Office Space (Mike Judge, 1999) Storage Room B

[D.Yergeau]

The 1999 film “Office Space” depicts the lives of a group of middle class caucasian males who lead very ordinary lives. It is my opinion that this film is attempting to show us the different opinions we all have about the American dream. The film centers on the character Peter Gibbons who is completely unhappy with his job and many aspects of his personal life. He works in a lifeless office as a drone for the company Initech, and at the beginning of the film he has an angry girlfriend whom everyone but Peter knows is cheating on him. After seeing an occupational hypnotherapist, Peter begins to see his life in a different light, suddenly he is living life the way he wants to. An earlier scene in the film shows Peter talking to his neighbor Lawrence about a fishing trip they were planning for that weekend. Peter cancels on him because he fears his boss is going to make him come in on Saturday and work. Later in the movie however, we see what I believe is Peter’s defining moment in which after going fishing he knocks down the walls of his cubicle, and we are given an overhead shot of the beautiful view outside his office, and the rush of light that fills his otherwise dull and gray office.

Throughout the movie, the characters are consulted by one defining question “What would you do if you had a million dollars?”. The question is meant to determine what that characters version of the American dream would be. We are revealed from the following dialogue that Peter’s version is to do absolutely nothing but sit at home all day long. On the other hand, one of Peter’s close friends Samir says he would invest the money, which is not the point of the question. We see another striking difference when Peter, Samir, and Michael are at a restaurant and Peter wonders aloud about how it would feel to be working at Initech at age 50. Peter and Michael are both bothered by the idea, but in a stark contrast to their feelings, Samir says “It would be nice to have that kind of job security”. We can infer from this that his dreams are very professionally oriented. Whereas all prior examples point to Peter wanting to just be able to live life on his own terms, and be able to do things when he wants to do them.

It seems to me that Peter would be an example of an anti-hero. This is due to his truly apathetic nature. The only time in the film in which we really see Peter put a lot of thought into something is when he and his friends plan to implant a virus into the company computers, and rip them off for thousands of dollars. Otherwise, we continuously see completely lacking in motivation, and doing things we in society would deem as lazy. Some of these instances are: sleeping in until 3:30pm on Saturday, telling the Bobs how he only does 15 minutes of work a day, and constantly watching television in his apartment.

I believe that placing Milton’s original desk next to Peter’s because it gives him the grim details of what his future could become. Milton is completely worn down by life and has no fight left in him. He is consistently pushed around by his coworkers, and does nothing about it. I also think that Milton’s stapler perhaps represents that minute amount of individuality left in the office. Everything else we see is a pale color ranging from the gray of the cubicle walls to the dull pastel colors of all the employee’s shirts. Out of all this the only bright and vibrant color in the office is his red Swingline stapler. After it is taken away by Lumberg, Milton mentions his is going to burn down the office, which he eventually does.

The ending of the film could generally be considered happy. After all that has happened to them each character is in a better place than they were at the beginning of the film. Even though Michael and Samir have only gotten new jobs at a similar company, they are still much happier and brighter than they originally were. Milton is on vacation in a remote island destination, and we finally see Peter show a truly genuine smile when he is working construction.

[CThompson]

From never seeing this film before, I would have to say that this would be the post that I most agree with. Not only was this film amusing and interesting in its own pathetic ways, it shows us how different each persons dreams and desires are when it comes to the work lifestyle and money. Agreeing with the post, Peter is an anti-hero, where he only shows us laziness and his dreams and desires are to sit at home all day and do nothing. With a million dollars, some would invest, some put it towards watching “two chicks doin’ it”, and some would sit on the coach knowing that they have money to fall back on. Returning to your comment about the anti-hero, there is one more addition to the film that you could add to your post. Not only does Peter show no true work, but according to his co-worker, Tom Smykowski, Peter whines a lot. At Tom’s BBQ party, he describes to Peter how he finally caught a break, and how he too hated his job for many years more then him, he just doesn’t whine about it as much as Peter does. And with a couple broken ribs, and some leg and arm injuries, we still don’t hear Tom whining! Ending the film with a happy ending, or what you may have felt from it, we can’t help but to smile a little with Peter, as he seems to be happy with what job he landed with, and how he finally grasps the concept of F**K’n A, which I am sure we all think of that term a little differently.

Camera drifts away into the sky, credits start to role, cue the gangsta music.

