Neil
Why is there so much hate for Neil? Seriously, even Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant have confirmed that
you're not supposed to like him. The only evidence given for this is that Neil laughed at an off-colour joke from Finchy about David's date (even though David has laughed at even worse comments from Finchy) and that in some unspecified way Neil is 'smug'.
- I remember watching the Day of Laughter episode for the first time with my friend. During Neil's dance bit, my friend remarked that the actor was really good at portraying "an arsehole that people actually like". I think Neil's character just strikes a chord with a lot of folk who know what it's like to utterly resent a person that everyone else seems to love. The kind of person that you'll swear is a dog-kicking covert Jerkass who probably fantasizes about face-painting Myley Cyrus when he gets home at night, but everybody else thinks he's a gem and laugh hysterically at all his dull, anodyne jokes and classy anecdotes. I think also by the time series two rolled around most viewers saw David's horrible social skills as something bordering on a disability and pitied him for it, if they didn't already. It felt like Brent was in a tragicomical battle with a crippling social illness and Neil, simply by having all the qualities David wanted, had an exascerbating presence and on some level he knew it and secretly revelled in it. The trick Gervais and Merchant pull is that when he laughs at Finchy's remark in the Special, it shows he's not an unfailing Nice Guy and vindicates the feelings of fans who didn't like him. Sorry, driveled on a bit there. Incidentally, Armando Iannucci does a brilliant Cringe Comedy dinner party sketch playing on the "guy-who-everyone-likes-except-me" phenomenon in The Armando Iannucci Shows.
- There are a few other clues throughout the series that Neil's not quite the nice guy we're led to believe. He willingly took the senior manager's job that saw the Swindon office get shut down and, presumably, everyone except the people who transferred over to Slough were fired — which suggests a hidden ruthlessness. Plus, he connects well with Finch (ultimately much better than Brent, who's clearly just an easy target for Finch) suggesting a bit of a nasty streak. However, as well as what the poster above notes, ultimately I think it stems from the fact that we're seeing him largely from Brent's point of view, and from Brent's point of view Neil is That Guy. You know the one; the guy who effortlessly does everything you want to do much better than you ever will, and while he might not say anything you always get the sense that he knows it and is lording it over you a bit. He's younger, better-looking, his jokes make everyone fall around in hysterics while yours fall flat, he makes loads of friends while you struggle to connect with people, he has a beautiful girlfriend while you're lonely and single, and so on. While some of this is unfair to Neil, since Brent's perspective isn't exactly reliable, consider also that we're introduced to Neil around about the same time that we start being encouraged to see Brent not just as an insufferable pointy-haired twat of a boss but as someone who's a bit more vulnerable, a bit more sad and a bit more sympathetic than we previously thought; with these Hidden Depths on display, it stands to reason that the apparent Nice Guy Neil probably has a nasty side as well, but is just better at hiding it than Brent is.
- The ruthlessness at being willing to sacrifice his staff to take the promotion applies equally well to Brent, as he would have done exactly the same thing if not for failing the medical.
- Also note he is somewhat hypocritical as he criticises David for his lack of office productivity, and then plays office cricket, which is downright dangerous.
- I think it's clear that Neil and several others were playing office cricket during the lunch break, or at least towards the end of the lunch break, while Brent had taken several colleagues down the pub. Those who stayed in the office for lunch and played a bit of cricket (thus having some fun as well as getting a bit of physical exercise) are probably going to be more productive in the afternoon than those who've had a few drinks — as we saw in the pub scene, only Keith had a substantial meal, so presumably the others just had crisps (if anything) to soak up the alcohol.
- The somewhat confusing thing is that Neil gets on well enough with Tim, the Straight Man. In the US version it was easier to tell Charles Minor wasn't supposed to be liked because he did not get along with Jim.
- Without wishing to disrespect the American version (having not seen it), this — I'd suggest — is intentional, to introduce a bit of complexity into the situation. People are not always 'not supposed to be liked' just because one person doesn't like them. Neil, for all that he's hinted to have a less nice side, is still supposed to be a pretty likeable and charismatic person, so it's not out of the ordinary that Tim, who is also a pretty likeable and charismatic person, would like him as well.
