Do I really want to be integrated into a burning house?
--James Baldwin
You should know, from jump, that I am absolutely in love with Mad Men. It really does for a certain group among the upper class, what The Wire did for a certain group among the underclass. It has that same rejection of good and evil, that same detailed humanity that we loved about The Wire. But also, to its credit, it lacks the anger which ultimately contaminated The Wire's final season. Furthermore it rejects the naked cynicism that's poisoned efforts as diverse as Crash and Desperate Housewives. It would have been really easy to make a show panning this era, or to make another one completely romanticizing it. Instead Mad Men just bores hard down on character, character and more character.
This is sort of continuation of the Hillary Clinton post, in that respect. Last night I was watching the latest episode with Kenyatta when she said that she really wanted Don's wife to just have an affair. When I asked her why she said it was because she felt that it would help her with her issues and she might learn something about herself. She later went on to say that the difference between Betty and Don is that one gets to have all these experiences (French films, Frank O'Hara, affairs with various women) while the other is trapped at home. Betty having the affair would symbolize an attainment of a kind of power which Don wields over her, as well as a sense of satisfaction.
I found that analysis incredible. I countered that its true that
Don wields experience over Betty, and that that's part of--or a
representation of--his power. But the whole show is about the
hollowness of said power, no? I love that Peggy is climbing the ladder,
but that she isn't a feminist crusader, and isn't particularly
concerned about other women--she's just out get hers. Don, for all his
experiences isn't any more complete than Betty. He's just as shallow,
and has the same emotional handicaps. When that dude told Betty
yesterday that she was "so sad," it struck that a woman could have said
the same thing to Don.
There's a "Is it all worth it" quality
to Mad Men which I love--like you're cheering for Betty to move up, and
yet at the same time you're thinking, "Move up into what?" Into puking
into office garbage cans? INto emotional dysfunction? Into backstabbing
and seducing the spouses of coworkers? Is this really what it's about?
I love that dilemma--it doesn't simply ask us do we want a world where
everyone can compete, it asks to question the very nature of the world.
More importantly, it doesn't position one against the other, as we on
the left sometimes do (like with gay marriage).
Anyway, those are my rather disorganized thoughts. Would love to hear from you guys.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Its hard to know even where to begin with this show...
- Kenyatta(that your girl?)is a smart woman. My girlfriend said something very similar as we were watching it. Should I be worried?
- Peggy Olson is essentially a guy. She acts like no other woman on the show. She is ruthless.
- It seemed like Draper was really going to make an effort this season to be a better guy. It didn't take long...
- I agree that Draper is just as "profoundly sad" as his wife. But if that's the case, why can't they see it in eachother. I mean, he didn't buy her line about being so happy last episode, right?
- Need more Pete Campbell and Roger Sterling this season. Campbell's character is absolutely fascinating. Is it okay if I like him?
we are watching season 1 on DVD (and waiting for the wire season 5). I made a similar comparison to my wife the other day. But there is a kind of hopelessness in mad men symbolized by the constant smoking and drinking-- the sort of "what does it all mean?" issue. It was obvious when don took off during his kids birthday party. He's not happy. But then the counterpoint is that beatnik crowd that smokes weed and listens to Miles-- they don't seem to have an answer either. Bettys not happy, and neither are the other people in the office, except maybe ken cosgrove, who got his story published. Where is the passion, the zest for life? Is this ultimately about a search for meaning amongst purveyors of consumerism? That seems too trite somehow.
Ask a rambling question, get a rambling answer. Sorry.
Totally disagree about Peggy. She's not like these dudes. She has a moral center. In season one, she was disgusted by the behavior she saw at the office. She's clearly not going to become one of them. I have high hopes for her -- creating her own space/work ethos that isn't part of the frat house but isn't like the secretaries either. If anything, Joan is more ruthless, more "guy"-like.
Totally agree about Peter and Roger, especially Peter. I have no idea if I like him or hate him. The snivelling! The scheming! The brooding!
All very interesting points. One thing that struck me about the last episode though is why Betty was crying at the end and so happy about "being part of [Don's] life." What was that about? Was she really happy because there's this Friedanesque specter over her that keeps implying her happiness is nonexistent. Was the end of the episode just another example of that?
