Mad Men countdown

[the G-man]

I think the ambiguity of which Weiner had spoken regarding the ending is not so much "did Don write the commercial" but "why Don wrote the commercial."

Some will see it as him doing it as an embrace of "new Don." Others will see it as "old Don cynically cashing in." Still others will see it as a mixture of both in varying. degrees.

 

[Push The Button]

It's 1970, and Don is finally in California, newly enlightened. He's in the right place, at the right time, while all of this is happening.

 

[Lord Garth]

I don't think Don went back to McCann. Old Don wouldn't have. New Don is even less likely. Like he said, he's retired. I could see Don going back to Sterling Cooper -- if it still existed -- but I could never see him going back to McCann.

Also, let's not forget that in one of the recaps (I believe for the episode where Don walked out of McCann), Don said that if he ever left [Sterling Cooper] it would be to do something else. That wouldn't have been shown in the recap if it didn't matter to the current storyline.

 

[Karzak]

Matthew Weiner (finally) comments on the finale:

Yes, Don Draper created the Coke ad. The last scenes of the series features Don hugging a stranger at a retreat and meditating with hippies, before the episode cuts to the 1971 Coca-Cola "Hilltop" commercial, to infer that Don returns to McCann-Erickson and creates that ad. "I have never been clear, and I have always been able to live with ambiguities," said Weiner. "In the abstract, I did think, why not end this show with the greatest commercial ever made? In terms of what it means to people and everything, I am not ambiguity for ambiguity's sake. But it was nice to have your cake and eat it too, in terms of what is advertising, who is Don and what is that thing?"

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/mad-men-series-finale-matthew-797302?facebook_20150520

 

[Warped9]

Matthew Weiner (finally) comments on the finale:

Yes, Don Draper created the Coke ad. The last scenes of the series features Don hugging a stranger at a retreat and meditating with hippies, before the episode cuts to the 1971 Coca-Cola "Hilltop" commercial, to infer that Don returns to McCann-Erickson and creates that ad. "I have never been clear, and I have always been able to live with ambiguities," said Weiner. "In the abstract, I did think, why not end this show with the greatest commercial ever made? In terms of what it means to people and everything, I am not ambiguity for ambiguity's sake. But it was nice to have your cake and eat it too, in terms of what is advertising, who is Don and what is that thing?"

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/mad-men-series-finale-matthew-797302?facebook_20150520

Seriously? Then that's shit. It effectively undermines everything the poor bastard went through.

To hell with it. I'm sticking with my interpretation given the ambiguity of the ending.

 

[J.T.B.]

I don't think Don went back to McCann. Old Don wouldn't have. New Don is even less likely. Like he said, he's retired. I could see Don going back to Sterling Cooper -- if it still existed -- but I could never see him going back to McCann.

Well, if he's working with Coke he'd have to be back at McCann.

Also, let's not forget that in one of the recaps (I believe for the episode where Don walked out of McCann), Don said that if he ever left [Sterling Cooper] it would be to do something else. That wouldn't have been shown in the recap if it didn't matter to the current storyline.

True, but as I said earlier that was the Don who was afraid of being found out and always had it at the back of his mind to flee and re-start another life.

 

[Karzak]

Matthew Weiner (finally) comments on the finale:

Yes, Don Draper created the Coke ad. The last scenes of the series features Don hugging a stranger at a retreat and meditating with hippies, before the episode cuts to the 1971 Coca-Cola "Hilltop" commercial, to infer that Don returns to McCann-Erickson and creates that ad. "I have never been clear, and I have always been able to live with ambiguities," said Weiner. "In the abstract, I did think, why not end this show with the greatest commercial ever made? In terms of what it means to people and everything, I am not ambiguity for ambiguity's sake. But it was nice to have your cake and eat it too, in terms of what is advertising, who is Don and what is that thing?"

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/mad-men-series-finale-matthew-797302?facebook_20150520

Seriously? Then that's shit. It effectively undermines everything the poor bastard went through.

To hell with it. I'm sticking with my interpretation given the ambiguity of the ending.