- There are quite a few occasions during Charles Minor's short run on the show where he proves to be a total jerkass, making his dislike for Jim quite tame in comparison. Trumping other's attempts to be nice, shooting down good ideas from people he doesn't like, blaming others for his mistakes and assaulting a co-worker with a soccer ball. All beaten by the phrase "No, no Micheal... You're done." DAMN cold in context.
- I'm not sure Charles Minor is the US equivalent to Neil as the two have nothing in common other than being people who Michael and David answer to. Charles showed up on the US version midway through the series at a time where the show had distanced itself from the UK version by a wide margin.
- Word of God states that Neil more or less gets his successes handed to him and as such takes them all for granted. He may get on well with his employees, but generally doesn't see them as anything more than faces in a crowd. David Brent may not be that much better, but he at least lets people get to know him as a person rather than keeping them at a distance.
- The thing is, Neil doesn't really do anything to warrant being disliked. People just infer that he must be a Smug Snake because he comes across as a Nice Guy who is better at his job than Brent, better at being liked by the staff than Brent, funnier than Brent, more successful with women than Brent and a better dancer as well. He's also one of very few people who Finch actually appears to treat with some respect (the fact that they seem to get on well doesn't necessarily imply that they are friends outside the workplace, which is in any case what David wants to be, or sees himself as, regarding Finch). The Slough and Swindon branches were going to be merged regardless of which manager got the job (and both branches suffered redundancies anyway), so taking the promotion can hardly be held against him. In taking David to task for failing to do his job properly, he — as David's line manager, post-merger — was simply doing his own job. Laughing at Finch's wisecrack just shows he isn't a saint, but hardly puts him in Jerkass territory.
- Actually, Neil's behaviour towards the end of the series seems to hint at some pretty unattractive traits to me. As previously pointed out, he seems to be friends with Finch and finds his crass and unpleasant jokes highly amusing, even joining in. More notably, he also spends a lot of time egging on Brent to get a date for the office party — but not because he's genuinely interested, but because he knows Brent is less attractive and struggling to find a partner. He wants to see David be humiliated when he turns up without a girl at the party, which is particularly cruel after already firing him and seeing him at his lowest point. When Brent DOES start talking about dating, Neil immediately starts boasting by showing off a photo of his attractive fiancee, encouraging Finch to leer over her and also emphasising that she's a doctor and so has superior social status. None of these are the actions of a very nice person, which raises questions of how the documentary team edited the footage of him previously.
- It's a case of Truth in Television; plenty of people have reasonably professional managers who are still crummy people on a personal level. While there isn't much to complain about regarding Neil as a boss, everything we see of his personality beyond his job - which, to be fair, is mostly limited to the Christmas episodes - indicates that he's quite possibly not much better than Chris Finch and is happy to indulge in lecherous and homophobic 'banter' with him. Neil's disliked because he's a typical boy's club corporate mook. His professionalism doesn't offset this, as it would be fairly unremarkable were it not for his having the extraordinary distinction of managing (and being favourably compared to) David Brent.
- To be fair to Neil, the only time he's outright mean to David is in the Christmas episodes, after he's clearly spent some considerable time enduring David's hostility, petty behaviour and juvenile sniping; despite having tried to take the company to court over his sacking (according to Gareth), David nevertheless keeps showing up at his old workplace. Those couple of scenes get magnified because there's literally nothing else to suggest that Neil's a Jerkass. We never see Neil mistreat or disrespect anyone else, something David does constantly. So what if he's interacting with Finch? We've seen David do so plenty of times before. Neil mentioning that his fiancee is a doctor is done in response to (more) snide comments from David, and nor did he encourage Finch to leer over the picture of said fiancee; Finch just made a favourable comment about her looks, which is moderate by his standards. In the same scene, David had also just snubbed Neil's offer of a handshake. If you were Neil, how would you treat David?