Dino,
I suppose I see your point about Peggy, but she did do quite a few things in Season 1 to show she was anything but moral. I guess we can't talk openly about them 'cause Amitav is still watching it on DVD. I think her disgust with the office had more to do with the fact that she couldn't believe these men assumed they could talk to women like they do. She assumed she should be treated like a man. Remember in episode 1 of this season when she came up and chewed out Draper's secretary? Yikes.
The show's hard to watch. It's about how things were and why they had to change. It's also set in what serves for most Repiglicans as America's Golden Age. How scary is that?
I agree that the show does exploit the "hollowness of said power," but I think it goes deeper than that, down to the psychology of the self and the level of transparency that each of us achieves in our projects of selfhood. All of the characters inhabit a realm of delusion and opacity in regard to their own psyches, and the show reveals how each figure progresses (or regresses) in his or her path.
Don, unlike most of the other characters, seems to possess a level of transparency that allows him to be reflective about his condition. The other characters are, more or less, clueless about why they suffer, why they lead the lives they do, why they are who they are.
Betty, even though she has undergone some therapy, comes off as relatively opaque. And this is part of the reason why I think Don is in some ways less pathetic than Betty (BTW, having an affair would just make Betty even more pathetic). Yes, Don does some bad things, yes he is also "profoundly sad," but he does possess a degree of transparency. So there seems to be hope for him.
I thought it was very interesting that Betty corrected the room-to-be in the stable by pointing out that she's 'grateful,' but certainly not unhappy. As if she views gratefulness as being an acceptable substitute for happiness...
Sorry, that was supposed to be "groom-to-be."
Betty's "therapist" reported her every word to her husband. It is not an affair that she needs--it's a job. A life outside the home. Betty knows that Don cheats on her. She wants to cheat too. She is simply afraid to act.
"I agree that Draper is just as "profoundly sad" as his wife. But if that's the case, why can't they see it in eachother."
While the show seems to try not to peddle too much in period archetypes - after all, how many Madison Avenue execs really have Don's history of identity issues? - this seems to me to be a commentary on how no one really was happy in their marriages back then, at least among educated WASPs (there seems to be an implicit contrast in the show between the lives of elite WASPS and Jews - think of the female Jewish department stores owner whose name escapes me who had some real verve to her as opposed to most of the women Don knows - that was looked down upon by elite WASPs while seeming to also provide a greater sense of belonging and self-satisfaction by not being stuck in the facade of WASP society of that time). From what I've read, husbands and wives of that demographic back then just didn't really talk to each other. It reminds me of how you had the educated women in "The Feminine Mystique" and the men portrayed in "The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit" who were all living the lives that society had told them to live, but they were all ultimately miserable and couldn't really tell anyone they knew about it.
I think Billy Budd comes the closest to nailing it. The most glaring thing about these characters (again, with the possible exception of Cosgrove) is their complete inability to understand what is missing from their lives. They search for meaning in very shallow, hedonistic pursuits which leaves them unable to tap their yearning for something greater. Their inability to see the futility of their lifestyle and choices is somewhat heartbreaking, but also the most realistic portion of the show.
Don on the other hand looks for a deeper understanding of the world he inhabits, most likely because he is such a profound outsider. When he researches for his pitches, he tries to tap into the root of desire that leads people to turn to material things instead of relationships for fulfillment. Whether it's reading Exodus to understand Jews or watching French films to sell American Airlines, he wants to get to the root of why people do what they do. Given his past, it's reasonable to assume that this was a survival mechanism; to gain entry into the moneyed class, he must have had to find some insight into how they function and what it is they want. In many ways, he is his own greatest marketing campaign, the best pitch he ever made.
Betty does things because that's the way she was taught, and that's the way she is supposed to be. She plays a role, in essence, and is unable to escape from it. The same could be said for Joan, Pete, Roger, or even Salvatore. On the other hand, Paul, Peggy and Don seem unhappy with their assigned roles and show signs of trying to break free. Paul may be a bit of a poser, Peggy a bit of a jerk, but they are willing to at least try to be something different, to embrace change. I think Pete is secretly the same way. The others are more than content to try and find their own place within the traditional power structure and exploit it as much as possible, leaving them superficially very well-off, but ultimately unsatisfied.
