Return of ‘Mad Men’
by Michael S. Rulle Jr.Sunday, August 16th, begins the third season of the exceptional AMC original series, “Mad Men.” The show is about a private Madison Avenue (hence the “Mad” in “Mad Men”) advertising firm, set in the early 60s. This show somehow touches all my subterranean hot buttons. “Mad Men’s” second season ended in the year 1962, at the conclusion of the Cuban Missile Crisis, as the firm is about to be acquired by a London based agency. The second season’s finale was a perfectly coordinated display of the several character centered subplots, each reaching a critical turning point simultaneously. My tendency to see politics in everything is thwarted by this show, even as it is easily parodied politically, given current “mores and folkways.” But I’ll give it a shot.

The show has an uncanny ability to convince the audience it is watching people as they were then, with no intrusion of modern sensibilities and judgments. The show’s appearance is a gauzy impressionism, which helps create a nostalgic effect. There seems to be less dialogue than most shows. Characters are developed as much through facial reactions to events as with dialogue and plot lines. When watching the show, it feels like 1962, as I nostalgically remember it, even though I never heard of Madison Avenue until years later. Plot lines are about getting and losing clients, and they can be amusing. But plots are primarily designed to create interest in each character.
The characters are subtly drawn, but are still “sharp line bright.” The leading character is “Don Draper” (Emmy winner Jon Hamm), the strong-willed, supremely confident yet flawed head of “Creative” for the midsized firm “Sterling Cooper.” Draper lives an upper middle class suburban life, early ‘60s style, and is married to an ex-model, mid-level socialite named Betty (January Jones). But Don Draper is really “Dick Whitman,” a secret known with certainty by only two people, the real Draper’s wife, who the new Draper financially supports, and weirdly, an aggressive young sales executive at Sterling Cooper, “Pete Campbell” (Vincent Kartheiser).
In flashbacks, we learn the real Draper and Whitman were caught alone in a firefight in the Korean War. After the fight, the real Draper was burned alive, in part because Whitman “pissed his pants,” which crazily triggered a live fire killing Draper. Whitman was raised by accidental adoptive parents, as his real parents died a few years apart, each remarrying. He desperately sought to erase his past, switched “dog tags” with the real Draper and became him. Don Draper becomes a man with no past.
Women in the show could be called stereotypes of the era. While true, that perception misses the mark. Betty kicks Draper out of the house for his serial adultery, for which she has no proof. Women’s’ roles are different, and indeed partially subordinate. But they are not weak. Sexual harassment was a concept unknown in 1962. In fact, there is constant sexual tension throughout the show between the Mad Men and their secretaries, which all seem to accept. Smoking and drinking during work hours seem required.
The most intriguing character is “Peggy Olsen” (Elizabeth Moss). She is a high school graduate, a secretary, and a confused but believing Catholic from Brooklyn. By second season’s end she is a senior copywriter with creative instincts surpassing the Ivy Leaguers (in importance, if not pay). She asks senior partner Roger Sterling (John Slattery) if she can have a recently vacated large office, as he passes her casually in the halls. He gives it to her. He states in a bemused and condescending fashion, “you modern girls are quite aggressive, I like that. None of these guys had the balls to ask.” In her outwardly quiet, attractive, mousy way, she dominates them intellectually and psychologically.
Olsen is really Draper’s doppelganger. She also tries to erase her past. She “consents” to sex early in Season One to Pete Campbell. She gets pregnant but manages to not notice. She eventually enters a hospital with stomach pains and delivers a baby she refuses to even look at. Her sister raises it. Her denial leads to temporary insanity in the hospital. Draper, knowing his Doppelganger when he sees her, visits, and mentally forces her to confront reality and “move on.” She moves on.
The show is focused on “inner life.” The characters seem like “prisoners” of background and circumstance. Yet they have free will and the power to transcend circumstances, if existentially aware. We, and they, have limits too. Each person needs to find their way. The show’s two “protagonists,” Draper and Olsen, have morally compromised lives. They realize this. They seek redemption, but are also driven to succeed in work, and these two can conflict. They struggle, and as such, are appealing. Is there an implicit political message in this show, a bias perhaps, a hidden jab at the left, or right? Not that I can see. However, what is not seen may be as interesting or telling.
What is not seen? Government. The Nixon/Kennedy election takes up one episode. They all want Nixon to win, but it is not clear why. Perhaps they expect a more friendly business environment. One Mad Man, who fancies himself an intellectual, marches in Mississippi with his black girlfriend (who then blows him off, amusingly). That’s about it. Government policies and politics simply are absent, accept as it might relate to business. No political correctness or anti-political correctness is visible. Just people living day-to-day, trying to make it. Some have broader imaginations than others. Some are nasty, some are brilliant, some are dopes or comical.
