Although Draper has a gift for engaging and seeing through marginalized types--the unwed mother, the Jewish heiress, the closeted gay man--in the case of the black characters, the relationship never goes beyond shallow conversation. Mad Men takes on a number of cultural controversies, yet race is treated with politeness, distance, restraint, and a heavy dose of sentimentality. For a show that takes place in the early '60s, as race riots are breaking out, this is a glaring omission.I actually think it's a beautiful, lovely, incredibly powerful omission. Mad Men is a show told from the perspective of a particular world. The people in that world barely see black people. They're there all the time--Hollis in the elevator, women working in the powder-room, the Draper's maid, the janitors, the black guy hired at Leo Burnett--but they're never quite seen. I think this is an incredible statement on how privilege, at its most insidious, really works.
I was never one of those people who wanted to see more black people on, say, Friends, or felt that Seinfeld was too white, any more than I wanted to see more white people on The Bernie Mac Show. I think we have to careful. I don't watch Mad Men to get a lesson on gender--though I sometimes do--I watch to see a good story. I understand, given the times, the desire to have the show take on race. But I don't want to see Mad Men "take on" anything. That's for bloggers, and historians to do.
To the extent that we get these other social issues (class, gender, sexual orientation etc.) it's all gravy. But great characters before everything. Great narrative before anything. Mad Men is one story about the 60s. It isn't the definitive story. I don't even know there should be such a thing.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
There's already a definitive sixties story for television. It's called American Dreams!
Also, for anybody who feels like talking about last night here, could you tip your hat to those of us who DVR'd it, and make fair warning of any spoilers.
But great characters before everything. Great narrative before anything.
I got nothing except this is absolutely true. Good art is about good art, not making political points. I've loved how Mad Men has handled race so far--and critics should make no mistake, the show's makers are definitely thinking about what they're doing--and would be disappointed to see them respond to such criticisms.
Also, what about Kinsey's girlfriend? That treatment is frigging great--how she's just a pawn in Kinsey's relationship with Joan, or at least Joan can call her that and get Kinsey's guilt going. C'mon, that's good art.
I agree.
Don Draper understands people who don't fit in, and he understands people who have secrets. But he doesn't go out of his way to try and engage with the marginalized as some kind of crusader for social justice, he engages with the people he comes across in his daily life and work: Peggy, Rachel, Sal. Because of the nature of his life to this point, he hasn't had much interaction with any black person, and, like you say, that's realistic for the time.
There's probably a way to bring about an encounter with a person of color that Don could relate to, and I think the writers of MM could pull it off. Maybe that's coming.
Utterly off topic, but...T-NC: Are you ever going to write about how Obama is completely screwing the public on health care?
I voted, donated and volunteered time for him during the primary/general election, but I am starting to get really fed up with his timidity on health care.
He's a useless f@cking shill to corporatist interests, just like the rest of those assholes.
I'd really like to see a post on how Obama is a progressive dressed in Republican clothes.
Why would I do that? I know very little about health-care. I know perhaps even less about how to sell it to the American people. I'm not sure why you want me to address it.
More to the point, there is a a daily open-thread, which I read and participate in. Plus my e-mail is to the right, and I answer it. With that in mind, thread-jacking is just wrong. Please don't do it.
Isn't there a whole open thread so that posts don't have to begin with "Utterly off topic"?
"a useless f@cking shill to corporatist interests"
Seriously? Engage in hyperbole much? Only I don't think you're trying to use hyperbole.
Off-topic -- how about the Hausner's love? Matthew Weiner is from Baltimore, but that's still a great reference.
Yeah, but apparently Haussner's die hards who had dined there for years before it closed were disappointed that some of the details were missed. No hot rolls on the table!?!? I didn't see it but as much as I'm a stickler for details, I'm just tickled Haussner's was even replicated.
I agree. Mad Men is a show about a specific strata of culture in the northeastern United States. During the early '60's, the civil rights movement in the south and black people in general were abstractions to many who lived outside of that region. I think that the show is examining the lives of these people just before the gathering storm of gender and racial politics that will eventually turn their worlds upside down.
Mad Men treats race in a very subtle fashion. The few black characters that appear or are alluded to, and the reactions of the main characters put their racial attitudes into pretty stark relief. For example, Paul Kinsey's introduction of his black girlfriend to Joan exposes Joan's casual racism and Paul's liberal condescension. Pete Campbell calls the civil rights activists in Mississippi "troublemakers" after glancing at a TV news report. There is another scene where Peggy complains about the theft of office supplies and there is a comment about the firing of the black custodial staff. A firing of convenience as it turns out, since it was fairly obvious that the office personnel was guilty. It will be interesting to see how race is treated as the show moves later into the '60's.
Yeah, the show is intended to end in 1970, and I would be stunned if it didn't tackle race more seriously before then, given history. But it's going to deal with race precisely when the characters are forced to deal with race - they would not be paying attention yet beyond the casual asides you mention.
Sometimes, you will see Hollis very briefly during an elevator scene, then seem him deliberately cropped out when conversation starts. He is absolutely intended to be there, but not seen; the show is not telling his story, but the story of the culture that brushes him out of the picture.
It's a bit funny that the linked commentator feels the show would have been better if Don had connected with a busboy - I felt it said a lot about the distance between them that it was a such an awkward scene. I thought they did an terrific job with the Mississippi storyline as well - Paul does a brave thing, but he is hardly comfortable with the people around him.