Sorry for the rambling, as you can tell I also love this show.
I thought the same thing when the guy told Betty she was sad. As I see it, Don is the happy clown that Tony Soprano always falsely claimed to be. Sometimes it seems like he might actually believe in his own faux happiness.
Ultimately, the "is it all worth it" quality is what I love about the show. Is the dream of American success really a dream at all? Or is it a dream invented to maintain the power structures that currently exist?
I disagree that Peggy ever had much of a moral center. She may have been disgusted with the behavior in the office in Season 1, but only when it directly affected her, as in when her lunch money was taken from her locker. She actively engaged in bad behavior, sleeping with Pete the night before his wedding, and later after he was married, while hardly knowing him, seemingly enamored by his wealth and position (though I never really figured that one out).
Probably the most important line in the show, to me, was when Don got high with the beatniks and was being ranted at about being part of the oppressive capitalist class or something along those lines, and Don responds by saying, essentially, that there is no meaning to life.
I love how the characters can turn on a dime. Pete is a psychopath one scene and a completely sympathetic sap the next. I think this show would be far too painful to watch if it were set in 2008.
I like Mad Men more than The Wire or The Sopranos because it doesn't rely on cheap stereotypes or even cheaper violence or plot twists to grab your attention. You're just watching a bunch of drowning white-collar workers and their spouses and you're left wondering how alike you and your spouse are to them.
Ta-Nehisi, I'm wondering what you think about the portrayal of blacks in the show? As a Jew I loved the insights into our outsider status in the 1960s so I'd like to hear your thoughts.
I agree that it doesn't, but I really don't see what stereotypes or cheap violence was in The Wire.
Back to Mad Men, I get the feeling that the story arc over the decade (which apparently is the plan) Sterling Cooper may end up being one of the big ad agencies, and it's ascent will parallel Don's decline.
Of course there is passion, zest of life, etc, it's the stuff propelling all the characters towards action/resolution. But if you want to see the thing itself, the show will only show it to you as "Before, a joy proposed; behind, a dream."
Ultimately, Mad Men doesn't believe there is a place of final meaning or untainted ambition.
Whitey -- I don't think having a one-off (twice!) with Peter relieves Peggy of being the moral center of the show (which I totally think she is). I doubt she'll do anything like that now that she's a copy writer.
Stacey -- The scene where she lays into Draper's secretary -- I loved it. And it was totally her own style. Had she been one of the guys, she would have made sure she had an audience before humiliating someone, and then she would have made some snide, cryptic, insider-y joke, instead of directly tell her what's what. It was pitch perfect. She's not one of the gang, but she's not like the other women.
Power may not be all it's cracked up to be and Don may be as hollow as Peggy on some ultimate cosmic scale, but he's bored by more interesting shit, his desperation exists within a more complex "hierarchy of needs", he's tasted the apple, etc. etc. I mean, at least he gets out of the fucking house to push other people around. And, in a weird way, he's creative, good at what he does - and knows it. Beats that "desperate housewives" deal by a longshot.
Peggy certainly adopts an air of superiority because she's unhappy with the hand she's been dealt. Maybe that's why she and Draper were a great pairing because they're willing to detach themselves in order to redefine themselves.
Peggy stays away from the office party because she's not included, she can't flex the same muscles that Joan can, or maybe doesn't want to. I think there’s a parallel between the fact that the men in the office don't view her as a sexual object and yet she’s becoming more successful. I wonder if she’ll be allowed to work on accounts that aren’t strictly related to women—if that will be her glass ceiling.
More ramble...Did Peggy read the Ayn Rand book. Never read it, won't ever, but isn't that all about the pleasure of individual pursuits?
"I like Mad Men more than The Wire or The Sopranos because it doesn't rely on cheap stereotypes or even cheaper violence or plot twists to grab your attention."
I'm not sure if I like Mad Men more than The Wire, but I certainly disagree that either The Wire, or The Sopranos relied on plot twists to grab your attention. Also, I think The Sopranos had much less violence than many people remember. I constantly heard people complaining about the lack of action in The Sopranos from about season 3 on, but people who truly appreciated the show know that was NEVER what the show was about. Its probably not a coincidence that the head writer from Mad Men wrote for The Sopranos from about the 3rd or 4th season on.