Yet no one is looking to “leaders” for salvation. Refreshing.






Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
109 Comments
I am just catching up on the first two seasons via DVD so I haven't yet picked up on left wing themes. They almost go overboard on the smoking and horrible treatment of women. Both things ocurred in the 1950's but not quite so over-the-top. It is stylishly done and well acted, I will vouch for that and it is nice to see a 50's period piece.
Check out amctv.com to find out which character you are most like. I'm Betty Draper!
yep, it goes over the top, especially in the first couple seasons, but the show itself is a big winner. I can't even stand tV and I like it almost as much as I liked BSG. Some of the more memorable episodes have a kid putting a plastic bag over his head and the parent scolding it and telling it not to rip the plastic and Betty discovering the joys of sexuality via a washing machine.
In the end the good guys are bad and the bad guys like Don turn out to be good. This is the fascinating part about the show.. How a cheater of a husband can be a better parent to his kids than the "perfect" wife, who herself ends up having a one nighter, but the infidelity is out of spite as opposed to weakness.
I hope they keep the show's realistic tone and, giddy with their success, not go too overboard. Believe me, a lot of the scenes in this show still resonate where I work, especially the way the woman are treated. I hope they drop the folk-singing Priest angle, because it's getting obvious where that is going. Haven't seen hardly any right or left bias, although I think this year, 1963, with the Kennedy assassination, will tend to play up the St. John the Keeper of Camelot approach. Don Draper is both sympathetic and despicable…can't decide if I like him or not. That's the real draw of the show. Love Joanie…can't stand Betty. Sal is a hoot, so is Pete. Love that rascal, Roger, even though he is a jerk. Peggy is an irritating character to me, but the Don doppelganger viewpoint makes a lot of sense.
All in all, I can't wait for the debut of of the third season!
Perhaps when Obamawood-Tinsel Town's international conglomerate of anti-American, Anti-Liberty and all around magic makers of big-screen misery movies and hate-speech tv- is bankrupt and out of business then maybe I'll turn-on and tune-in to watch a potentially new and improved entertainment industry.
Until then, I have turned-off and tuned-out and set my mind free of Obamawood's misery.
Do you know what you are saying?!!
[...] the original post here: Return of ‘Mad Men’ This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]
This show seems a big wet kiss to 50's American style while stabbing that generation in the back. I wish there was a show that would concentrate on what qualities these people had that made them the builders of big things, putting a man on the moon, the interstate highways, -the optimism and confidence. Maybe it's the focus on advertising and the shallowness in that line of work. I think there is a political bias in that the show seems to be saying the American dream is rotten at the core – full of duplicity and falseness. That doesn't mean the characters aren't well drawn or interesting but enough already with the 'secret desperation of the suburbs' theme.
M. Rulle's critique of this show is excellent and has tempted me to actually watch the series which I've avoided for fear of watching any TV show that is trying to teach me some kind of political or moral message. Some of Hollywood's big name productions have failed in the past few years because they use plot and characters as vehicles to deliver a "message", instead of delivering a good story. Thanks for the review, Michael, I'll rent the DVD's and see what all the fuss is about.
Exactly! I'm so tired of having to defend my country to my own countrymen!
I've seen 2-3 episodes of the show and all the characters gave me the creeps. Not badly done, and not entirely uninteresting, just not the kind of thing that motivates me to tune in on a regular basis.
bingo!
Have thrown the spaghetti on the wall and it just doesn't stick for this series. Not as profound a times as the libs would like us to believe. I talked about it with a leftist at a party and she said she was teaching her son to watch it and see how profound the sixties were. Ugh. (but it was funny hearing her yak about it.)
What on earth do you mean by "uncanny ability to convince the audience it is watching people as they were then, with no intrusion of modern sensibilities and judgments?" You must be too young to remember, having been indoctrinated by decades worth of crude medea stereotypes of the "repressed reactionary 50s" if the cardboard-thin caracters in this revisionist soap-opera strike you as realistic.
Sorry. Couldn't stand this "social realism" agitprop past the first two episodes of season one.
Interesting angle. We both responded to what is not said. You see the morality of the show as negative, hence an implicit critique of America. Frankly, pretty reasonable point of view.
I just see it "as it is" (so to speak), perhaps just seeing and accepting these characters as given, (although clearly Draper, e.g., is rather "unusual").
But good comment
I see your point.
But I remember it very explicitly–I am sure that is why it appeals to me. As a child I distributed Nixon campaign literature in Levittown during '60 election (my father was a Republican Committeeman). I am not suggesting one way or the other the "reality" or absolute "truth" of the characters. I say right up front, the show can be easily parodied if one travels that path. I just see (imagine?) other things there behind the stereotypes. "I see real people"–so to speak.
That's what makes art interesting!