Thing is, Don DID connect with a bus boy. The very first moment of the show in S1 opens up with him picking the brain of an old black Army vet about his favorite brand of smokes and why.
I love how they handle race because they handle it ever so subtly...like when the black delivery dude comes through with the new Xerox and keeps dropping hints about "I'll put it anywhere you like" or "like I said lady, we can try as many places as you like" then subtly smirks to the side. Joan picks up on it I think and equally subtly looks off annoyed in the other direction.
I read that as a dirty older black dude dropping subtle hints about sex to this big boned gorgeous redhead--the classic "boy if I had some time alone with you, I'd wear that thang out" arrogance some black men feel when they see a voluptuous white lady. I felt justified by that read when her racism emerged.
I think Seinfeld was a little too white, only because New York is so incredibly diverse.
But look at the people at all the "brunch" spots next Sunday in Manhattan. See how many tables contain diverse groups. You can't walk outside without seeing someone who doesn't look like you in New York City but that doesn't mean you're friends.
Yeah, and while there are obviously plenty of black folks walking the sidewalks on the Upper West Side (where the show was set), as somebody who worked on W84th and Broadway for two years, I'd say it's far from being one of the more culturally diverse neighborhoods in the city.
The Seinfeld was "too white" thing is ridiculous. There were people of color all over that show--in exactly the way you'd expect someone who lived on the UWS to encounter them. At work, as their male-men, an occasional date etc. We didn't need a black recurring character.
I think another strong example of your point is looking at nightlife in the city. I buddy of mine were not too long ago lamenting the crowd make up in bars we found ourselves in where we were "the diversity".
As an aside, I could never get behind brunch.
"The Diversity" tends to prefer lounges to bars, anyway. At least in my experiences.
I used to buy that tag about Seinfeld/New York/Manhattan, until I lived here. Manhattan can be incredibly white, just walking around, going to restaurants, etc.
I don't think my initial post was too ridiculous. I am not saying that the creators of Seinfeld left out minority characters because of racism. I am also not saying that Seinfeld shouldn't be enjoyed, praised, or whatever. I am just suggesting that t he absence of minority characters isn't realistic. New York's diversity is a defining characteristic and I feel like the show could have benefited from greater diversity. I mean, check out this list of minor characters. Jackie Chiles, Babu, Ping, etc. is all we got?
Kramer's Cochran esque lawyer was Black and a recurring, semi important, character.
One thing I find interesting about the Seinfeld case is that while Jerry Seinfeld the character is white, with two white Ashkenazi Jewish parents, Jerry Seinfeld the actor is mixed. His father is a white Ashkenazi Jew, his mother is a Syrian Jew (the Syrian Jews' ancestry is a blend of Spanish and Middle Eastern, and they traditionally spoke dialects of Spanish and Arabic). So the character version of Jerry Seinfeld is actually a whitewashed Jerry Seinfeld.
I think it would have been cool if they had not whitewashed him, if they had allowed the character's mother, like the actor's, to be a Jew of color, a non-Ashkenazi Jew, from a distinct cultural background, had the character reference that background. Non-Ashkenazi Jews and Jews of color are woefully underrepresented in pop culture, to the point where many Americans don't realize that they exist.
As a side note, David Liss' book "The Coffee Trader's" protagonist, Miguel Lienzo, is a Sephardic Jew. I thought that was unusual and actually emailed the author as to why he chose his character's background. He replied (!) that he did that because up until the 18th century (IIRC, I could be wrong on the date), the Sephardim were the dominant Jewish group in Europe.
Unitl he wrote back telling me this, I had always assumed that the Ashkenazi were always the most prominent/dominant Jewish group in Europe. The things you learn.
Just as I never watched Friends specifically because it's lack of diversity I won't watch Mad Men. If I wanted to see sexist, racist white men running the office I simply visualize GW Bush's administration - no need for it to be on my TV screen.
One of the best articles I`ve read recently on "Mad Men" was by LaToya Peterson (surprised?) her figuring out why she hates Pete Campbell, his embodiment of white privilege. http://www.racialicious.com/2009/08/13/fuck-pete-campbell-mediations-on-mad-men-and-whiteness/
And to make a side point, "Seinfeld" far outshone "Friends" on the race issues, the episode where George gets an exterminator to pretend to be his buddy so he can show a co-worker he has black friends. George also gets some hot action with a bottle of oil and a home care worker in another episode.
There was also the episode where Kramer (i know, ironic here) wanted to look good when he met his new girlfriend's family so he decided to fake bake a tan. He falls asleep in the tanning bed and shows up to meet his Black girlfriend's Black family looking like he was in Blackface.
Elaine's boyfriend she thinks may be black? I hear ya sister! "Seinfeld" focuses more on the awkward interactions between races.
I feel like I'm the only person who doesn't hate Pete Campbell's guts. I kind of like the guy. He's almost a parody of the WASPy blue-blood archetype we've been collectively making fun of since teh Gilded Age. And he's got a sense of humor that I would think would make him at least somewhat sufferable in real life.
The way people talk about him you'd think they were talking about Rawls from the Wire (although he could be funny too, he was just pure evil, is all.)
Check out the interview in Salon with Vincent Karthesier; he really loves the character and gets why he's terrible and also kind of sympathetic.