"I agree that it doesn't, but I really don't see what stereotypes or cheap violence was in The Wire."
+1. Everyone is a bastard in The Wire. And there usually aren't plot twists so much as breakthroughs.
"I don't think having a one-off (twice!) with Peter relieves Peggy of being the moral center of the show (which I totally think she is). I doubt she'll do anything like that now that she's a copy writer."
No, she won't. But now she's clearly focused on looking out for her own.
"No, she won't. But now she's clearly focused on looking out for her own."
Could be, but it seems like the writers are really investing a lot of the show in this character. I have to think they have more planned for her than just "looking out for her own."
I find the backstory of these characters to be the most interesting part. These are all people who grew up and came of age while the Depression, World War II, and Korea were happening. Don Draper's flashbacks show this most clearly, but chances are that they have ALL only just emerged from much bleaker circumstances. And they seem rather precarious even now. Not all of them come from wealth, most of the men seem to have been in the military, all the single women have roommates, and so on.
All this wealth and power and glitz is new, and none of them seem to know how to work it all that well. Or even whether it CAN be worked. They keep poking at it to see what it will do, and it all seems very crude to people nowadays who are used to more introspection on these matters. But the crudeness is half the fun. Betty's half-formed longings are just more interesting to watch than a modern woman holding forth on what she wants out of her relationships.
Paul,
I'll talk about black folks in Mad Men tomorrow. It's a topic on to itself--even though there are no major black characters. Blacks are like ghosts on the show--in a very good way.
Well the show is brillant because it has that nuance.
The vital difference between Betty and Don is that Betty is trying to recapture this ideal marriage that she dreamed about, while not complaining about how great she has it. She is a childlike to some degree in her desire for what she wants. But she wants to go recapture fo back to something that she lost after quitting the modeling: sincere attention.
Don is trapped in living in the moment and forgetting the past almost instantly. The one time he reflects during the Kodak presentation it almost tears him apart. he never stopped to look back, even Roger mentions this when he's all sick "why have been acting like i'm on shore leave"
and Don replies "you're living life." And due to his identity deal thats all Don can do. He doesn't sign a long term contract because he might up and change his mind. He's eternally restless.
BONG BONG!!
Peggy seems like Don, they both represent the Will to Power in the utmost.
Otherwise, while I watch I find myself quietly humming Peggy Lee's "Is that all there is?"
I'm not so sure I'd put Cosgrove so far above the others. Yes, he's struck out on his own path, and that certainly places him ahead of his peers, but he's still doing it blindly. And the results aren't as satisfying as he'd have himself and other believe. Look at the way Joan dressed him down and left him speechless. He's trying something different, but he doesn't seem to be ready to ask himself if it's working. Essentially, he's just a proto-Bobo.
And maybe that's the point of the show - that things really haven't changed all that much on a fundamental level. We're all still trying to figure out just what true happiness is in an age when consumerism has replaced religion as the thing that is supposed to give our lives meaning. We just don't smoke, drink, or make openly bigoted remarks as much now.
We don't dress as well, either, but I digress.
Peggy seems like Don, they both represent the Will to Power in the utmost.
Otherwise, while I watch I find myself quietly humming Peggy Lee's "Is that all there is?"
Peggy seems like Don, they both represent the Will to Power in the utmost.
Otherwise, while I watch I find myself quietly humming Peggy Lee's "Is that all there is?"
I'm not so sure I'd put Cosgrove so far above the others. Yes, he's struck out on his own path, and that certainly places him ahead of his peers, but he's still doing it blindly. And the results aren't as satisfying as he'd have himself and other believe. Look at the way Joan dressed him down and left him speechless. He's trying something different, but he doesn't seem to be ready to ask himself if it's working. Essentially, he's just a proto-Bobo.
And maybe that's the point of the show - that things really haven't changed all that much on a fundamental level. We're all still trying to figure out just what true happiness is in an age when consumerism has replaced religion as the thing that is supposed to give our lives meaning. We just don't smoke, drink, or make openly bigoted remarks as much now.
We don't dress as well, either, but I digress.
I've never felt so pleased with the portrayal of racism and sexism on a television show. It's not overdone or sentimental.