It is indeed surprising that a show which treats the early 60s as something other than hell on earth was produced in the first place. As we move along the roach which leads towards the super nanny state, the 50s and 60s are attacked with ever more fury because some people can remember when the standard of living was great, the times were good but the state was largely absent from our everyday lives.
I've tried to watch this show. After all it is great! However, every single character is dispicable. They are sad, moody and make terrible personal decisions. Yuck!
I like the clothes though.
"subterranean hot buttons….gauzy impressionism,….Draper’s
doppelganger" …. This guy sure knows how to write. At last, a window on popular culture that's worth reading (all the way to the end – rare with computer screen blogs. Kindle please?) Mad Men, The Beatles, Red Hot Chili Peppers – I like it. I hereby submit my own wish list of potential future subjects for Mr. Rulle. What would you want him to examine?
1. The Tudors
2. Muse – Knights of Cydonia
3. Killers – Spaceman
Ok, all the Mad roles are sterotypes, but isn't all of tv? This is tv at its best, and I enjoy every minute of it. A couple of scenes I remember the most (and apologies if I don't get the details exactly correct)….
1. Draper's boy is playing at their home during a party, and one of the guests slaps the boy for running in the house. Don comes along, and says something like "look what you've done, you knocked over the drink, now go and get your mother to clean it up."
2. The drapers are having a picnic at a park. When they get up to leave, Betty grabs the blanket, flings all the garbage onto the grass, and proceeds to the car.
Agreed. I have mixed feelings about "Madmen". Good acting, good writing, great clothes(!), but it's the values that inform the show I have problems with. "Madmen" portrays the "New Frontier" as pretty dreary. I keep waiting for a character to rise to the occasion, but more often than not, they sink to the occasion! Still, I like that there is show focused on the "forgotten" part of the 60s decade. I'll check out the new season to see if things improve on a philosophical level, though I'm not holding my breath!
There are a few scenes that hark back to times when parents weren't quite as concerned about the safety of their children, including one scene when one of the kids comes in with a plastic bag over his head, and the mother doesn't even blink an eye. Hilarious.
The photo's of Jon Hamm in the latest Vanity Fair are amazing. The man is beautiful and he is a stunning actor as well. A real star if he gets a chance to shine beyond cable TV.
My favorite was a neighbor at a party smacking a kid–that wasn't his own!
*For those working through past seasons on dvd, there may be mild spoilers sprinkled herein.
Gauzy impressionism? That's actually the last way I would describe Mad Men. The show is shot very cleanly and specifically, from the harsh fluorescents at Sterling Cooper to the murky interiors of the well appointed offices and homes. The camera almost fetishistically lingers over objects and clothing, taking pride in the beauty of items that we now find crumbling and moth-eaten at garage sales, hopelessly out of date now, but striking when you see them as intended. Draper really is a heel when you get right down to it; if he weren't played so perfectly by John Hamm he'd be unbearable. (Rulle softens his origins btw: he is left with his married father after his prostitute mother dies; when the father dies and his stepmother remarries, he is treated harshly. It's no wonder he wants to desperately escape his "wh*re baby" past.) I don't see the show as denigrating or overly praising the people of that era: they're mostly trying to work hard and keep their jobs. Advertising continues to shape our world tremendously, and I find it great to watch how it's approached in an internet-less world where the t.v. wasn't on seven hours a day, and newspapers were published in early and late editions. (Last season the admen were shellshocked by the VW "Think Small" campaign; it reminded me of how shocking the 80's Apple ad was with the woman throwing the hammer) I think the show is fair–the "Bohemian" world is shown to be as full of self-important posers as the country club seems starchy. (When Don visits his artist girlfriend in Season one and the police show up nearby, he calmly comments to the beatniks that dressed as he is, suit & fedora, he, unlike them, will be able to leave without suspicion) The show accurately shows that not everyone in the 60's was a flower child or on track to become one. Some social mores are hard to watch–the blatant sexism, anti-semitism and exclusion of blacks from everywhere but elevator operating at Sterling Cooper, not to mention poor Sal, buried so deep in his closet we know that it'll be a disaster if he ever claws his way out. Some stuff from the good old days definitely changed for the better. (personally I'm really glad people don't smoke so much indoors, and I think seat belting your kids is a pretty good thing) I know the show moves glacially at times. It took me several episodes to get into the groove, but watching the show is time well spent. It's well written, acted and designed–hair, makeup wardrobe are impeccable. Mad Men is a grown up show for adults with an interest and understanding of American history, but it's a thoughtful meditation on the past, not a documentary. Maybe that's why it stands out so much from most of current television.
I agree. These people are not my grandparents or reflect what they stood for. The dark tone is more the spirit of the age we live in today and the writers are feeding off a generation they couldn't begin to match in accomplishments. What would be a more interesting critique of them is to explore where they went wrong in raising the crooked and perverse generation that is spitting on the values that built a great nation.