Nope, you are not the only one who doesn't hate Pete's guts. I don't hate him. It's weird for me. I don't necessarily like Pete, but I don't hate him either. I feel bad for him sometimes cause he does get shafted. Pete is not evil, he just doesn't realize how good he has it and I think it gets under the viewers skin.
Pete Campbell is the kind of guy you love to hate. He was so spoiled when he was a kid that you kind of feel sorry for him not getting his way. That's how I feel anyway. It's kind of funny that he always needs someone to validate his existence. He always needs Don to verify if what he is doing, is correct or not.
A few weeks back, after viewing the first few episodes of Season I of Mad Men, I was left with an uncomfortable feeling in my gut and an unpleasant taste in my mouth.
The powerlessness of women and AF Americans angered and saddened me.
While the show is visually stunning -- the glossy power suits and gleaming cars -- and well written, the blatant misogny and the invisibility of African Americans, except in service roles, was too much, I think, for me to process at first.
Plus, I could not find even one character that I wanted to like or could even relate to. The men (especially Don Draper) are sexist, racist and self-centered; the women submissive and passive.
The show truly unsettled me for a few (long) days. So much so that I wondered why it was troubling me so much.
I soon realized that the reason the show disturbed me so was because of its historical accuracy.
Mad Men, in depicting the reality of its time period so well, was too real for me. It made me squirm to see how disreectfully women were treated in the workplace, in the home -- to see how litte value men placed on them.
And it especially made me squirm to see just how invisible Af Americans were at that time. Despite being always there, in the background, standing by quietly, waiting to serve, they were regulated almost to "non-persons" or ghosts.
I have decided to revisit the show; any show that elicits such a strong emotional reaction from me deserves another chance.
I'm old enough (barely, at 44) (and also white) to remember the tail end of that era in Northern Virginia. Blatant misogyny and racism weren't tolerated, in polite company, by the early 70's. Bu it was still there.
You know, I'm glad you made the choice, because I love the show and think lots of people should watch it. But if you get turned off again, I want to point out that it's okay to not watch something that upsets you or makes you uncomfortable, no matter how good it is. I've watched too many things out of a sense of obligation over the years.
I've just recently started watching season 1 as well, and I've felt just like you've described. But for me I'm torn about whether I should continue watching. I mean the show is unsettling and maybe frustrating to a point that I'm not sure I even enjoy watching it. I feel like it leaves me in an almost bad mood. So I'm sort of left to wonder why I should watch such a thing in my free time.
I remember people telling me they wouldn't watch The Wire or The Corner for similar reasons- that it was depressing- and I didn't really see the big deal. But this show, I think I get it. It bothers me. We'll see if I continue on.
It was the brutal honesty of Mad Men that drew me in....because, this was REALITY. REALITY of Blacks who had MBAs, PhDs, advanced degrees, and they were literally cut off from even having the possibility of fulfilling their potential. I, too, was mad as a mutha, but this was reality back then. that's why when folks talk about the ' good old days', my side eye goes up, because I KNOW WHAT THEY MEAN. ...and no, I'm not going back to that.
I agree. Given the time period, I accept that this was the way things were. Not to say that there weren't any ad execs of color in the early 60s; I'm sure there were. But I really don't need the series to "tackle" race.
The race thing vis-a-vis the 60's has been done alot anyway. This is the first show/work I've seen (there's probably others - I just don't know about them) that really tackles gender in American society this well and puts blatant/extreme misogyny up for examination.
I believe the new season is set in 1963, before race riots of the 1960's really started. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_riots#1960s).
It seems like summer, because Betty is still pregnant, and she got pregnant around the time of the Cuban missile crisis, which was the previous Fall.
I assumed Weiner would dodge the Kennedy Assasination, but it's looking as though they might end the season with that, if they stay roughly 1 to 1 with the number of weeks this show will be airing this season.
I don't know, you guys. I can think of quite a few moments where the show addresses race in the 60s. But it does it recognizing that no one on that show is ever going to have a Very Special Moment regarding race. A few examples (all from previous seasons... so I don't think there are spoilers)
- The first scene of the show when Don asks the AA waiter why he smokes the cigarettes he does. The waiter is just another demographic to Don. He can't be bothered to notice that he's put the waiter in a bad spot. And then when the manager comes and asks if the waiter is bothering Don, Don gets to play the big man.
- In the next season, when Don engaged the elevator operator in what he thought were cahoots in order to exact revenge on Roger. Same vibe as the waiter. Everyone knows but Don that he's being an entitled, privileged asshole and could very well cost the man his job.
- Betty goes home and you meet the black woman who, for all intents and purposes, raised her. This woman is obviously incredibly important to Betty, but Betty is still unable to relate this woman to the woman woman who's raising her own kids.
I'm not sure of any way for them to introduce race in a way that would feel as honest as it does now.
Sorry for the repeat, didnt see you brought up the first scene also.
Re: when Betty went home, she tried to get live on that woman who raised her and the woman quietly but swiftly corrected her: "Oh so you gonna show me your temper now?" and Betty softened immediately. I thought it was a powerful moment too.
Another moment was the interaction between the black delivery guy dropping off a Xerox as he (I thought) flirted with Joan as I argue above.