-When Joan tells Ken, she didn't know how "open minded" he was after meeting the black girl he's dating.
-When "chinamen" are used to play a joke on Pete and he refers to them as "orientals"
-The fact the a divorced woman is ostracized for being divorced...and walking.
-That college educated women could only aspire to be housewives.
-The black cleaning crew member who gets fired after Peggy reports the money missing from her locker
A question to watchers of the show:
My impression when the guy at the stables said to Betty that she was "profoundly sad" that he was wrong, and that it was just the lame sort of line that we're used to in television.
Maybe she is "profoundly sad", but she wasn't at that moment and the guy was just trying to weasel his way into her pants by appearing poetic. Did other people interpret this differently?
sorry.
"that she was 'profoundly sad' WAS that he was wrong..."
also just to buttress my point, the fact that he repeats this line twice, when it doesn't sound like words that would come out of anyone's mouth, suggests to me that it's supposed to be silliness on his part. or maybe i'm just giving too much credit to the writers. then again, it's hard to give too much credit to this writing staff.
I actually hated it because for the first time that so "golden age" was shown for exactly what it was. It was driven by shallow men whom thought they knew everything because they had defeated Tojo and Hitler and were powerful because they did so. To the victor go the spoils. And black people were among the spoils.
They were "sexist" towards their wives(January Jones-if this isn't Bondesque..)and women. As race and ethnic conscious as they could be. This is the part that made me love it.
Much of what we debate about as racist or call dog whistles is exposed as real in Mad Men. The black people are subservient and seen but not heard. White people did not have to engage us unless they wanted to. Every show in the last 20 years that attempted to deal w/ race always created a relationship w/ a family and children that always rang false. It created a sense that we were there when it just wasn't true. We'll know when this show jumps the shark if Don befriends a black janitor.
Then there is the ethnic plantation. If you are of a certain age and grew up in Chicago you can remember telling Polock jokes. Poles were considered so dumb even black people would tell jokes about them out loud. Mad Men amplifies them
with their contempt for the Jews and Italians.
Lastly, there is Don Draper a "real man". He creeps, drinks and smokes because he can. When he told Pete "you haven't thought this through," he is not just calling his bluff. He tells him to his face you are not a "man". When Pete goes into the partner's office "guns blazing" bristling about this questioning of his WASP status and is told who cares his humiliation is complete. You hadn't seen any like that since Cheney intimidated the Breck Boy at the debate.
Don is Machiavelli, not Machiavellian. He has a cause. It is to provide the best service to Sterling Cooper. So he studies everything to understand. What he knows but doesn't understand is the pettiness(Roger watch out you are about to get Bass Reeves on your tail). It offends him.
Of the women, the Joan Holloway character is the one who gets it. In her day and age woman w/ ambition exercise power by controlling men and womens emotions. If it were the late 80's Eliot would have been at home w/ the kids and Miles Drentell her office manager.
I actually hated it because for the first time that so "golden age" was shown for exactly what it was. It was driven by shallow men whom thought they knew everything because they had defeated Tojo and Hitler and were powerful because they did so. To the victor go the spoils. And black people were among the spoils.
They were "sexist" towards their wives(January Jones-if this isn't Bondesque..)and women. As race and ethnic conscious as they could be. This is the part that made me love it.
Much of what we debate about as racist or call dog whistles is exposed as real in Mad Men. The black people are subservient and seen but not heard. White people did not have to engage us unless they wanted to. Every show in the last 20 years that attempted to deal w/ race always created a relationship w/ a family and children that always rang false. It created a sense that we were there when it just wasn't true. We'll know when this show jumps the shark if Don befriends a black janitor.
Then there is the ethnic plantation. If you are of a certain age and grew up in Chicago you can remember telling Polock jokes. Poles were considered so dumb even black people would tell jokes about them out loud. Mad Men amplifies them
with their contempt for the Jews and Italians.
Lastly, there is Don Draper a "real man". He creeps, drinks and smokes because he can. When he told Pete "you haven't thought this through," he is not just calling his bluff. He tells him to his face you are not a "man". When Pete goes into the partner's office "guns blazing" bristling about this questioning of his WASP status and is told who cares his humiliation is complete. You hadn't seen any like that since Cheney intimidated the Breck Boy at the debate.