He is a most delicious man.
I agree with the "as is" approach. The makers of this show do such a great job of setting up the environment of the the time (as I remember from my own childhood). For me, I was laughing at the varied and different types of ashtrays seemingly everywhere in the show! They were a fixture in my house when I was a kid.
The characters lives are only what I imagine what it must have been like to have to suppress so much of the emotions that we are able to express so openly today. Hitchcock in the fifties played on this so well. With all of the innuendo he put in his films (again, in the fifties). After watching the knowing looks and raised eyebrows in those films, I always took away the feeling of "ooh…people must have really looked down on that back then…they can't even say it aloud".
If the writers are doing politics, they're hiding it pretty well. The backdrop seems more to be a snapshot of "hard driving and hard drinking" early 60's New York business culture to me.
I haven't seen the show myself but my mother's comment was that she lived through those days the and was the same age as the characters at the time and living in the same NYC area suburbs and this show is utterly unlike any people she knew at the time. The characters are more like Martians than early 1960s Americans. They did a good job on the clothes, products and cars, though.
The show is a critique by whiny, navel gazing, post-modern writers of an extremely successful generation dolled up in an exaggerated homosexual style. Who are these empty people? They are not my grandparents. Yes, that generation was so careless for not putting kids in seatbelts! Give me a break, -at least they had more than one designer baby. I only watched the first disc from the first season but the spirit of the show was dark and petty despite how good looking the lead is. He switched his identity? Treats women like garbage? Uh ..Yeah, that sounds like an average guy from the G.I. generation.
Your mother is correct.
So I guess you won't be watching the season 3 premiere?
"I know the show moves glacially at times…"
Nice post! I know what you mean about the pacing, but for me, I love the experience of what I'm looking at away from the dialog much of the time. The art on the wall and on the mantles of some homes, the business machines in the office, the outfits (especially what the ladies had to wear back then), and of course…the ashtrays!
You could kill a moose with the ashtrays! They're like furniture!
Personally, I'm a little tired of the "people in the 50s and 60s were all actually secretly miserable" cliche. People are people, and I'm sure there were issues as there are now. But I get the feeling that those who are constantly attacking those eras are just trying to drag down decades that might actually have been better.
the sinner,
Patrick
They were better. Even women and minorities were happier and more optimistic. The show is a lie.
Interestingly, Mr. Hamm was asked in a TV interview if he had any negative feedback about the show, he said his grandmother in Missouri did not like it. I wonder why.
[...] a truly multicultural feminism. It also provides suggestions on further reading in each section. Return of ‘Mad Men’ – bighollywood.breitbart.com 08/15/2009 Sunday, August 16th, begins the third season of the [...]
What I like about the show is that it doesn't go to the obvious places you think it will go. I avoid spoilers so I was just as shocked as Peggy was when she had the baby. When she found out she was going to have a baby I expected a long, drawn out, abortion plot. I cringed. WRONG!
Mad Men is so well written and, most importantly, so well cast, I was hooked the first 5 minutes.
The big mystery for me for Season 3 is: did Peggy's sister take the baby? Peggy told Pete she gave him up for adoption. We really don't know that the boy her sister is raising is Peggy's son. Did Peggy lie to Pete? Or not? Can't wait to find out.
I saw that–she said Don Draper "makes bad choices." Pretty spot on, granny!
"Her sister raises it."
Peggy gave her baby up for adoption (according to her confession to Pete). Her sister is not raising Peggy's baby; the youngest boy is her sister's baby (she was pregnant at the same time as Peggy).
I should've also mentioned, thus the irony of Pete's refusal to adopt a kid: his own child was put up for adoption.
Maybe she meant her grandson.
[...] at Big Hollywood, Michael Rulle says the “show somehow touches all my subterranean hot buttons.” The show has an [...]
I blogged about Mad Men — it's the perfect example of the failure of Hollywood. Out of the show's 9 writers, seven are women, one promoted from basically, babysitting the kids of show creator Matt Weiner, according to the WSJ. The senior writer seems to be Marti Noxon, of Buffy the Vampire Slayer fame, and the same themes, sexual assault, "bad boyfriends women love," and the "beautiful victim by sexist society" that ruined that show pop up here. Buffy's rape and falling in love with "bad boyfriend" Spike is re-run/recycled with the redhead office manager character. As a feminist agit-prop indictment of middle class men, it's without equal, but it remains a very niche taste. If you wonder why the men are all heels and the women "beautiful victims" wonder no longer.