Another moment I thought was interesting was when Roger asked Don if he'd heard about another ad agency hiring a Negro fella. He asked Don what he thought about that, and he said (I think) "Im just glad Im not that colored kid" in recognition of the abuse the kid could undoubtedly expect as a trailblazer.
I thought it was perfect for his character--sensitive yet insensitive, and conceding to the racism of the time while not endorsing it.
I would also take issue with the characterization that Don has a gift for engaging with marginalized types. I think it's more that he empathizes with people who are hiding behind a persona they've created for themselves; he keeps their secrets and doles out advice about how to keep up the subterfuge.
This is right. The show is about liars, how people lie to maintain control in relationships, and how relationships where one person controls another are based on lies. Don has figured out how the system works, and is happy to give other liars a leg up because it makes him feel a little better about himself.
I would agree with this in regards to Sal and Peggy, and I almost wrote something about it in my comment above. I think it's something about the phrase "engaging with marginalized types" that rubbed me the wrong way - it makes Don sound like a stand-up guy who goes and sits with the nerds at the lunch table.
But then I noticed that TNC alludes to Rachel Mencken, the Jewish department store heiress. She didn't have secrets, necessarily, but she was marginalized, being Jewish and a woman. And I think Don related to her marginalization (in addition to her other attributes.)
But maybe the sexual nature of their relationship makes this example a bad one.
I think when Don is kind to Sal and Peggy he gets to feel like he's letting his mask slip a little, which is a psychological relief, but he doesn't have to give up any real control because he knows these characters are marginalized and cannot harm him. Rachel was more complex. It's like the character wanted to have a relationship where he could take his mask off but she wasn't having any of it. She didn't like his lie-life. I really need to re-watch the last two seasons....
TNC, I hear what you're saying about great character, great stories and dynamic story lines, but your mention of Bernie Mac made me think about the way that show and most black shows almost always
engage with whiteness, not simply through white characters.
In Mac's confessional when he's addressing "America," isn't he at least partially addressing white folk, white viewers and whiteness? "Come on, America, I know what you're thinking. What would make Bernie Mac use such a vile word?" he asked in episode 21. In this way, whiteness was an integral part of the show without dictating all of the character or wonder of the story. Mac anticipated the gaze, talked to the gaze but moved through the world beautifully black and ironic.
Weiner did something similar in an episode of Sopranos called "Unidentified Black Males". Of course, some grown white folks go through their days without interacting with black folks. But none of those folks go through their daily lives without interacting with, or being shaped by forms of blackness. That, like Cliff and Claire Huxtable being black professionals who never have to deal with what Baldwin called the weight of white folks, is stuff of science fiction. But I wonder if we see it that way.
I know good characters and stories are the primary ingredient of dope narrative, but you got me thinking about whether good characters and stories are enough.
I thought the "Come on America" bit was fucking genius--mostly because it does mean "White America," and yet it means something bigger than "White America." It means an "America" that is not just partially removed from the black experience--but from the Mexican-American experience, the Italian immigrant experience, the Asian-American experience, the white Southern experience, the white Appalachian experiance.
He is not addressing "White America" as much as he addressing Upper-Middle Class quasi-Suburban value systems. That the people who embody that happen to be white is almost--almost--beside the point. The "Come on, America" is powerful--it otherizes America. It does not mark Bernie Mac's blackness, so much as it marks his station outside of "that America." Obviously race is tied into that, but that station does not strictly belong to black people. It belongs to anyone who comes from another tradition and is struggling to get in.
My biggest beef with "Friends" and "Seinfeld" wasn't the overwhelming "Whiteness" in front of the camera. Tho' that was bad enough, especially for an AA woman who in the '70's had an eastside NYC apt., who's first two roomates were White woman, who was a stewardess, and who dated Black and White men. (Ok, so I should have written my own sit-com.)
My biggest beef with the entire entertainment industry is that in the year 2009, it is still perhaps the most segregated business in this country. Despite the success off the "Ones"--Oprah, Will, Denzel, Tyler etc, look behind the cameras, in the corporate suites of the movie and television companies, in the production and writing offices, in the PR firms, talent agencies and management firms, in the animation studios--White, White and more White. The next time any of the big industry unions goes on strike-writers, directors, or "below the line," check out the picket lines. No Asians, Hispanics or Black people.
And we are talking thousands of jobs that pay upwards--usually way upwards--of 50k a year. I had mid-level publicists reporting to me at one of the worlds biggest entertainment companies who were making more than 150k @ year and this was 5 years ago. Sure, entry level jobs pay a whole lot less, but people of color are not even in those jobs. My daughter worked for a couple of years as a "trainee/asst" at one of the biggest talent agencies in Hollywood (for the usual pittance) and she was always one of usually two or three people of color in the whole agency. Mid-level talent agents make at least 250k and for senior agents, its millions.
Seeing people of color in front of the camera is certainly no guarantee that they hold jobs behind it. But I know from personal experience that for example, "The Cosby Show" had more than the usual number of POC working on that set and in those offices. I can dig that "charecters and story" come first. I still love the classic Hollywood movies about corp. America i.e. "The Best of Everything" and "Executive Suite" I just can't stomach this shit more than fifty years later.
Yeah. Mad Men wouldn't be a problem in a world where we were used to a lot of diversity on and off-screen. I think a lot of the criticism of Mad Men is not about the show as much as it is about the world the show is being produced in-- where whitewashing still happens and there are very few black/POC directors, agents, etc.