I am simultaneously in awe of and also astonished, honesrtly,how just a few pages ago you were all about respecting Weiner's intentions:

On another complete non sequitur note, am I the only one who looked at the guy wearing a red jumpsuit in group therapy (with Supergirl no less) and kept thinking of Harry Mudd?

Never occured to me. And now that you've mentioned it it still doesn't click for me.


The ending has no right answer, which is what MW wants.

...and now that Weiner has clarified a position you don't agree with, you just toss it out the window like it's nothing?

I'm all for ambiguity and taking from it what each of us wants to, but jeez...

 

[Warped9]

MW effectively shot himself in the foot. The ending is ambiguous, but then MW says it's not. If it's not supposed to be then why make it so?

To hell with him.

 

[Karzak]

MW effectively shot himself in the foot. The ending is ambiguous, but then MW says it's not. If it's not supposed to be then why make it so?

To hell with him.

Good lord. Seriously?

 

[Dick Whitman]

Warped9 Are you going to add Mad Men under

STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?

with the years you personally approve ignoring the rest.... Or just the finale or just that interview excluded....

 

[Karzak]

Warped9 Are you going to add Mad Men under

STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?

with the years you personally approve ignoring the rest.... Or just the finale or just that interview excluded....

After that epic 180, he's probably being treated for whiplash.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Tim Goodman makes the case for Don's spiritual enlightenment:

"In the wake of what will likely go down as one of the best (and better received) series finales in television history, one bit of Mad Men analysis has baffled me: the cynical take on the ending — that Don Draper didn't experience any personal enlightenment and merely came up with a way to sell soda to hippies.

Not only is that view slightly blind to the evidence presented in the actual finale, but it's also willfully dismissive of all the episodes that came before it."


http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/bastard-machine/mad-men-series-finale-tim-796826

Worth the read.

I don't read much online commentary, but there are really people who think the ending was "old" Don Draper cynically cashing in on the counterculture? That seems a singularly misguided reading of everything we were shown about the direction Don has been headed.

Watching again and thinking about it, the more I think the ending is fairly unambiguous. Don made the commercial. Peggy making it is no revelation, she is the up-and-coming generation, we know she is headed up while Don's generation is on its way out. For Don to make the ad, though, that's a breakthrough. It shows him transcending the limits of his generation, persona and past. The guy who instinctively hates the Volkswagen ad can't make that commercial. The guy who can't finish listening to the Beatles record can't make that commercial. "Don Draper," the impostor, can't make that commercial. If Don isn't the main force behind the commercial, the finale doesn't realize its full potential.

The even put the yoga gong in at just the right spot like the "ding" of an idea light bulb!

If he made the commercial for McCann, that doesn't mean he'd stay at McCann. The headhunter told Peggy that after putting in a few good years at the biggest agency she could go anywhere. If Don made a commercial as big as the Coke Hilltop at McCann, he could pretty much write his own ticket.

Pretty much agree with everything here.

 

[gblews]

It just seems odd to me that Weiner would leave it so ambiguous on screen and then simply state that Don created the commercial. Why was it so important to make the ending appear ambiguous when he knew exactly what the ending was supposed to say? Didn't he direct the episode as well? This reminds me a little bit of J.K. Rowling stating that Dumbledore was gay after the novels and moves were done.

This strikes me as simply Weiner's interpretation of the ending because it wasn't on the screen.

I would feel differently if Weiner simply pointed out the parts of the episode that are concrete indicators of Don's future -- stuff the average viewer may have missed or misinterpreted. As it is, just going by what is on screen, it is still perfectly legitimate to feel the ending meant Don never returned to NY or had anything to do with the Coke ad or any other interpretation one may come up with.

It also sounds like Weiner liked the commercial so much that he was bound and determined to have it in the episode and is posthumously making it a part of the story. ut he states in the article that he wants to "have his cake and eat it too", which I guess means he wanted an ambiguous ending but still wanted us to know that Don did create the Coke commercial -- which isn't ambiguous. Wow, "artistes".