It's first season pulled in around 900K viewers, the second season only 1.5 million, it's estimated to sell about 400K DVD box sets for S2, but that's it. Mad Men represents the "trap" that modern Hollywood has fallen into — more and more marginal, niche, agit-prop tirades that are beautifully acted, directed, produced (the art direction is a thing to behold) and with a dead, empty center that appeals to no one but the hippest of the hip. Hollywood like Mad Men is totally irrelevant and outside most people's lives.
Which is Hollywood's paradox — NEVER has the overall skill level, in dialog, direction, production values, and so forth been so great. And never has the actual content been so meaningless and emotionally distant to nearly everyone but those oh so tragically hip, that it hurts. Mad Men is sustained, basically, by AMC's subscriber revenues from cable and satellite operators. If people drop cable/satellite in a deep recession that lasts, or Congress mandates much lower fees, playing with other people's money like this and other "prestige" products that don't make money go away. Even though fairly cheap to produce, the show barely breaks even with DVD sales. Should that collapse as well, projects like that become unsustainable without hefty subscriber fees.
Mad Men, Breaking Bad, the Shield, the Sopranos, Rescue Me, Battlestar Galactica, they don't really make money — they are just prestige products funded by subscriber fees. If hardly anyone watches them, it's no matter. It's lazy writing — anyone can do "dark/edgy" but it takes far greater skill to write "Monk" or "Burn Notice" or anything light and entertaining. I honestly don't see these types of projects lasting much longer. I don't see them as economically sustainable.
I would submit The Killers last two studio albums "Sam's Town" and "Day and Age"
Yes, that scene where the doctor smokes through the whole exam is hilarious.
Peggy told Pete she had his baby and gave it up for adoption. I think she said to strangers, but I can't remember now. It played right into Pete's total refusal to even discuss adoption with his wife. He's such a class snob and his disgust at the idea of taking a baby from lesser mortals was typical of his personality. To know his son his out there being raised by strangers….
I'm leaning towards the sister's baby being her own. I don't think that boy is Peggy and Pete's.
Small correction. Buffy was never raped. She's the frigging Slayer, fer cryin' out loud.
This has been touched on, but one of the attractions of this show for me is the message that the 60's were more than peace, love, Vietnam, Haight-Ashbury, hippies, and Woodstock. I'm so sick of the nostalgia for stinky hippies rolling in the mud at Woodstock as if they were changing the world. While they were dropping out and tuning in, the rest of the world continued to revolve. More people in the 60s represented the characters on Madmen,than the doped up brain dead idiots going to San Francisco-with-flowers-in-their-hair. By the way, those "Madmen" still continue to thrive while those old hippies with their bald heads and gray pony tails can only look back with longing at Woodstock and wonder where did it all go. I'm hoping the show does not start hectoring the audience with draft dodgers, hippies, and Betty Friedan. Something tells me, though, that they are going to hook Don up with some hippie chick and they are going to drop some acid with Jefferson Airplane blasting on the soundtrack.
Hear!Hear!
So…Mad Men's viewership is actually going up by a hefty margin each season, isn't it? AMC is giving it a chance to stay on and grow, a chance far too few network shows are ever given. That's rare, and a great thing for t.v. if you ask me. You can call those shows you list many things, but I don't think 'lazily written' is valid for any of them. For any show to go more than 3 seasons is pretty good, and I think all the shows you list did at least three, if not more. Yes, prestige products are supported by lower end ones…Dodge doesn't survive by just selling the Viper. But Vipers are flashy & cool and get lots of press, and just might bring someone into a showroom where they'll buy a Charger. I think that's how networks see their prestige series. Why do you find it so distasteful? It's their network; they can program exactly how they want to. T.V. overall has taken a HUGE hit; that's why there's so much cheap reality crap on the major networks. I'm glad basic cable is taking risks. That's where the good dramas are, these days.
Very interesting post, Whiskey.
I'm not sure I agree with this premise, although it may certainly go in this direction soon. But the red-haired office manager, Joanie, uses men just like they use her. She may have to use her body to do it, but at the same time, she's using her brain. I would never qualifiy her as a victim. On the contrary, in spite of her looks, she is respected around the office because she is good at what she does. The season ended with her being engaged to a jerky doctor, but if the character remains true (I hope!), she'll dump his butt soon. She's not one to be pushed around. This show has a lot of strong women in it, but you can't compare them with today's distaff crowd because the mindset was differernt and women in the early 60s showed their strength in different ways.
That said, everything you touched upon may blossom into fruition this season with today's writers being what they are…
I'm not sure I agree with this premise, although it may certainly go in this direction soon. But the red-haired office manager, Joan, uses men just like they use her. She may have to use her body to do it, but at the same time, she's using her brain. I would never qualifiy her as a victim. On the contrary, in spite of her looks, she is respected around the office because she is good at what she does. The season ended with her being engaged to a jerky doctor, but if the character remains true (I hope!), she'll dump his butt soon. She's not one to be pushed around. This show has a lot of strong women in it, but you can't compare them with today's distaff crowd because the mindset was differernt and women in the early 60s showed their strength in different ways.