I myself personally can't believe that an LP entitled "Boston" wasn't a concept album about ethnic tension stemming from school busing.
just cutting to the end to avoid spoilage of my belated viewing pleasure so I apologize if this has been covered but one the worst kinds of criticism is when a work is criticized not for what it does but for what it doesn't do, as when a critic wants the author to have written a book other than the one he/she wrote. This kind if using other peoples art/works as a kind of parasitic-vehicle for getting your own ideas out there sucks, that said if marginalized groups want to take advantage of PR/news/sales-hype to get a message out than I say go for it.
Comparisons are always invited whether superlative or negative. Part of evaluating a work is in its relative merit. For example, I recently was sent a recording to review. The recording was done by an artist I admire and have been listening to for over two decades. In this case, this artist was doing an homage to another artist by playing his songs. What can one say; it does a disservice to the original because it lacks many of the original's virtues. Personally, I would have rather this artist done a retrospective on his own work where his style of playing and arrangement would have been far more suitable and effective. I think critical writing while secondary to the work it refers to and containing a double edged sword can have a salutary effect when it is presented honestly, even given that all of us have cultural assumptions and biases that affect our perspective.
I wonder in our current cultural milieu, its relationship to gender, money, etc, for example, if Jack Kerouac's cast of characters living at the same time as Mad Men would be half so appealing to the US televiewing audiences as Mad Men is.
I wholeheartedly agree that I don't want "lessons" from the show (a reason American Dreams, mentioned above, came nowhere near Mad Men's level).
I do find a small fault with the show thus far, however (end of season 2, anyway), and I'm interested to see where they go with race. I understand that blacks were long-suffering in a way we cannot even conceive of, and this was necessary for self-preservation. But long-suffering paragons, I don't much like. I want to see fallible characters. Carla is wise and wonderful. The nanny who raised Betty is wise and wonderful. The girlfriend from New Jersey is very admirable. I want some complexity, even if the blacks for now are in the background.
Trying to make the definitive story about the 60's is what killed Rabbit Redux. It ended up being a mess because Updike tried to cram in everything in order to make it a portrait of an era, rather than just a story representative of the era.
I thought the woefully simple version of the Rabbit books is that Rabbit Redux is about the 70s. Rabbit, Run is the 60s; same for Rich/80s and at Rest/90s. I can hardly remember Redux now compared to the others (meaning I probably think it's the weakest of the four).
But they weren't really about the decade as much as the impact of that decade's zeitgeist (shudder) has on the of American White Male that Rabbit represents?
Spoiler Alert--
I think you're off a decade in your assignemnts--Rabbit Run is the 50's, Redux is the 60's, Rich is the 70, and at rest is the 80's. (ALthough each of the Novels was published at the end of the decade in question/beginning of the next decade, so there's some slight overlap and foreshadowing.)
Redux was set in 1969--it opens with the moon landing--and was published in the early 70's. It's very much about the late 60's experience, with Rabbit seperating from his wife and then ending up somehow with a black Vietnam veteran and white hippy runaway chick living in his house, doing drugs, debating the war, etc.
It all felt very forced to me, with Updike trying to shove in the war, Civil Rights, drugs, hippies, Summer of Love, sexual revolution, etc. Maybe it really was all that mashed up and confusing and random--I wasn't alive at the time so I can't say for sure. But I don't think Updike managed to craft the chaos of the period into a very good novel. And I really liked the other 3.
I disagree to the extent that I think it isn't true to Draper's character to sympathize with a gay colleague, as a macho womanizer. despite his more intrinsically holistic socio-political sensibilities.
I think he was trying to tell the dude that nobody else better find out--period, and that was the point of the story about the woman he told.
Yes, blacks were invisible in these circles, but there is the colleague who had a black girlfriend and travels down south to register voters, but dissent is still so hushed that it only appeared in folk songs at hootenannys until Dr. king took it to TV news--which I am sure will be an electrifying backdrop this season to some extent. Don will be removed from it probably because his narciscism only allots him so much extraneous outside interests in his world: can he sell it or bed it?
Going with the Friends and Seinfeld feelings, I had this debate back when Queer as Folk hit Showtime. Gay folks I know were not happy that there was no black or consistent character of color on the show. Very few even in the background club scenes or as sex partners (though that changed a bit in later seasons). My response was that this helped make the show real from the perspective of the main characters. I know and see many gay white men whose lives do not intersect with black and brown men on a personal level. Coworker? Yes. Occasional sex partner? Sure, for some. But everything else is far removed, like loving Beyonce or Prince and enjoying Will Smith movies but not having any black friends. It's reality even living in the big city.
When did they start airing that disclaimer about how the show only represents a slice of gay life?
I thought about that and can not recall. I almost feel like it was there in the beginning or at least season one but am unsure.
shrug...at any rate, it's funny how everyone has black friends when being accused of prejudice, but the reality is usually entirely different. i guess that's why shows like Queer as Folk, Friends, Seinfeld, Sex in the City, Entourage, and How I Met Your Mother continue to get made.
I love the show, but am I the only one who feels a little bitter when Mad Men is showered with accolades (the Emmy and Golden Globe dominance)?
I'm working on it, but I still can't shake the feeling that The Wire wasn't given its proper due. It's as if the mad men of the Academy treated The Wire just as Sterling Cooper treated its black employees--that of invisibility or polite tolerance.
