New to 'Mad Men'

[Super Grover]

I'm enjoying this show quite a bit. It is not at all what I expected. I imagined the focus would be on the more overt elements of the time; the racism, sexism, lax safety standards and the slowly changing society and attitudes of the early sixties. These things are there, but they are simply the structure the show is built on. They are there only to inform us about the decisions and world the characters inhabit. And only rarely have I caught the show using these elements as "in your face" commentary. Everything is subtle, or in the cases they are not subtle, understood to be the "norm" and we are trusted to judge these things through our own eyes without the show having to scream at us (look at those crazy early 60's! can you believe it!? pregnant women smoke! children don't wear seat belts! neighbors can hit your kid!).

Yeah, it's almost like it's a whole other universe. Like when the kids are playing spaceman with the plastic bag over ther head. Or even haveing the kids making drinks for their card playing parents and guests.

I'm bringing that back, "Son, my rum and coke isn't going to make itself."

 

[Dorian Thompson]

Pete, for all his irritating blue-blood nakedly ambitious ways, actually feels emotion in ways the viewer can connect.

That's it! That's precisely it. You nailed it. I can identify with Pete's feelings of being so awkward and outside and not fitting in with any group. I remember feeling like a dumbass at my job, excluded even though I tried so hard to fit in; I was misunderstood even though I tried my very best. My boss would belittle me like Roger belittles Pete, but for different reasons. I do credit Kartheiser for that, though. He's extraordinarily underrated as an actor. I think it was Matt Weiner on the commentaries who said, in all seriousness, that Vincent as Pete actually projects a "slimy innocence" that most actors couldn't pull off. I think that's a perfect assessment.

 

[Goliath]

Hmm.

This show got rave reviews, so I picked up Season One on DVD, sight unseen.

I've watched the first three epsiodes, and frankly, I'm not finding it all that interesting.

Does it get better?

 

[Dorian Thompson]

Yes, it does. It really starts to pick up in episode four. It's worth watching. You'll sure as hell understand why Pete acts the way he does after episode four, and oh are there revelations in the final ep of the season.

 

[Goliath]

Yes, it does. It really starts to pick up in episode four. It's worth watching. You'll sure as hell understand why Pete acts the way he does after episode four, and oh are there revelations in the final ep of the season.

All right. I bought the discs, I might as well watch them.

 

[Dorian Thompson]

It sneaks up on you. I almost bailed myself, but then I got hooked. I'm so glad I didn't give up.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Hmm I don't know. The main guy is kind of forgettable. So much so I can't seem to remember his name...

 

[Dorian Thompson]

Whatever do you mean, Mr. Whitman?

Damn. Don got served. Rather poetic justice that Birdie threw up in his precious new car. Hell, he can clean it up.

Jane better watch her back from now on.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Beyond the big moments its the little details that always amaze me about this show. Like how after the Drapers picnic they make no effort at all to pick up their trash!!! Back then it would never have occurred to them to do otherwise.

 

[Dorian Thompson]

Exactly. The public didn't really become "anti-litter" conscious until Lady Bird Johnson was first lady. It was her big cause, of sorts, and the commercials with the Native American with the tear rolling down his face as people throw trash out their car didn't start airing until the early 70s.

Another detail that struck me from two weeks ago was when little Bobby burned his face on the griddle. In the midst of the chaos, if you looked closely you saw Betty putting her finger in the pat of butter on the table and rubbing it on Bobby's face. That's what they used to tell you to do for burns way back when believe it or not. So many fascinating little details if you set out to look for them. My mother is only a year older than Peggy's supposed to be in the show, and she worked as a secretary before marrying my father. She eats this show up with a spoon and says they get the details right about 99 percent of the time.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Like how after the Drapers picnic they make no effort at all to pick up their trash!!!

Stuff like that is starting to annoy me now. The writers are doing it too much: look, drinking and driving! Letting kids play with plastic bags! How did people survive back then, it was craaazy!