Charlotte Thompson
October 9, 2009

[coda]

The beginning of the movie, before Peter’s epiphany, when he is at work, a lot of the camera angles are from his perspective in the cubicle and bob up and down like a gopher in a hole. He spent most of his life inside a physically and intellectually non-stimulating office, just trying to avoid any confrontation with his bosses at whatever cost. Day in and day out of mundane occurrences such as “Aloha shirt Friday” and Lumberg’s birthday party mixed with being talked down to by eight different bosses, it’s no wonder why Peter has absolutely no motivation at his job. I can sympathize for his frustration, but I still disapprove of his attitude and the way he goes about changing his lifestyle.
I very much assert that Peter is an example of an anti-hero. Everything he does in the movie just reinforces his apathy towards his job and his life. He admits that he does the bare-minimum at work strictly to avoid being bothered by his bosses and coworkers and also that he really only does about fifteen minutes of work per week. He claims that if he had a million dollars he would literally do nothing. How is it that someone could care so little about life?
The start of the movie puts the viewer right into his everyday routine. He mentions that everyday is the newest “worst day of his life”, yet he does nothing about it. His plan of action is to see a hypnotist. Talk about the least active way of trying to self-help. Even when he finally takes charge of his life and defies his boss by sleeping in late on a Saturday that he was supposed to work, it was still largely driven by the fact that he was still in a hypnotic state.
Later, his plan of action is to rip off Initech with a computer virus that he didn’t even create. There wasn’t anything I could admire about Peter’s character. The only saving grace for his character in the end was that he realized that he cared about Joanna and she’s all that he needed to be happy in life. Was that some kind of moral to the story or was it supposed to be the makings of a happy ending for the movie? Even though the characters appear to be better off in the end, I still don’t quite believe that is a “happily ever after” ending.

[SSilverst]

Peter, Michael, and Samir share the title of "anti-hero" in Office Space. Peter, for obvious reasons, is an anti-hero in the protagonist role of the film. Michael and Samir should also be described as anti-heroes as well, because they represent a rise against authority and are willing to do bad things to accomplish it. They are still heroes, and we still root for them, but they are not heroes in any conventional sense.

Michael Bolton is frustrated at the FAX machine, he's annoyed at everyone for attempting to see a resemblance between him and the Michael Bolton, and he is afraid of black people (as made evident in the scene where he locks the doors and turns down the music when a homeless black man approaches). He is in no way someone we would normally root for, but why do we root for him? He does what we only dream about doing: he stands up for himself, although in an illegal way. There must be at least one time in a white-collar, cubicle worker's career when he just feels like getting back at the job he's stuck at. Michael Bolton does just that.

Samir, as well, deserves a title as anti-hero in Office Space. He is less memorable than the other characters, but that may be intentional. No one in the office can even pronounce his name. He is insignificant in the office unless he's with fellow anti-heroes, Peter and Michael.

[aburns]

Although, I agree that at the beginning of the movie Peter is an antihero, I feel that by the end of Office Space (Mike Judge, 1999) he emerges as a hero. Peter is a hero because he actively changed his own life (granted in some questionable ways) and was satisfied with the final product. And, by the end of the film, he did show some admirable qualities.

Peter was apathetic and unhappy with his job. So he decided to stop being unhappy by just not showing up to work and doing what he wanted. This, somehow, made him more valuable to the company and got his friends fired. So he tried to fix that by slowly stealing a large sum of money from the “evil” company. Although this was a rather selfish decision, I feel that it came from a noble place. He wanted to help his friends be happy and up to that point he had been taught that happiness comes from money. Once they are put in a position to be caught stealing the money, Peter decided to take the fall for his friends, which was an unselfish decision. I certainly think that Peter could have gone about reaching his goals in different ways, I admire his ability to not only reach for his own happiness but also try and help others around him get there. The fact that Peter was given a second chance to be a good and happy person was a nice coincidence. But, he took full advantage of that chance and ultimately, everyone was happier. The growth that Peter went through is exactly what most hero’s go through in other “happily ever after” stories.

I love that you pointed out that Milton was Peter’s possible future. I agree. Milton was what Peter could have become and in some way wanted to become. Milton also actively changed his life and was doing absolutely nothing. However, he was still unhappy, finding fault in the smallest of things, such as margarita’s with salt.

[jvanhorn]

I think that Peter begins the film as, if anything, not a hero at all. At the outset, there is nothing noticeable about this character. He is simply a lazy punk who is either too afraid of confrontation to stand up for himself, or, what I think is more accurate, has no idea what kind of change he would want to enact in his situation. Even from the million dollar question, his response is a veiled “I don’t know.” He is clearly unhappy, but I don’t think he even understands where his unhappiness comes from. He is too blind to recognize that his girlfriend is cheating on him, even though he suspects it. Yet he continues to allow himself to suffer because the fear of change is even more frightening.