I don't know...I guess i just wish that The Wire was celebrated just as much as Mad Men, The Sopranos, or Six Feet Under.
end rant.
This is true. But it isn't Mad Men's fault. Moreoever, I'm not sure it's worth being pissed at the Academy. I think their ignoring of The Wire is their burden to carry. It's on their credibility, not The Wire's.
Ditto! And continually ignoring quality programs like The Wire, The Shield, Battlestar Galatica may be one of the reasons ratings for the broadcast's ratings are on the decline.
Oops, should have previewed before hitting submit.
Should be : "may be one of the reasons that ratings for the broadcast are on the decline."
Well, there's no way The Wire and Shield would have been the same if on broadcast networks, more clearly with the former. It would have been as much about what you explore on the show as how it's explored.
I expected the Academy to do that for a period piece.
This was a big factor in why I liked District 9. I've seen a lot of people complain that the movie wasted an opportunity to comment on apartheid, but I found it a lot more effective that the aliens as allegory for black South Africans was simply the backdrop for the story and not really the point of it.
There are tons of people reading D9 as a comment on Apartheid era South Africa, though there isn't much textual evidence of that. There's a much broader theme about understanding the other based on empathy rather than an outsider's view (or even sympathy), riding on top of the stuff about powerless people (or prawns . . . pawns, get it) trampled in battles for power.
I just saw the movie. Actually, it seems less lie a comment on apartheid, altho there are elements there. It's really more on the nose regarding the current situation with Zimbabwean refugees who've poured in South Africa, where the locals don't want them there (especially with the outbreaks of cholera, etc. in Zimbabwe, there's a connotation of uncleanliness), the shunting of people into shantytowns and their exploitation by criminal gangs.
God, I needed to take a second to edit.
*like, not lie
*into, not in
Yeah, I never wanted to see more Black people on 'Friends' or 'Seinfeld' either, mostly because I grew to hate Friends and grew bored with 'Seinfeld.' That said, I don't think seeing more Black characters on those shows would be a dishonorable goal. To me it's more about the business of Hollywood than it is about "reality" ( I mean seriously is either of those shows reflective of anything but the writer's experiences and in the case of 'Friends', viewer wish-lists?).
So, yeah, White folks and Black folks don't hang out all that much in Manhattan. But some do. What's wrong with reflecting that "reality" with a cast member of color for the top rated sitcoms in decades?
Of course in Friends it probably would have thrown a wrench into all that love triangle stuff that was happening. So maybe that cast member of color might have made it impossible for Friends to get so popular.
Seinfield would have likely survived (yes I remember Greg Morris)
As an artist who happens to be black and female, I couldn't agree more with the view that an artist's work should be free from appropriation. I was ambivalent towards the controversy over acclaimed doc filmmaker Ken Burns' piece on World War 2 because it didn't include a Hispanic angle. It was also vexing hearing Spike Lee call out Clint Eastwood's own WW2 piece for not including African Americans even though ironically he was working on a black WW2 film. I'm admittedly annoyed at the dearth of black women on screen especially as central characters but that's why I chose to pursue filmmaking as a career. And to me the marginalization of certain images creates an opening for me to create a niche career. Black women are so ignored that if I can be recognized for offering a consistant body of great stories featuring black women, even if independent like John Sayles, I would've done what I've set out for.
In Spike's case, I suspect marketing his film was at least in part a motivation for him calling out Clint Eastwood.
Good luck to you, MissBabette. I think there totally need to be more black women onscreen!
Huh?
It is a a "beautiful, lovely, incredibly powerful omission" for people of African descent to be reduced to stereotypes in this fictional television show however when a contemporary TV serious does the same thing it is ok because "I never needed to see Black folks in Seinfeild"
This is the ultimate racial win win situation. If there are no Black folks on the show except in stereotypes the producer can say please don't be offended--what you are seeing is in fact a "beautiful omission" because white folks didn't see black folks. On the other hand if there are no black folks in Seinfield except for stereotypes then producers can say---we don't need to see any Black folks.
Fact is Black characters are rarely seen on TV except in stereotypical roles---the Black show you made mention of went off the air years ago---take a look at the promo for next fall for ABC--a clever wonderful promo about living in the same house----and yet not one, not one, not one Black person---is this too another Beautiful omission?
I would rather do this---If Black folks are unseen by white folks then don't include them at all---no one needs to continually see Black folks in stereotypical characters---it is lazy,unhealthy and untrue.
I actually dont think the black characters are reduced to stereotypes. They show a wisdom and dignity in confronting the casual racism of the whites on the show that few of the other characters seem to possess.
Did you see the examples cited in the thread?
You seem to be putting ideology ahead of analysis here, no offense.
An African American maid, an African American powder woman an African American elevator operator are all stereotypes of people of African descent. This is a work of fiction the characters could have been anyone---instead they hold the position of Black people "taking it in stride" (to quote Family Guy)when they are confronted with "casual racism". I for one am unaware of exactly what is casual about an act of racism.
Stereotype? It's New York City in 1960 - who do you think is working the crappy service sector jobs that make upper class white peoples' lives more comfortable? Why do you think that some of the biggest civil rights protests in the North were centered around either retail stores or construction sites?
This is a show that, in the end, is trying to tell a story about our history - and a big part of that history was segregation. How do you portray what segregation was, how it functioned as an economic, social, and cultural institution without actually showing at it was?