- If you pay close attention to Neil's behaviour in the first episode, it's clear that he feels the need to belittle David right from the off; look at how he asserts he's David's boss and condescendingly referring to "looking after him". Then at the introductory speech he openly insults him and insinuates he's gay several times. All this makes me read him as someone who feels the need to assert his authority over people and treats people who don't revere his authority like crap.
- This is a rather unfair skewing of Neil's introduction; he asserts that he's David's boss because David is in fact trying to undermine him to the cameras by downplaying his authority, and his speech is actually just a few cracks about the area of Slough, a few cheap but mild digs about David having more employees to delegate work to, and he doesn't insinuate David is gay many times; he just makes a little crack about "enjoying having a lot of men under him". While Neil may indeed be less nice than his exterior suggests, it's a huge stretch to extrapolate it from this, which is Neil engaging in a bit of mild roasting at worst. It's actually testament to how insecure and thin-skinned David actually is under all his braggadocio that any of Neil's quips in that moment genuinely hit a nerve with him instead of him being able to brush them off.
- I think the gay thing was probably a bit unprofessional and rude for someone he's only just met. While I certainly think he's nicer than David would've been were the situation reversed I do think part of him wanted to belittle David to assert his authority over the Slough branch.
- They haven't "just met"; David and Neil knew each other from previous events involving the whole company.
- Rewatching the series recently, Neil reminds me of a lot of borderline sociopathic people I've met in the workplace. The kind of person who approaches relationships methodically and systematically, who does what they do not out of sincerity but because they just *know* how to get people onside, and everything they do is ultimately calculated for their benefit. The jokes in the introductory speech, the baking of lemon drizzle cake, the dancing for Comic Relief... It all comes across as chess playing rather than a sincere attempt at building rapport and positive relationships, even the above-cited laughing at Finch's jokes seems to me the effort to keep a colleague onside rather than he actually finds the banter amusing. When I meet someone like Neil in real-life, it's not that I don't like them per-se, but I'm definitely weary around them and try to remember that yeah, they're being nice to me now but if the other shoe drops and it ever becomes beneficial to them to cast me off, they definitely will.
- I find it interesting that most of the evidence people point to regarding Neil's true personality all seems to come post series 2 - making it quite likely that Gervais and Merchant decided to double down after they noticed that people didn't share their opinion of him. Neil is actually a very well-written antagonist because he doesn't have many blatant Kick the Dog moments, and until the Christmas specials, he wasn't outwardly all that much of an a-hole compared to someone like Finch. He's just a man. And like any man probably has two sides to him, one nice, one not. As an aside, I think your general opinion on him is probably going to be influenced by how many people like him you've ever had to deal with in real life. If Neil reminds you of your old boss in a negative way then you are naturally going to imprint yourself on him.
David's 'promotion'
Considering David Brent is an incompetent fool and the Slough branch are generally perceived as "having a laugh", how come the board initially vote for him to be promoted instead of Neil?
- Could be that David's been a manager for longer and the board thinks that the more experienced man is the better option.
- Brent only obsesses over cultural sensitivity and makes jokes that he thinks are funny because he's self-conscious of being filmed and wants to look good in front of the camera — problem is, he's trying way too hard. In the Christmas special, he complains about how the documentary filmmakers selectively edited the show to present him in a bad light. It's possible that he's a much better manager than he appears to be on the telly, although since this is David Brent, he may be lying about it.
- It could also be that he actually was a decent (if social awkward) manager before the documentary started. When the cameras came in, he saw an opportunity for his big break as an entertainer of some sort, and just overreacted in every way imaginable.
- Even if that's the case (which is unlikely as he already seems to be trying Jennifer's patience in the first series, what with lying to her face about firing someone and tolerating the warehouse supervisor when he's rude to Jennifer to her face), after the documentary people started filming he proves so inept that Neil and Jennifer are eventually left with no option but to fire him.
- From what we see of him, David Brent is a very good example of The Peter Principle. People do well in a lower-ranked job and get promoted to management, only for them to completely fail to adapt to their new role. However they don't do anything to warrant actually being dismissed, especially in light of their good service prior to being promoted, so they just linger in a role they're no good at. There's evidence to suggest David used to be a decent sales rep and was rewarded with a promotion to manager of his branch, a job at which he wasn't actually very good. It's more common than you'd think.