That said, everything you touched upon may blossom into fruition this season with today's writers being what they are…
My favorite moment from the show so far: Betty Draper in her nightgown, cigarette dangling from the corner of her mouth, in the front yard with a rifle shooting at the neighbor's pigeons.
I've been watching Mad since the day it premiered and I absolutely adore it. I am a character writer and too many times in film and television, the writers focus more on the outlandish plots or the shock value scenes, than they do character development. Take Peggy for instance. She grew from shy, awkward naive little girl, to an aggressive, independent, strong woman that can be Don's perfect match. We see the character Joan (the Marilyn Monroe-type) who has all the men clipping at her hemline but despite her confidence and social wit, she can't manage to pull herself up the ladder and matter of fact she regresses. Instead of being the independent woman Peggy becomes, she settles into the role of wife and possible future housewife-as her fiance perfers her to be. Every character in this show is fascinating. They all have their own storylines going and they all have a arch of change-good or bad. It's a writers dream show.
I find Betty to be as despicable as Don can be. She's totally self-absorbed. I can't see her picking up a book and reading it. She's too busy worrying about her own reaction to everything else. Don seems to love his children more than Betty. She's walks around as if she is on a movie set. When reality hits her, she does something crazy like shooting the neighbors pigeons or picking up some guy in a bar and doing it on a mangy sofa in the backroom.
That said, I did cheer when she rallied and threw Don out of the house. That seemed to be the only genuine reaction she's ever had to any experience. Hated what she did do Glenn. Come to think of it…that was really weird.
I find Betty to be as despicable as Don can be. She's totally self-absorbed. I can't see her picking up a book and reading it. She's too busy worrying about her own reaction to everything else. Don seems to love his children more than Betty. She's walks around as if she is on a movie set. When reality hits her, she does something crazy like shooting the neighbors pigeons or picking up some guy in a bar and doing it on a mangy sofa in the backroom.
That said, I did cheer when she rallied and threw Don out of the house. That seemed to be the only genuine reaction she's ever had to any experience. Hated what she did to Glenn. Come to think of it…that was really weird.
If anyone picks up "The Feminine Mystique," it will be Joan. Not Peggy, not Betty.
She'll read it–it's going to be a massive best seller and therefore a 'scandalous' must-read. Don does love his kids more than Betty…I don't know that he ever loved her, but she fit into his new life image: pretty wife, great house, 2 kids, nice car. Her creepiest act was the night with the tow truck guy.
Guillermo: Quick, pitch THAT concept as a series! I'm there.
And, it seems that Betty may be from that group of women that were brought up to follow a certain path in life, variations of which occur in each generation; grow up being taught that the key to a successful life is to be pretty and poised, marry a successful man and have a nice house and kids. It may be that we're seeing this as Betty's starting point, with all it's problems and shallowness. Then we get to see her grow within the confines of early '60's east-coast culture.
Hope they can pull it off with a little respect to the women who had no choice other than to believe that was all there was, and to those who discovered that there was actually more to this "life thing"!
I love this show and don't know why. My girl asked me what it's about like Seinfeld, Nothing.
I love the redhead Holaway with the Jane Mansfield nose cone breasts.
http://lizarrasmith.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/m...
Plus, they really nailed the "ideal woman" body shape for the time when they cast Christina Hendricks as Joan. Buxom, hour-glass shapes were all the rage, not Betty's body shape…as beautiful as she is.
I got the feeling that a number of commenters hadn't actually seen the show but nonetheless felt free to slam it as representative of a Hollywood mentality. (What "Hollywood mentality" meant seemed to vary among commenters, but they all considered it a slam.)
I've watched the show from start to finish, in order, as it was broadcast. I've been both a liberal and a conservative in my lifetime, and my antennae for detecting bias are pretty well developed; I agree with Michael Rulle's observation that it lacks 21st-century left/right political sensibility. It certainly has a moral compass, but punishment doesn't always follow transgression–not in a mathematical way, anyway. It presages the fissures of the later 1960s, but it doesn't seem to view those through the commonplace rosy glow of the present day.
I like the show primarily because the characters act like real people. They are conflicted and paradoxical because that's how people are. If they seem "stereotypical" to some viewers–I found that observation utterly implausible–then that's because the viewer either hasn't watched very carefully or has viewed the show through the prism of a personal agenda.
Or possibly the characters don't seem credible to some viewers precisely because we're seeing them without any kind of spin whatsoever. Sometimes the show is hard for me to watch because of its unblinking honesty about the characters. I replay my own life in corporate America in the 1970s and 1980s and wonder if it could stand the same kind of scrutiny that Mad Men's characters are subjected to. In middle age, you start to see your own past with that kind of clarity and it invariably makes you cringe.