The person that needs to be taken to task about stereotypes is Tyler Perry. He's exhuming minstrelsy and people are eating that shit up.
The fact that the only way that far too many African American film makers can get their projects onto the big screen or the small screen is by presenting stereotypical black people makes my point.
The reason they're not stereotypes is because the show depicts them as real people rather than caricatures. Be careful of getting hung up on the matter of what they do for a living rather than how they interact with their society. Deciding that the measure of a person is defined mainly by their occupation is altogether different from racial prejudice, but it's still a common blind spot that I think all of us engage in to some extent.
I have seen TV shows where black lawyers and politicians were played closer to stereotypes (by buying into the idea that successful blacks are essentially high-class street hustlers) than the elevator operators and housemaids of Mad Men. You can see a subtle mix of deference, resentment, frustration, and other things in they way all the AA characters on Mad Men, as little as we see them, react to the whites around them. It's not like watching a movie from the 1950s where the only black actor plays a train car porter with one line who walks on set and then off. I didn't live through the era but the MM approach rings more true.
I didn't get into Mad Men in its first two years. But everyone is calling my attention to it now. Let me say I never cared for either Seinfeld or Friends because both shows were about people who never grew up after college. They bored me; I didn't think they were funny or interesting.
Seeing the first show of MadMen last night, a far different show with far different purposes, I must say I didn't find much there there either, just some unsympathetic characters in grey flannel suits--indeed the society wide objects of ridicule in their time real time living up to their bad reputations. In some ways Draper struck me as a George Clooney character without the sense of humor or humanity. But I will give it some airings to see if it picks up.
Anyone who is comparing this to the Wire, however, or even Homicide insofar as character and story line, do it a disservice. Like telling me that last year's Pittsburgh Steelers were the best defense in NFL history. It is what it is.
I do think that complaining about the lack of diversity in this is weird; it's Madison Ave. in the early 60s not Star Trek.
What struck me most was the gay pick up scene. Even the stewardess and Draper had to go through some song and dance foreplay--"What are we doing?"
Ok, maybe the scene with the little girl at the end got to me; my thought was, Draper better be prepared for daddy's little girl running away in ten years to San Francisco or Taos, New Mexico with a great deal of resentment towards him heaped up.
I think it would be almost impossible to start watching Mad Men with season 3, not for the plot but because more than anything it is an extended character study, you gotta see the first 2 seasons to understand the character's back stories.
Humor me with a comparison to The Wire.
If you started on the first episode in Season 3, would you feel sufficiently informed to judge it based on a quick thumbnail sketch such as?
The gay pick-up scene for example, picks up where an even more tense and well-paced moment unravelled in Season 2, but if you didnt watch S2 you wouldnt know that.
I dont think Im doing a disservice at all by comparing it to The Wire--like The Wire, the story is highly detailed, highly committed to accuracy in fashion, environment, history and tone, and assumes a level of intelligence in the viewer that allows for sometimes painstakingly slow reveals over several episodes if not seasons. Finally there are critiques of society at large, and the conflict between institutions and individuals, that dont always scream "message!" the way so much network TV does.
You mentioned giving it some airings--Id advise you try and watch some back episodes first, see if it does pick up.
I am going to stick w it and if I like it will pick up past seasons, but as far as humoring you with a comparison to The Wire, I have one word for you: Omar.
You have it backwards. Your going to make your judgments based on season three--when all of the recommendations are based on one and two.
Beyond that, I think it's smart to avoid the notion of objective quality. I'll never watch True Blood. Doesn't mean it isn't a great show. It just isn't for me. Everyone doesn't have to like Mad Men. Batman Begins is, to me, a great film. A lot of people won't agree with that. That's fine.
I dont get it?
True Blood is not a great show, merely a good one. It is doing an interesting remapping of race, but I think it is falling way, way short of the reality to which it is analogizing itself, because it's set today, so it assumes people have the tolerance developed over the past 50 yrs, rather than showing the true ostentatiously violent bigotry of the time and place to which it is analogizing itself ('50s-'60 South). The most interesting aspect of the show is its picture of the rise of a violent Christian right, which is an increasingly apropos slice of our current environment. But bottom line, you're not missing anything essential by skipping it -- especially given the unwatchable scenes between the two romantic leads.
Elsewhere, I'm not sure if you're going this far, but I count myself among the minority (at least among folks I've encountered) that considers Batman Begins a better film than The Dark Knight, the heroic Ledger performance notwithstanding.
@TN--well, I agree with you that life is too short to bother with entertainments that don't appeal to one's taste. So investing in seing earlier seasons will be contingent on whether I like what I see here. Even if I had only seen the last season of the Wire, which was the least of the five, I would have gone back and seen the whole thing.
While I know taste is personal--you raise True Blood, I have the same problem with Breaking Bad--far be it from me to put the show down, I'm just not interested--my comparitive perspective in this case seems to have some critical backing to it.
I do think on every level the Wire was the far and away most superior television program that I have seen in my life, and it's foolish to talk about this show that while it appears to have a good ensemble of actors being in the smae category. For me, if I am going to enjoy Mad Men, it's not so much a matter of letting go the idea of "objective" quality, but not having to contend with a hype to which the show cannot live up and with which it will likely continuously fall short.