It isn’t until the hypnotist accidentally turns him off that things begin to change. I disagree with the idea that he is actively trying to change his life after this point. The hypnotism was something he didn’t choose to do, and all of the consequences after the fact are merely accidental. His apathy toward his job didn’t change at all, it was simply lessened in importance. All of his acts of defiance at work and his sudden courage to ask a girl out are all accidental responses to an accidental situation. At best, this makes him an anti-hero. He isn’t striving to achieve his life goals, because he has none. He isn’t attempting to make his life better, he has simply stopped worrying about the fact that he doesn’t care, and is now embracing that fact.

When he gets his new job working with Lawrence, as the camera zooms out leaving Peter smiling, we’re left to wonder if this is supposed to imply the happily-ever-after ending people always seem to hope for. I don’t think it implies this at all. I think all this means is that, at that specific moment Peter was happy, and we are left with a sense of “happier ever after.” He may not like this job forever, and may become tired and depressed again, but at least he doesn’t care as much, which allows him the freedom to not be so afraid of change. Which allows for the possibility of continued happiness.

[bvangundy]

The one aspect I like about what you have to say is the fishing trip. This is something I did not pick up on during the movie but now that it is brought to light I totally agree. In the beginning peter is this passive person who will do near anything to avoid confrontation. He states that he comes in through the side door so he doesn’t have to see his boss and he cancels his fishing trip because he thinks that he may have to work. We see many cases of this in peters life but then he begins to break out. In the beginning peter is scared to talk to Joanna but once he works up the courage he does it without hesitation. The movie really depicts Joanna as something that is truly going to make Peter happy. Another thing interesting about the fact that they end up taking that fishing trip is that Joanna is there. This shows that not only is Peter becoming stronger and starting to do the things that he wants to but Joanna is intended to be part of that.

Also I would say that it is in no way a coincidence that Joanna also loves “Kung Fu” movies. In a way the movie slows down at this point in their conversation. The film makes this a focal point in Joann and Peter’s relationship. It may have been just a genre of movie but in a sense it was the start of something beautiful. Throughout the movie peter does just watch television a lot but once he has Joanna she is right there with him. Joanna almost seems to be in the same position as peter. In the beginning she hates her job, just as Peter does. Just as Peter gets harassed about his TPS reports Joanna gets constantly scolded about her flair. In the end Peter gets fed up with his job and decides to get back at the company and Joanna “expresses herself” to her boss and some customers. They both go through a lot of the same stuff throughout the story and in the end they are perfect for each other.

[tbrooks]

After reading everyone’s threads, this is the one I agree with the most. I especially agree with what you stated about the purpose of the question, “What you would do with a million dollars?” When all the characters were asked this question, they all had radically different views. Peter Gibbons stated he would be more than happy to just sit at home all day doing absolutely nothing. In a way, this was his American dream; being lazy because of having the security of financial stability. Samir, not really understating the question, would invest the money. This is the logical American decision to make, but the point of the exercise was to look at it, in a way, of what your true ambition was. Peter, who did not have ambition, his dream was to sit at home and do nothing. The point of the question is to look at your life and ask the question, if I had a million dollars, what would I do with it? Lawrence answered the question perfectly; he didn’t even pay attention to the question. He looked right past the question and more at the purpose of the question. Instead of saying what he would do with a million dollars, he said what he really wanted to do with his life. In the end, it seemed like, even though no one got a million dollars, with the exception of Tom who received a settlement from a car accident, they all had very different views what would make them happy. In the end that was made known with a simple phrase, “ F***** A!”

[jwong]

Office Space, no doubt, is a film dedicated to making its viewers question the “American Dream.” Traffic jams, cubicle-oriented work settings, and mundane daily routines all play their part in helping the audience to question what is typically accepted as the “American Dream”: upper-middle class white collar money, job security, happiness, and everything else associated and reinforced by our capitalist, consumer oriented lifestyle.

Nonetheless, with serious and underlying plot lines aside, Office Space is a funny and witty film that creates humor out of everyday life. Suburban cubicle workers listening to “gangster rap,” copy machines jamming more frequently than copying, the aforementioned traffic jam coupled with what can be assumed is a daily commute, and countless other nuances that are oft taken as ingrained aspects of an individual’s life.

As mentioned in the opening thread the question: “what would you do if you had a million dollars?” serves to reinforce the overall questioning of the “American Dream.” Peter Gibbon response of “nothing,” besides “doing two chicks at the same time,” is more or less the lynchpin of the entire film. Why work? Why participate in what, according to some, is a pointless endeavor that serves simply as a means of conformity? Office Space is a film that made its money and gained its fame on comedy but is littered with significant questions pertaining to the monotonous daily life that so many accept as reality.