Don is Machiavelli, not Machiavellian. He has a cause. It is to provide the best service to Sterling Cooper. So he studies everything to understand. What he knows but doesn't understand is the pettiness(Roger watch out you are about to get Bass Reeves on your tail). It offends him.
Of the women, the Joan Holloway character is the one who gets it. In her day and age woman w/ ambition exercise power by controlling men and womens emotions. If it were the late 80's Eliot would have been at home w/ the kids and Miles Drentell her office manager.
I actually hated it because for the first time that so "golden age" was shown for exactly what it was. It was driven by shallow men whom thought they knew everything because they had defeated Tojo and Hitler and were powerful because they did so. To the victor go the spoils. And black people were among the spoils.
They were "sexist" towards their wives(January Jones-if this isn't Bondesque..)and women. As race and ethnic conscious as they could be. This is the part that made me love it.
Much of what we debate about as racist or call dog whistles is exposed as real in Mad Men. The black people are subservient and seen but not heard. White people did not have to engage us unless they wanted to. Every show in the last 20 years that attempted to deal w/ race always created a relationship w/ a family and children that always rang false. It created a sense that we were there when it just wasn't true. We'll know when this show jumps the shark if Don befriends a black janitor.
Then there is the ethnic plantation. If you are of a certain age and grew up in Chicago you can remember telling Polock jokes. Poles were considered so dumb even black people would tell jokes about them out loud. Mad Men amplifies them
with their contempt for the Jews and Italians.
Lastly, there is Don Draper a "real man". He creeps, drinks and smokes because he can. When he told Pete "you haven't thought this through," he is not just calling his bluff. He tells him to his face you are not a "man". When Pete goes into the partner's office "guns blazing" bristling about this questioning of his WASP status and is told who cares his humiliation is complete. You hadn't seen any like that since Cheney intimidated the Breck Boy at the debate.
Don is Machiavelli, not Machiavellian. He has a cause. It is to provide the best service to Sterling Cooper. So he studies everything to understand. What he knows but doesn't understand is the pettiness(Roger watch out you are about to get Bass Reeves on your tail). It offends him.
Of the women, the Joan Holloway character is the one who gets it. In her day and age woman w/ ambition exercise power by controlling men and womens emotions. If it were the late 80's Eliot would have been at home w/ the kids and Miles Drentell her office manager.
Well, Riise, whether it was just a line, or something he actually noticed, he seems to have nailed it. And keep in mind, they were out riding together, so they had much more interaction outside of that scene.
My favorite thing about Mad Men is how it evokes the imagery I always took out of Cheever's Shady Hill stories. Holy shit, are those stories amazing. The men in both Mad Men and the Cheever stories are pitiable, and with Draper excluded, not entirely sure of what they're capable of anymore. Maybe the Cheever stories portrays the men as being a bit more shell-shocked by the turn of the half century, but both sets of characters are dealing - even if they aren't aware of it - with fast-coming obsolescence. Though I think I'll have to go back and read those stories to be sure, I do think Mad Men has the edge on interesting, three dimensional women.
My favorite thing about Mad Men is how it evokes the imagery I always took out of Cheever's Shady Hill stories. Holy shit, are those stories amazing. The men in both Mad Men and the Cheever stories are pitiable, and with Draper excluded, not entirely sure of what they're capable of anymore. Maybe the Cheever stories portrays the men as being a bit more shell-shocked by the turn of the half century, but both sets of characters are dealing - even if they aren't aware of it - with fast-coming obsolescence. Though I think I'll have to go back and read those stories to be sure, I do think Mad Men has the edge on interesting, three dimensional women.
I was beginning to think I was the only person in America -- outside of TV critics -- who was watching Mad Men.
Awesome show ... and its portrayal of the situational ethics of advertising is spot on.
"Maybe she is "profoundly sad", but she wasn't at that moment and the guy was just trying to weasel his way into her pants by appearing poetic. Did other people interpret this differently?"
