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.
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.
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.
Matthew Weiner (finally) comments on the finale: 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.
Well, if he's working with Coke he'd have to be back at McCann. 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.
I am simultaneously in awe of and also astonished, honesrtly,how just a few pages ago you were all about respecting Weiner's intentions: ...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...
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.
Warped9 Are you going to add Mad Men under with the years you personally approve ignoring the rest.... Or just the finale or just that interview excluded....
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.