• by Gary Holmes , June 8, 2011

Within the Holy Trinity of greatest TV comedies, the first two ("Seinfeld" and "The Mary Tyler Moore Show") went out on top when they were at their peak, while the third ("The Office") is rolling the dice to see if it can regain its momentum in an eighth season.

"The Office" has never been the funniest or most-watched TV comedy; that honor would currently belong to "Modern Family." Instead, what "The Office" has brought to the table is a unique and unmatched blend of humor and humanity. You care about the characters and brood on them between seasons in a way that is rare on television. It's a show of remarkable sophistication and subtlety that seems on the surface to be neither sophisticated nor subtle. It's only when you watch an episode a second or third time that you can appreciate what the creators have accomplished.

"The Office" is the anti-"Seinfeld." "Seinfeld"'s mantra, famously, was "no growth." From first episode to last, the characters remained the same, having learned no lessons or moved on in their lives. And it was hilarious. But on "The Office," the characters absolutely do grow. Jim Halpert started out as an unambitious, cynical slacker, who, when he gained a family, started to take himself and his job seriously. Pam dumped her loser boyfriend, pursued (and failed at) her dream of being an artist and is now a wife and mother. And even the narcissistic and obtuse Michael Scott learned how to establish a lasting romantic relationship.

But where "The Office" really departs from "Seinfeld" is in its ambitious exploration of the human condition. There's no pain on "Seinfeld." When a girlfriend breaks up with Jerry he says "That's OK, I'll find another," and he does. The break-ups on "The Office" truly hurt. Michael and Jan's disastrous dinner party was as searing and raw as anything in "Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolf." And the pain goes deeper than romantic relationships -- within Dunder Mifflin, there are parents estranged from their children, career aspirations thwarted, people who are too fat, and people who drink too much. And there's loneliness and ennui. As in real life, not every episode has a happy ending.

Given the demands of the genre, no sitcom can be a realistic depiction of society, but if we had to put one show in a time capsule to represent the way we live now, it would be "The Office." Unlike most contemporary comedies, the characters in "The Office" inhabit career-appropriate residences, including crummy condos, tacky apartments and modest homes. They use social media, watch YouTube, and get caught in email snafus. They have "Glee" parties. They suffer through corporate restructurings and endure inane HR lectures. They go to recognizable churches. And they have real jobs, where we actually see them working (from time to time.) "The Office" is structured as documentary -- and except for the exaggerated antics of Michael and Dwight, it could almost pass as a real one.

Now, after seven years, "The Office" stands at a crossroads. The two plotlines that powered the series from the beginning -- Michael Scott's search for fulfillment and the growth of the Jim/Pam relationship -- have played themse-ves out. The creators have never ceased to surprise us with unexpected but logical plot developments, or leaps of character growth, but this is their biggest challenge yet. The general assumption is that a new boss with his or her own quirks will replace Michael Scott, but the season finale, where a parade of unlikely candidates came in for interviews, gave few hints to whether that will be the case. The safest course would be to select the candidate played by Catherine Tate as the new boss. She's a friend of the CEO and a lot like Michael Scott, only female. This would keep the dynamic of the show essentially the same.

But "The Office" has thrown us a lot of curveballs over the years and never settled for the easy out. It wouldn't surprise me if Jim (played by the increasingly famous John Krasinski) were to overcome his lack of confidence and grab the job that is rightfully his. The objection to promoting the remarkably normal Jim is that having a sane boss is not a comedic situation. Still, the workplace is an inherently crazy place and a show doesn't need another loopy lead character to be funny. Regardless of who they pick, we can only hope that the Scranton branch gets a boss who can take the character even deeper. (That's what she said!)