@Juba--ok, to put it another way, I'll give you another word: Bubbles. There you have it, Omar and Bubbles--secondary characters both--and who else, who else--how many? So...in Mad Men there is...?
However, while as Ezra Pound says comparisons are odius, I did pick out the two scenes that struck me most for discussion.
Very well Citizen E. I'll strain some comparisons.
Don Draper to me is as fascinating, macho and self-destructive as McNulty, though more in his personal life than professional life.
I love Peggy's character--she is so ashamed of her Brooklyn past and family ties and intent upon breaking the glass ceiling that its turning her just as cold and ambitious as Don--sort of like Ronnie but way, way more hardcore and without a soft side.
Sal is sharp, smooth and kind--one of the most fundamentally decent people on the show, but with a shocking secret of homosexuality he does everything he can do to conceal including getting married to a nice girl. A touch of Bubbles I suppose, in terms of decency and the danger of being undercover, though in a different way.
Sterling is a brilliant character--charismatic, vulgar and highly intelligent. Has some feeling but wont ever let it stand in the way of chasing his ambitions with no apology. He's sort of like Rawls in that way.
How's that to start out with?
Oh! Duck Phillips = Marimow, thats one of the better fits.
Cosgrove = Sydnor. Young, talented, amiable, does his job well without rocking the boat, gradually being unveiled as a substantive guy.
Pete Campbell = Valcheck...Just a jealous, negative little spoiled jerk whose willingness to play dirty and backstab attracts like-minded people in higher positions of power
I can think of more...
CitizenE, if you're still reading this, I think a sign of how Mad Men has built up its storylines is that apparently when the 'gay pick up scene' was shown in Times Square, most of the audience started cheering. (With good reason, I'll add!)
Fantastic points. The only thing I'd suggest is that if you're not tuning in to see the show make a point about gender, you're not tuning in. I agree that the show would fall on its face if it tried to take on race to quickly/directly, largely because it would lose the historical sensitivity to the actual lived experience in that era. (Perhaps as the decade progresses, however...) But the other reason it wold have a hard time taking on race is because it has its hands utterly full already dealing with gender. It's essentially a show about gender with fantastically real characters, stories, and design.
Actually at some point, if the show keeps going for years, it will need to transition to dealing with the other issues of the decade (perhaps accomplished by a widening of the lens, as the narrative possibilities of the Sterling-Cooper New York office begin to feel a bit cramped.) I look forward to that when the time is right, but for now I agree that a too-conscious, inorganic effort to force social reckonings into the narrative that aren't firmly rooted in the characters themselves and the slow if profound changes happening in the period out of a misguided and ahistorical desire for inclusiveness could quickly derail the artistic success the show has been so far.
I'm with ya here, TNC. I think the people who do "Mad Men" know exactly what they're doing.
The Season Three premiere: No Duck Phillips? It was obvious at the end of last season that he was on the way out, but I'd hoped they'd let him be kicked around for a few more episodes. Sigh! Also, I hope Jimmy Barrett makes a few more appearances.
Mad Men is pretty great but you can't help feeling that the reason a lot of people like it is because it presents this idealized white male fantasy world. That's probably the price of doing business since shows that pull punches or get preachy or try to deal with social issues unambiguously almost always suck.
Where, exactly is the idealization?
The whole point of Mad Men is creating an exaggerated, fetishized image of privileged white society in the 1960s - and then showing that everyone inside it is completely miserable, that the whole thing is a facade that's about to crack open.
Yeah, it's hard to see something as idealized when we spent half the second season wondering if a main character was going to commit suicide.
I'm currently reading Matthew E. May's "In Pursuit of Elegance," and he references how what we omit can often speak more powerfully than what we leave in or force when it comes to ideas (i.e., the screen going black at The Sopranos finale, the initial shock and awe over the iPhone's anti-keyboard).
To that end, MM makes deafening statements about how painfully ignorant (of many things) the world of Sterling Cooper is. Change is apparently the theme of this season, so I fully expect many of these illusions to crumble and wouldn't be surprised if, let's say, a fly landed in the buttermilk.
I recommend folks check out what Weiner himself said about race, MM, and the ad industry when giving a red carpet interview: http://ow.ly/kuYP
While I've read that the writers were meticulous in trying to capture the feel of the timeperiod (and for the most part have succeeded), I'm surprised that with the agency being based in NY, black entertainers and trailblazers who were able to interact and were courted by adveristing agencies don't play some part in the show. Boxing was a big time sport that had agencies clammoring for a piece of Sonny Liston and Ali, though at that time he was Cassius Clay. Yes, they did their homework regarding white culture and norms, and while I do believe the show is not required to give a lesson on race relations, back then money still talked. African Americans were making inroads in comedy (Dick Gregory, Nipsey Russell, Bill Cosby - this was also the era of the cool, hip, shark skin suit wearing black man cracking jokes), sports (particularly football) as well as the recording artists. Sydney Poitier had won the Oscar as Best Actor, Sammy Davis Jr. was touring with the Rat Pack. Lena Horne and Ella Fitzgerald inspired awe. These were just a few of the people who could and did mingle with the Don Draper types, blacks who seemed to live a life of priviledge beyond the doorman, elevator operator and maid.
To balance the show out, I expect Don Draper to have an affair with an African American woman. He should at least have an affair with a minority woman of some kind. The show just wouldn't be right without that. I'm joking a bit here.