobbly copy of the UK original, in which the day-to-day doldrums of the world’s worst boss, the ever-suffering receptionist and the wry salesman unfold. Over time, however, the US version plot has developed quite differently and proven its worth.
The American version is much more an ensemble comedy compared to the British version, where the personalities of most of the supporting characters were implied rather than expressed. The US show isn't quite as bleak and focused on the monotony of working life as the UK version, and has instead broadened its scope and explored life outside the workplace (for example, the UK version studiously avoids showing us where these people live and where they go when they’re not at work, but the US version goes there when it so desires - the US version in general spends a lot more time outside the Office itself).
I’m really pleased with both shows at this point and glad they have chosen different paths – nonetheless I feel compelled to mercilessly compare them to each other and I will do so by matching up the similar characters in the two shows.
The Intolerable Boss
UK: David Brent
US: Michael Scott
They’re the faces of their respective shows, and each is probably the main reason for the success of “The Office.” The romance story may power the plot, but the “world’s worst boss” tag is what initially draws viewers to the show. Ricky Gervais’ idiosyncratic performance as David Brent put the original show on the map, and Steve Carrell’s success in “The 40-Year-Old Virgin” quite possibly has kept the American “Office” popular.
Advantage: UK – there’s no topping Gervais’ as the boss who is simultaneously cruelly callous and tragically sensitive. Carrell, however, deserves his own recognition for successfully recreating an unimitatible character.
The Callow Toady
UK: Gareth Keenan
US: Dwight Schrute
Gareth and Dwight are at once like the bosses they envy (committed to the workplace and the ideas that it embodies) and unlike them (not bound by the crippling need to be loved by their coworkers). Both are duds, but neither indulges in nerd clichés, instead carving out characters that combine elements of macho goonery with laughable desktop nebbishness.
Advantage: US. I know it’s a controversial pick, but I have to go with Dwight by a hair on this one. Both characters are great, but Dwight taps into some weird nether region of American male consciousness that television only rarely acknowledges. His relationship with Angela puts it over the top.
The Cynical Sales Representative
UK: Tim Canterbury
US: Jim Halpert
Tim and Jim are the respective heroes of their shows, although both series betray a greater fondness for their hapless boss characters (who relish the office) over their tragic heroes (who doom themselves to it). Tim and Jim do keep both shows moving forward and provide the backbone of story, as well as the reference point for (male) viewers.
Advantage: UK. The US series has so far played Jim as someone who is less depressed and embittered than Tim, and even puts more of the pressure on Pam with Jim seemingly more aware of the futility of their situation than Tim was in the balanced Tim/Dawn situation. Arguably the US Office is just not as recalcient with its dramatic payoff, but the UK version does reap slightly greater rewards.
The Receptionist
UK: Dawn Tinsley
US: Pam Beesley
Tim and Jim deal with their situation by not taking anything too seriously, while Dawn and Pam accept where they are in life and try to settle.
Advantage: …UK, but just barely. As with Tim, Dawn resonates a bit more because her situation just seems that much more hopeless than Pam’s situation. The brief appearance of Pam’s mother really made the difference for me here: It’s immediately uplifting (and thus counterproductive) when we’re reminded that these characters have families. The UK office almost never reminds us of that, and Tim lives with his parents.
The Intern
UK: Ricky Howard
US: Ryan Howard
BJ Novak’s inclusion as a marquee-credited character is one of the biggest differences between the UK version and the US version, since there is essentially one more main character, whereas Ricky Howard was just there to participate in a few episodes’ plot developments. Ryan is sympathetic to Jim, but as a younger, less cynical man, he’s also critical of him for his complacency (something we didn’t see happen in the UK version). It adds another strong element to the show, as well as some great extra comic relief.
Advantage: US, although this isn’t a very balanced comparison with the difference in screen time.
The Rude Salesman
UK: Chris “Finchy” Finch
US: Todd Packer
The creators of the UK Office described Finch as the only character in the show who is honestly dislikeable, and its no wonder why. Like Packer, he puts David/Michael in perspective and demonstrates a more collegial (albeit sophomoric) desire to be accepted.
Advantage: UK. Finch had a bit more screen time in the UK Office’s first two seasons than Packer, so he had more room to grow and interact with the rest of the staff. Packer and Michael have good chemistry as well (coming off “Anchorman” and should get more time together).
The Boss’s Boss
UK: Jennifer Taylor-Clark
US: Jan Levinson-Gould
David and Michael are both blundering sexists, and both live under the heels of female bosses. Each tries to be patient as their respective managers continually cross lines of appropriate behavior. The US version took the relationship in quite a different direction when in a moment of weakness Jan kissed Michael.
Advantage: US. The writers had some real fun with her character in “Boys and Girls” as Jan tried to work with the women in the office only to be needled about her fling with Michael.
The Boyfriend
UK: Lee
US: Roy
Dawn/Pam’s boyfriend has to be a thoroughly depressing choice compared to Tim/Jim, but at the same time someone you could reasonably see them settling with.
Advantage: UK. Lee and Roy are very similar in the two shows, but Lee is a bit more menacing, and his affection for Dawn feels even less sincere than Roy’s for Pam.
The Fat Weird Guy
UK: Keith Bishop
US: Kevin Malone
Keith was always a fan favorite on the UK version, and for good reason. His excema line in the performance review was one of the funniest asides in the original series. Kevin has already started to pick up steam on the US version and will probably also be a fan pick.
Advantage: UK. Keith/Kevin works better when his personality is more implied, less expressly stated. This is one of the few missteps thus far in the US version. More and more the US show has been overplaying Kevin and he comes the closest to the sort of goofy character you would see on a more traditional sitcom.
The Girlfriend
UK: Rachel
US: Katy
It’s arguable whether they are exactly comparable, as Rachel was a coworker while Katy comes from outside the office, but I think they fill much the same role in providing a temporary relationship that in the long run only emphasizes Tim’s (Jim’s) longing for Dawn (Pam).
Advantage: I missed the first episode with Katy, so I’m not going to make a call on this one.
The Rest
UK: Jamie, Ralph, Phillip, Emma, Sheila, Glyn, Donna, Jackie, Malcolm, Trudy, Oliver, Sanj, Alex, Karen, Simon, Anne, Neil
US: Angela, Oscar, Stanley, Phyllis, Meredith, Kelly, Creed, Lonny, Darryl, Madge, Toby
A few of these could arguably be matched up against each other (Malcolm and Creed, for example, or Glyn and Darryl) but I felt like their relatively low level of screen time would make comparisons arbitrary. Some of these are great (Angela, Ralph and Kelly especially) while others don’t work (I really don’t like Simon at all)
Advantage: US. The nature of the US show shifts more weight in favor of an ensemble cast. The advantage is that there’s more versatility, more heat vented from the main action, and fewer opportunities to stumble over redundant jokes or plotlines with the main characters. The disadvantage is that it reduces some of the tension and claustrophobia present with the UK cast.