I certainly did. The whole reason she's riding horses in the first place is that she's sad; it's a form of escapism from the prison of her home. I mean, her response was essentially, "I'm not sad, I'm Nordic!" Sure, he was trying to weasel his way into her pants, but that doesn't change the fact that it's true. Much of Betty's life is built around the lie that she's living the perfect life. For example, in the Valentine's Day episode, when talking to her friend about her "romantic" night in the city, Betty said that she hadn't had time to watch the television program with Jackie-O touring the White House, implying that her and Don were too busy getting busy to do so, whereas in reality that's exactly what they spent the night doing. I saw the "profoundly sad" exchange as another instance of Betty trying to patch the lie that is her life.
The scene that Whitey mentioned, when the beatniks got high with Don, was my favorite from last season. They thought that they could shock Don's sensibilities with their rant, and Draper responds along the lines of "You utter amateurs have absolutely zero idea of what real disillusionment feels like, do you? Forget about being able to play in my league; you don't even know my league exists."
SPOLIER WARNING FOR AMITAV
While I love the show, I'm not sure how anyone can say it doesn't rely on cheap plot twists. Don's "stolen" identity and Peggy's surprise baby weren't cheap plot twists? Granted those twists aren't why the show is great and the writers' reliance on them is terribly misplaced. But that hardly makes the plot twist comparison a favorable one for MM vs. the Wire or the Sopranos.
I've been working my way through Season 1 via On Demand, and I'm digging it. On paper, I should really dislike just about all of these people, but I find myself fascinated. They all seem to really be there, more than just plot points. In that way, the show reminds me of the Wire: Stringer Bell wasn't someone to be admired or even liked, but I was totally upset when he got smoked by Omar and Bro. Mouzon. It always seemed to me that Stringer had enormous natural talents that would have led to much different results given different surroundings, rather like Michael Corleone.
WRT the depiction of black people on Mad Men, I always watch for their subtle, momentary facial expressions in response to the whites around them. Knowing exasperation, bemusement, frustration, quite scorn, even ridicule, you can see it all. The actors playing these incidental background characters, like the elevator operator, are all doing great work because they give you these split-second glimpses into what they may be thinking, but do it in ways that would've gone unnoticed by their white colleagues.
One Drop: Stringer Bell wasn't someone to be admired or even liked
He wasn't? I think the point is that Bell was to be admired. Here was someone who wasn't interested in the glamor of the drug business, who had innovative ideas and opposed violence. Indeed, Simon and Burns would contend that it is that Bell *was* special that he had to be destroyed; the message of The Wire is about the resistance of institutions to innovation and change, and Bell was the representative of innovation and change. Baltimore was better off with Bell than it was with Barksdale; the drug trade worked better for everyone when the co-op ran things. Stringer and D'Angelo were destroyed in no small part because they weren't particularly bad people.
I love "Mad Men", but it strikes me that a lot of the commentary is wrongly seeing the characters as characters rather than as archetypes. "Mad Men" is about a world in change, and how that change impacts the sort of people who populate it. Draper is the self-made WASP; Peggy the young girl who has new opportunities without a map for how to navigate it; Pete the young, privileged white man in a world which is at least claiming to be devaluing privilege. "Mad Men" makes me think mostly of the Hopper paintings its visuals evoke; less about the individual figures and more about what the figures and their relationship to the space they occupy says about the greater world.
I will say that as much as like the show, I do think it is a defect in the writing to have not a single major character that one might consider an above average human being, in terms of decency or happiness. That criticism may be unfair, depending on how one defines major character, decency, or happiness, but just as everyone can't be above average, everyone can't be below average, either. In the setting of extreme cultures like criminal organizations or law enforcement, such a lack of these qualities is more believable, but in the context of a Manhattan office in the early 60s', not so much.
Really? I find Don to be possessed of an almost spooky insight. He's empathetic almost to the point of being another Zelig.
I LOVE Mad Men. And I do see it as a commentary on a particular time and place - watching people who had more entrenched and suffocating roles try to find fulfilment within those roles. However, I also think MM is a commentary on today's society, where everyone is supposedly so free, but you still often hear about how miserable so many people are because they are still unsure about how to naviagate all their new-found freedoms.
Don and Betty share an equally poignant existential awareness of their own shallowness, the inadequacy of their lives, that make them gripping characters to watch.
Don's struggles mirror those between art and commerce that gripped the admen of his generation. I've been wondering if the show's creators haven't been reading some of the good histories of advertising which explore the angst-ridden identities of admen.