This is the best comments thread I have ever read. Educational, insightful, opinionated. You guys rock.
And I hope Weiner keeps up the political ambiguity. It works.
Oooh…interesting…
Nothing wrong with that, the problem is that Don isn't a good husband, and for 1963, society won't yet fully respect a woman who steps out of the traditional homemaking role–look at Peggy's family. If Don weren't so unfaithful, I think Betty would be happy. Watching the slo-mo train wreck of the Draper marriage is part of Mad Men's allure.
Don't forget…a lot of it is infrastructure, but it is superbly engineered.
Caroline has spoken! Big Hollywood: give us a regular Monday Mad Men recap thread!! Because…we rock so hard!
Good stuff–
still think its "gauzy" however!—maybe I did not get the HD version–kidding aside, I do not–which I like. Agree with you it is a "thoughtful meditation" on the past. Nicely said.
P.S. How many times does Mr. Guillermo have to say he does not like it. I get it. Its okay. You don't have to like it. Liking it does not condone behavior, one way or the other. If that were the standard for Movies or Television, we would not have either.
It's totally cool. I refuse to like corn dogs. I get it–you don't have to love everything. I objected to "gauzy" because it makes me think of aging actresses coating the screen to hide the truth. Mad Men comes across as the harshest truth of all: nostalgia blinds us all to some extent. History is biased and messy, and I'm not sure it should be otherwise.
Interesting detail on the writers' background. Perhaps Ms. Noxon is the real Draper/Olsen doppelganger!
Its interesting, but I don't see it as feminist agit-prop (even if intended as such). Having worked for a Wall Street partnership in the late 70s, the "mores" were not much different. I am not justifying it –nor am I condemning it. I do think people are, to some degree, locked in their own time. 40 years from now, we will be the futures's stereotype, condemned for things we now accept as normal. It is hard to make the guess–we all have our favorites of course–but we are likely to miss some obvious ones.
The writers probably don't know either—but you are correct–anything is possible. As one reader commented, this year we are likely to see the JFK assassination. Who knows where that may lead. I don't see this show destined to be locked into a pre-Beatles/Dylan mindset. I believe it can survive the cultural shifts. It is all up to the artist/writers/directors.
Interesting comment. Peggy doesn't need to. Betty wouldn't care. But Joan–interesting. To me "Feminine Mystique" was as much "ideology"–i.e., creating fake facts to justify one's position–as it was interesting social science. But Joan comes to sense she somehow made the wrong choices–a "prisoner" of circumstance–and feels it as she watches Olsen close her new office door. I think I agree–she would be the one to pick up Friedan's book.
You are right about Peggy's sadomasochistic confession to Pete. But in season one, at least, the baby was present with Peggy's mother and sister. On a few occasions they tried to get her to take an interest, but she would not. It would seem to not make sense if it were not hers. Of course, if she did give it up without her family's knowledge, that would make sense, given her character. I just don't recall any show where the adoption occurs–but can't say for sure.
Remember the condescending (smoking) doctor when she wanted birth control? Wow. I thought Peggy finally told Pete in the finale; we just haven't seen his full blown reaction, especially on top of knowing he and his wife can't conceive. I'm sure he'll throw that in her face with his usual tact. I recall him sitting with the rifle in his office. (Pete's callowness has always been shown to be more than a little related to his never having been in the military: Don is a Korea vet, even the naughty Roger was a WWII vet–I think his lack of service/manliness adds to his insecurity)
Thoughtful commentary. Agree with you on the "been there done that" corporate world. I would be interested on the demographics of the audience.
Might I recommend buying a boxed set of Green Acres episodes.
I have just finished season 1 and look forward to tonight's premiere. Lots of interesting comments here. Lots of bastards on this show. My dad was an ad man from that era so I find it particularly interesting.. Good acting, excellent period costumes and sets. My take so far: People did smoke a lot back then; people did treat women like posessions back then; not everybody by a long shot, and not everybody quite this badly. It does move painfully slowly at times. Most of the characters are complex enough to enjoy.
As dark as those shows might be (confession: I'm a Galactica fan), I'd rather have a dozen of those on the air than any reality show starring Paris Hilton, Kim Kardashian, Heidi & Spencer, Playboy bunnies, ad nauseam (basically, any show they make fun of on The Soup).
And, IMHO, a show can be dark and still be entertaining. Sure some shows take it too far and some showrunners (not all) seem to revel in plumbing the depths, but if they didn't attract enough viewers, they'd still be cancelled. Networks like FX and AMC don't expect to get 50 million viewers. (I know you've written about audience fragmentation but, other than the Superbowl and Idol, what other shows can bring in huge numbers anymore?)
