The Office recap: Branch Wars
by guest contributor Jasmine
In the time that we have come to know and love Stanley Hudson as one of the beleaguered employees on “The Office”, we have seen the myriad offensive ovations suffered at the hands of his boss, Michael Scott. Stanley is recruited by Michael for a pick-up basketball game because he is Black. Stanley, though, always seems to prevail, confounding Michael’s racist presumptions with hilarious consequences. The problem, though, is that Michael never learns. He never learns that it’s wrong to assume that Stanley is a good basketball player because he is Black. He doesn’t understand why he can’t drop the n-word when impersonating Chris Rock. He finds it hard to believe that the White woman with Stanley at the Dundies is actually his wife. He’s surprised to learn that Stanley and his family don’t celebrate Kwanzaa. You know what I don’t understand? I don’t know how Stanley held out so long, and for so little.
Stanley finally gets his due, though, when he gets an offer to join the Utica branch, for more money and presumably a better boss: Karen, formerly of Stamford and Scranton, the girl Jim dated before he finally broke it off and started dating Pam. The Utica branch appears like an oasis in comparison to the dysfunctional drudgery of Scranton. Who can blame Stanley for wanting to leave? Apparently, Michael can: in a fit of exasperation, he announces Stanley’s leaving to the office. Unexpectedly, Stanley’s fellow employees applaud. Michael is beside himself: “You cannot take the hilarious Black guy from the office.” Going on, he lists Stanley’s assets: “bluesy wisdom, sassy remarks, crossword puzzles, his smile… those big, watery red eyes.” He pauses, then continues: “I don’t know how George Bush did it when Colin Powell left.” Stanley insists that the reason he’s leaving is money, and anyway, it’s probably his sales record that got him the job. I don’t see Karen running an want ad for “bluesy wise older Black gentleman”. Michael, still, is incredulous: “Mo’ money, mo’ problems, you of all people should know that.” Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh! Again, I’m wondering why nobody calls Michael on his ignorance, but then I remember that Michel, not being smart, would never get it. But does that make it any less reasonable to try? How do you reason with the unreasonable?
Elsewhere in the office, Pam, Toby, and Oscar have started The Finer Things Club. Oscar says that, apart from having sex with men, it’s the gayest thing about him. Way to embrace the stereotype! Mainly, though, the Club discusses a book over a lunch tied to the book. E.M. Forster’s “A Room With A View” with tea and sandwiches. “Memoirs Of A Geisha” with sushi. Andy tries to join, but is unsuccessful. Jim’s eventual admission seems short-lived, as he may not have actually read “Angela’s Ashes”.
Eventually, the episode wanders from Stanley’s narrative to Michael who, if he cannot keep Stanley, will exact revenge on the Utica branch by sneaking into their office to steal their industrial copier. An interrogation from Karen, and Michael returns defeated to Scranton. He gets Pam started on a want ad: “Wanted, middle aged black man with sass, big butt, bigger heart.” Fortunately, we don’t hear any more of the ad, as Stanley surrenders. He’s staying — in fact, he never meant to leave. He just wanted to see if Michael would counter Karen’s offer of more money, and was surprised to see Michael calling his bluff. Which makes Stanley wonder if perhaps Michael is a secret genius after all. I doubt it. I’m disappointed in Stanley — he could have moved into a more diverse office with a boss who isn’t a racist for more money, but he stayed. I’m sure he has his reasons. What they might be, I can only hope to figure out.
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of
Church of ShiskaBob wrote:
“Question: Which kind of bear is best?”
“That’s a ridiculous questi…”
“False, Black Bear!”
Posted 05 Nov 2007 at 12:57 pm ¶
anna wrote:
Maybe if you were middle-aged; married to a woman with her own life; with kids and their settled lives; own a house with a mortgage that’s unsellable in this market; in a rust-belt region with few jobs that pay more than minimum wage; you would understand that Stanley can’t just quit and move to a new state over a stupid, racist boss.
Unfortunately thats a trade-off millions of people have to make everyday. I thought Stanley staying was the only realistic part of that episode. Read this post again when you’re job hunting after 40, and see if you feel so glib.
Posted 05 Nov 2007 at 12:59 pm ¶
Susan wrote:
If Stanley moved to Utica, we’d never see him on the show again! That was my biggest worry… is this how they were going to axe the actor? I’m glad he’s staying.
Posted 05 Nov 2007 at 1:08 pm ¶
Help! wrote:
I love the Office but this was the most boring posting ever!! Racialicious, you can get a lot snarkier than this!
Posted 05 Nov 2007 at 2:04 pm ¶
Carmen Van Kerckhove wrote:
LOL it’s always interesting to see how people react to posts on Racialicious. On the one hand, the post is “glib” but on the other hand it’s “boring.” I actually thought it was a fun read. Keep up the great work Jasmine!