- Maybe David being offered the promotion was an example of The Dilbert Principle at work. Jennifer, who knows him better than most at a managerial level, thinks that promoting David will actually benefit the company by putting him in a position where he has less responsibility for day-to-day business.
- It feels likely to me that, with Jennifer promoted to board level and one of David or Neil having to be promoted to her old role, the board may have felt that the more demonstrably competent Neil would be best-placed as the more junior of the two with responsibility for the day-to-day management of the newly-merged office during what is inevitably going to be a challenging period for Wernham Hogg. David, meanwhile, would do less harm in Jennifer's more supervisory role (of which, the job description could be subtly rewritten to give David less responsibility if needed). David failing the medical then scuttles that plan, and the newly-promoted Neil ends up with more responsibility than David would have had in the senior role due to his having to supervise his less competent colleague. This feels counter-intuitive and obscene but I know a lot of people, myself included, who have had similar happen at their workplaces.
Office parties
The "end of financial year" party at the end of the first season was in a big dance hall. Why didn't they have their Christmas party there instead of in their cramped and dreary workspace? You can't say that the hall was booked out because there was plenty of space for at least two office parties and we've seen Gareth dancing with a woman who didn't work with them, making the EOFY party clearly an open one.
- Money is one reason — they might have been able to afford the dance hall for the earlier party but were on a tighter budget for the later one; the company has, after all, closed one branch and laid several members of staff off since then.
- Another is convenience; many offices just hold the Christmas party immediately after work on the last working day before the Christmas break, and it's often just easier to have it in the workplace rather than hiring somewhere else since pretty much everyone's already there.
- The EOFY party might also have been organised by Head Office as a way of allowing many different branches to interact (thus [a] more money to spend; [b] needing more space to fit everyone and [c] Gareth interacting with someone who's clearly not part of the Slough branch), whereas the Christmas party was just a Slough branch affair.
- And finally, we can't dismiss the possibility that the hall was booked quite so easily since, while the venue could probably host more than one function, there's still probably more than one other business or gathering in the area likely to book that venue besides Wernham Hogg. Perhaps for the second occasion it was fully booked up (there are likely to be at least two other businesses in the area who might be interested in booking the same hall at the same time) and the Slough branch of Wernham Hogg just had to make do with their own offices.
David's out of court settlement
It's only referred to in passing, but given that he was offered what was described as a generous redundancy package when Jennifer and Neil fired him, why would David take Wernham Hogg to court for (presumably) unfair dismissal? And why would they offer a (presumably even more generous) out-of-court settlement when Jennifer and Neil had a watertight reason
note failure to ensure that staff are paid would easily count as gross misconduct in most companies for firing him?
- Having quite literally begged not to be fired, it would make sense for him to try any means possible to get that overturned. Doubtless he would have gone to see a lawyer after getting fired and decided to take legal action. As for the out-of-court settlement, it's not uncommon for companies to do that when threatened with legal action from former employees even when the grounds for dismissal were sound. Some more money (say, a couple of month's pay) on top of the pre-existing redundancy settlement is a better option than a possibly lengthy court battle which would probably cost more in legal fees.
- It's worth remembering that being made redundant is not the same thing as being dismissed; David Brent was not fired, his role was officially removed from the company, which is why he was entitled to and offered a redundancy package that likely would have been a certain amount of wages plus a goodwill payment. Even if the purpose for doing so was entirely to get rid of David, doing it this way is a lot easier legally, involves a lot fewer protections for the staff member involved and generally saves a great deal of hassle. Dialogue in the Christmas Special heavily implies that Neil and Jennifer simply listed a new role that for all intents and purposes was David's role just with a slightly different job description, so that legally they could cover themselves that the previous role was redundant and this is a new role (you could even assume Gareth commands a lower salary than David did). As above, when taken to court they probably realised they were bang to rights so offered a settlement.