I don't that much care one way or the other. My only personal canon about the episode has Don returning to NY, but just so he is close to his children. Beyond that, who knows.

 

[Supervisor 194]

I don't think the ambiguity was intended to be whether or not Don creates the Coke ad; I think what is ambiguous is whether or not Don found "enlightenment" through his expeiences.

Scenario A: Don has come to terms with himself and from his newfound enlightenment he is able to tap into that to create the ad

Scenario B: Don sees the path to enlightenment, but is unable is unable to truly embrace it and cynically creates the ad.

At least, that's how I came across to me.

 

[Warped9]

Warped9 Are you going to add Mad Men under

STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?

with the years you personally approve ignoring the rest.... Or just the finale or just that interview excluded....

No. The ending is ambiguous and therefore open to interpretation. So I chose to accept that as is and interpret it that Don began a new life and left McCann and such behind. At best maybe Peggy gets something from Don speaking to him again and it gives her and Stan the idea for the ad.

I also think the ad works perfectly well as a sign of a new generation of Mad men packaging the new emerging sentiments just to sell more Coke.

So Don may be gone but the ad game continues without him.

 

[gblews]

I don't think the ambiguity was intended to be whether or not Don creates the Coke ad;

If this was the case, then the reporter would have had no need to ask Weiner whether or not Don created the Coke commercial. The reason the question was asked is because the issue of whether or not Don created the commercial IS ambiguous.

Notice that no one asked Vince Gilligan if Walter White died in the finale of BB.

 

[sidious618]

I don't think the ambiguity was intended to be whether or not Don creates the Coke ad;

If this was the case, then the reporter would have had no need to ask Weiner whether or not Don created the Coke commercial. The reason the question was asked is because the issue of whether or not Don created the commercial IS ambiguous.

Notice that no one asked Vince Gilligan if Walter White died in the finale of BB.

The reporter didn't ask Weiner that. Weiner brought it up himself.

It's definitely ambiguous to some extent, but Weiner's take on it is the one I'm going with because I think it's actually quite hopeful. I'm not sure how Don going back to make the Coke ad means he hasn't grown at all.

 

[Karzak]

Regardless, interpreting the resolution your own way is fine. It's another to turn around and suddenly declare the man's creative vision as "shit" simply because one doesn't agree with it when the intent is revealed. That's nothing more than a damn temper tantrum.

 

[the G-man]

I don't think the ambiguity was intended to be whether or not Don creates the Coke ad; I think what is ambiguous is whether or not Don found "enlightenment" through his expeiences.

Scenario A: Don has come to terms with himself and from his newfound enlightenment he is able to tap into that to create the ad

Scenario B: Don sees the path to enlightenment, but is unable is unable to truly embrace it and cynically creates the ad.

At least, that's how I came across to me.

Indeed.
It almost seems as if the people taking umbrage at the idea Don returned to McCann are letting their own biases against Advertising and/or Coca-Cola overly influenced their opinion of the ending.

It is entirely possible- and consistent with what Weiner said-that Don went back and created the ad out of a genuine desire to create and a respect for the place where he found some peace , and not out of anything cynical.

 

[Karzak]

I don't think the ambiguity was intended to be whether or not Don creates the Coke ad; I think what is ambiguous is whether or not Don found "enlightenment" through his expeiences.

Scenario A: Don has come to terms with himself and from his newfound enlightenment he is able to tap into that to create the ad

Scenario B: Don sees the path to enlightenment, but is unable is unable to truly embrace it and cynically creates the ad.

At least, that's how I came across to me.

Indeed.
It almost seems as if the people taking umbrage at the idea Don returned to McCann are letting their own biases against Advertising and/or Coca-Cola overly influenced their opinion of the ending.

It is entirely possible- and consistent with what Weiner said-that Don went back and created the ad out of a genuine desire to create and a respect for the place where he found some peace , and not out of anything cynical.

Exactly. And it would be totally in line with the revolutionary approach that made that Coke ad so transcendant, non-Nixonian and iconic. It literally was the REAL thing, a new way of looking at and of doing things.