I'm totally addicted to this show.
Not only was Betty lying to herself in the horseback riding scene, she lied to her children and husband that she was only going to be riding with other wives, which is why her children couldn't come. She wanted to be alone with him. Early in the episode when Betty meets his fiance, she seemed to subtly tell Betty to back off, probably because she realized there was some real connection there.
I disagree with the idea that Mad Men, The Wire and The Sopranos don't rely in part on stereotypes. There has definitely been some stereotyping of New York Ivy League WASPs, working class blacks and whites (the union dock workers and some police) from Baltimore and New York/New Jersey Italian mobsters on these shows. The settings alone are so heavy with cultural baggage (unlike a light show like "Friends") that using stereotypes to partially sketch a character is almost impossible not to do. Each show had a couple of characters that did defy conventions (most notably Omar on The Wire). However, but since each show was a commentary on life in particular times and places, the line between stereotypes and how things were simply done in those particular times and places starts to blur. The stereotypes in all these shows are just a few scribbles on the paper helping to lay the basic outline of a character. Each character is then so subtly fleshed out that we don't even notice the stereotypes. They are all individuals, but their individuality is there to serve as a vehicle for social commentary. These weren't more plot-driven dramas like SUV and CSI, but character and societal examinations.
The thing I found fascinating about Stringer Bell on "The Wire" was how he just had this rather sharp intelligence and ability to take apart a problem, examine it from all angles and then put it back together. I always got the feeling that while Avon and Marlo would be lowly thugs no matter where they grew up, Bell seemed like he could have been a successful entrepreneur if he had instead grown up as a white and/or privileged kid in Bethesda instead of a black kid in Baltimore.
Just because Peggy isn't pure doesn't mean she isn't the nearest thing the show has to a moral center. I just think she's trying to negotiate between her ethics and her ambitions while being too young to fully know exactly what her ambitions are. I got the idea that ultimately she slept with Pete because it was what she was expected to do after talking to the other girls. The problem I guess is that she's not completely certain what exactly her ethics are, but she wants to have them. I also like how they picked an actress who is definitely talented while not overemphasizing her character's looks (not making her too pretty to make the cracks about her appearance unbelievable while also avoiding "The Office" extreme of choosing women who no one would really find physically desirable to underscore how those characters are fundamentally mediocre people).
Reality Man,
I think you might be right about Marlo, but I always thought Avon was pretty smart too - that's what made Stringer and him a good team, because Avon was 'intuitively' smart while Stringer was 'analytically'.
Avon probably would do well in most surroundings, whereas Marlo could only function well in one, as his final scene made all too clear.
In a sense Mad Men is also about limitations, but on a much broader scale of period and country - far harder to escape something like that. In time much of our cherished opinions will seem ridiculous and some barbarous.
But it's at least attempting to show that while we gained much, we also lost a lot too.
"I think you might be right about Marlo, but I always thought Avon was pretty smart too - that's what made Stringer and him a good team, because Avon was 'intuitively' smart while Stringer was 'analytically'."
I agree that Avon was smart, but for me the defining moment showing the contrast between them was when Avon has just gotten out of jail and wanted to start winning back corners again, which risked a gang war, getting the police even more on their tail again, etc. Stringer Bell was trying to get him to work through the co-op, but Avon just said something like "I guess I'm just a gangster" and decided to start shooting at people again. Working through the co-op probably would have been a lot smarter and better for everyone overall, which is what Bell, Prop Joe and Slim Charles understood. This isn't to say that Avon couldn't have been a smart businessman under different circumstances, but he seems like he would be more likely than Bell to take too many easy-seeming shortcuts instead of following things through and end up as another Ken Lay. I'm not sure it's right to consider someone like Ken Lay, who built up their fortune very much on stealing from their own employees, as a successful businessman.
First, look for the red herring--all the Gregory Peck references for Don Draper. If this was a movie in 1960, he'd be played by William Holden, whose niche was ambiguous post-war American man, willing himself to believe in things despite growing doubts. This season he's decided to love his wife, and so he's doing so, but that night at the Savoy, which began so promisingly . . .
I hope this show doesn't go one minute past its prime, but when it ends in the far future I see Draper in television. And I can't be the only one who hears "Betty" and thinks "Friedan".