Posted 05 Nov 2007 at 2:30 pm ¶
Jasmine wrote:
Boring and glib! Yay! I wonder if there is a Dundie for that.
Posted 05 Nov 2007 at 2:32 pm ¶
imdeep wrote:
As I suspected, Mindy Kaling (”Kelly”) wrote this episode, so it stands to reason that it would deal quite pointedly with race and class but in a subdued way. I think she’s the one who writes the lines for Stanley’s character normally, no? I liked this episode very much.
It is hard to be “snarky” with an episode like this. I’ve read more than a few blog reviews that feel like the show now has gone downhill just because it should have been more confrontational. I found this episode however chose to be distanced on purpose to confound expectations.
The Jim & Karen thing was *so* uncomfortable because it was anti-climatic and a fiasco for everyone involved. There was no way to save face, and it was messy and childish. By not seeing the juvenile antics, however, and only hearing about them on walkie-talkie, we’re forced to focus on Jim, who’s left in a compromising position for the first time. He’s set up to display true hostility and shame for the company he keeps (pun intended), instead of being the wiseass. He’s starting to grow up, and that’s the setup for his invitation into the “Finer Things Club” with Pam, for which he’s clearly uncomfortable (the “Class” confrontation to come)
And Stanley turns out to be that devious, self-motivated guy his officemates suspected him of being, which puts him on equal footing with everyone else for a change. His “misreading” Michael doesn’t make him particularly a fool, however, it only underscores one of the running gags of the show: that fools like Michael are what make corporate America successful in the first place. His character is fascinating for what he gets away with and how often he continues to break even…
Aside: The actor who plays Stanley, Leslie David Baker, doesn’t seem to talk all that much in real life eithe, maybe that’s why he seems even more normal by comparison:
http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/December-2006/Office-Face/
You done good Jasmine, please continue…
Posted 05 Nov 2007 at 3:04 pm ¶
daria wrote:
Uh, it’s a SITCOM. Part of the appeal is the ridiculousness. There are certain things you just shouldn’t read much into. When did things on TV, reality TV included, reflect reality or become a standard we should follow?
Posted 05 Nov 2007 at 3:14 pm ¶
Deena wrote:
I feel like, for both the UK and US Office, situations are created with an extreme, palpable level of awkwardness and tension. The humor is derived by how realistic it is, but then how that reality is shown to be so ridiculous and therefore, kind of funny.
I think if you are willing to accept that Michael Scott is clearly an ignorant character, the things he says about race become markedly pronounced and the humor comes not from agreeing with him, but finding yourself a bit appalled and embarrassed for him.
For me, The Office manages to talk about and explore race in a very direct and open way that is unusual for a network comedy.
Posted 05 Nov 2007 at 5:55 pm ¶
Bianca Reagan wrote:
I’m disappointed in Stanley — he could have moved into a more diverse office with a boss who isn’t a racist for more money, but he stayed. I’m sure he has his reasons. What they might be, I can only hope to figure out.
He wants to keep his role on a hit show. Unless the rumored spinoff goes through. Then it’s Stanley Goes to Utica.
More recaps please!
Posted 05 Nov 2007 at 6:38 pm ¶
imdeep wrote:
Bianca: dear god, that sounds like a horrid Muppet musical number!
Posted 05 Nov 2007 at 8:05 pm ¶
Cortney wrote:
Over at my own blog I have written at length about how horrified I am with the turn the character of Jan has taken. It was a hard post to write because I love The Office so much but it does have some serious problems that just get more serious as the show progresses and, as you said, the character of Michael just gets more clueless.
Overtime the outright racist and sexist ‘jokes’ get less funny as he never changes or learns from the experiences. When jokes about race or gender start a dialogue they are revolutionary, when they just do the same jokes over and over with no change they are just plain racist and misogynistic.
Posted 06 Nov 2007 at 1:04 am ¶
brad wrote:
Uh, you forget that this is TV show and that the actor who plays Stanley would like to stay around as long as possible since it is a steady acting gig (which don’t come easily to actors, especially ones of color).
Posted 06 Nov 2007 at 2:45 am ¶
kristin wrote:
i think to take the absurdity of what happens in The Office as real and deconstruct it as such, really just underlines the fact that people forget this is satire. michael scott’s character is there to confront these issues and how people think, while the other characters react to show how brainless it is to continue to hold these ridiculous assumptions of race (and gender, ethnicity, sexuality, etc.) if all you see is the racism and sexism and other stereotypes they present, then you’re really missing the whole point of this show and what it’s doing (besides providing an amazing comedy programme). when michael’s behaviour is painful, which hopefully everyone finds it to be, maybe this over-exaggerated behaviour shows people who do behave this way, how not okay it is.
but if i were stanley (the character not the actor), i would have definitely left for Utica. i was surprised he stayed, given his desire to earn more and michael’s decision to let him go rather than give him a raise.
Posted 06 Nov 2007 at 8:32 am ¶