I do agree re: Monk and Burn Notice (Psych, too). It's always been easier to write dark and edgy than light and funny. But both ideas are equally valid.
[...] Sunday, August 16th, begins the third season of the exceptional AMC original series, “Mad Men.” The show is about a private Madison Avenue (hence the “Mad” in “Mad Men”) advertising firm, set in the early 60s. This show somehow touches all my subterranean hot buttons. “Mad Men’s” second season ended in the year 1962, at the conclusion of the Cuban Missile Crisis, as the firm is about to be acquired by a London based agency. The second season’s finale was a perfectly coordinated display of the several character centered subplots, each reaching a critical turning point simultaneously. My tendency to see politics in everything is thwarted by this show, eRead more at http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/mrulle/2009/08/15/return-of-mad-men/ [...]
I dunno…I really, really, want to see Betty getting her hands on "The Feminine Mystique." And since Don has screwed a woman from virtually every strata of society, he is bound to get around to hippies. Remember–the Summer of Love is still 4 years away in Mad Men's timeline, and Woodstock is 6. Hell, we won't even see the Beatles on Ed Sullivan until NEXT season. I doubt it'll go for 4 more years, let alone 6, although I'd love it to. It would put Don's daughter right around her teen years, wouldn't it?
2009 Hollywood morals
dressed in period costume.
I was enthusiastic about it during the first couple of episodes, but it got old very quickly (even faster than BSG or The Shield). And I think you exactly nailed the reason for it. I watch very little tv and I do not need to waste precious time on a show about fictional idiots. Unless they are the Bundys.
Absolutely. The need of modern people to feel superior to earlier "unenlightened" generations is starting to disgust me. Especially when you see current generations getting hysterical when faced with one percent of the problems they had to deal with.
The Empire State Building was completed in 16 months in the middle of the depression; the "Freedom Tower" won´t be done until 2018. ´nuff said.
I disagree with your thesis that it is free of bias. This show is a post modern take on the G.I generation. I remember those people and this is a false interpretation of what they were. The Left are parasites that try to steal everything and distort it. The human heart is a broken thing and great depictions of it in in drama is what art is all about but that is not what they are doing. They are using this show to bring a generation they can't live up to down to their size. I am against that and I am responding to different people who don't see that.
Lionel Chetwynd and Roger Simon did a PJTV program about "Mad Men" and both concluded–and I agree–that it's basically boomer propaganda painting the 50's and 60's as the bad, bad times that were supposedly conservative and value based but that were in reality completely hypocritical, as is illustrated by the amoral behavior of the show's characters.
The reality is that the 50's and 60's (early) were pro-American, forward moving and a very creative time in the history of this country as well as considerably more moral that is portrayed by the left-wing, reactionary writers of "Mad Men".
Precisely. Since the late 60's we've been living through the tearing down of America whereas up until then it was all about building up America.
The scene you describe where Betty leaves trash after a picnic is just to illustrate how environmentally unaware those dolts in the 50's and 60's were. The reality is that having been on many a picnic during my childhood in the 50's and 60's I know that trash was picked up and either deposited in a trash can or taken away to be disposed of at home. I see far more careless "trashy" behavior today that I ever did then. Just look at mess at any of the places our environmentally conscious protesters leave when they're through protesting.
I agree with you completely. On the one hand they like to weep crocodile tears over our "Greatest Generation" but on the other are busily trying to tear that generation down by depicting them as crass, hypocritical materialists.
lol!
There was a thread on the show "Lost" not too long ago that had the same feel to it. There are people who like a show, people who really like a show, and then there are those of us "wonks" who love talking about the details.
This is one of my favorite things about Big Hollywood.
Maybe they'll be clever and produce both left and right ideology through the lens of an ad campaign (when the story line veers there, say for the upcoming Johnson/Goldwater election – if the show makes it that far); giving respect, but keeping any preferences out of it. After all, these guys' ideology is makin' money.
I bought the first two seasons and spent two separate weekends watching them – yes, I have no life – and can not remember the scenes where Don/Dick was in the firefight, pissed his pants, and swtched dog tags with the real Draper. (I must've been drunk – and not from my own consumption; I think the amount of drinking and alcohol present in each episode just oozes into a viewer's blood stream!) Can anyone remind me approximately what episode it was where this fireifight/dog-tag-switch occurred? Many thanks.
[...] the full article from “Big Hollywood” « London Adult Entertainment: Vanessa Hudgens defended against criticism by [...]
I have enjoyed this show enormously, but when the writers get a detail wrong, it really clangs.
Um, no. That's why it's fascinating. You haven't actually watched it, have you?
Yes, it is my fate to live in the wake of the wretched boomers till the day I die.
You must be logged in to post a comment.