Frankly, this show is starting to bore me. Time to DO something, people! Atmosphere only goes so far.

 

[trevanian]

Like how after the Drapers picnic they make no effort at all to pick up their trash!!!

Stuff like that is starting to annoy me now. The writers are doing it too much: look, drinking and driving! Letting kids play with plastic bags! How did people survive back then, it was craaazy!

Frankly, this show is starting to bore me. Time to DO something, people! Atmosphere only goes so far.

It is more than atmosphere, it is history. It is kind of like the TVH moment when McCoy asks how did these people get out of the 20th century intact?

I think the litter shot ran too long, but rather that than not at all.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

As history goes, America in the early 60s isn't the most dynamic time and place I could hope for. How bout Napoleonic-era Europe or the American Civil War instead?

Here's an article where Matt Roush rants at me (by implication) for being a philistine.

However, in my defense, I do like Jackson Pollock. Rothko, not so much. (Seriously, what the hell? Theories? Anyone?)

 

[Dick Whitman]

As history goes, America in the early 60s isn't the most dynamic time and place I could hope for.

If you truly feel that way its not surprising that the show has not grabbed your interest.

I would strongly disagree that the picnic litter was just atmosphere. Its also a metaphor about how these characters don't think about the effect their actions will have on the future. In an overall generational sense - What burdens will the current generation leave to the next. As well as a more specific sense. It mirrors how oblivious Don and Betty are about the long term effect their disintegrating relationship will have on their children.

This is not a soap opera. It about realistic characters during a very real and fascinating time. It explores both in a very deliberate and nuanced way. Its not about forcing characters through artificial plot mechanics. Like every other show on tv these days.

 

[Goliath]

However, in my defense, I do like Jackson Pollock. Rothko, not so much. (Seriously, what the hell? Theories? Anyone?)

Well, I've seen an entire room full of paintings by Rothko, at the Tate Modern art gallery in London.

The conclusion I came to is that Rothko had just one idea, which he repeated over and over.

As a consequence, one Rothko painting is an interesting, and even absorbing work of art. But a series of Rothkos gets boring pretty quickly.

The same would apply to other modern artists, like Yves Klein and his 1957 series of eleven monochrome paintings, all of them the same luminous "Klein Blue." One of these canvases is on display at the Tate Modern, and by itself, is quite striking: it glows. But I don't see how the effect benefits from being repeated an additional ten times. If anything, it gets lost.

(Incidentally, that's one thing I like about Marcel Duchamp: he knew when to shut up, and move on to something different. He painted just two "nudes descending a staircase," and stopped after the second. Similarly, he produced just three "ready-made" sculptures, including the infamous "Fountain," and then moved on, having said all there was to say.)

Perhaps your response to Mad Men is similar: you don't see enough in the concept to warrant a series.

 

[trevanian]

As history goes, America in the early 60s isn't the most dynamic time and place I could hope for.

Wow, it sure is for me. Short of going back to the turn of the century, when you have the 'old west' giving way to autos and automatic weapons, I see the early 60s as the most conflicted time, because you are seeing a slow and very unsteady abandonment of Eisenhower-era dreams, just before the counterculture influence emerges from the subterranean to be practically mainstream.

The ad business might be an ideal place for the series, because they've already started to address the issue of new audience/new buyers for a new era, and it'll be great to see that play out in terms of which character 'get it' and which have to just 'get with the program' or 'drop out.'

 

[TheArsenal]

One of the elements I like about the show, even if it is uncomfortable, is the the feeling the other shoe is always ready to drop. We are reminded again when Draper buys a car that his entire life could unravel with dizzying speed if his lie is discovered. Both Salvatore and Draper, to varying degrees, find to their dismay their actions/affections are not as cleverly hidden as they thought to those closest to them. Draper has been shown as a womanizer who likely can not help himself. So, I found Salvatore's actions the more curious because he has been shown to be very cautious, and I couldn't see where he expected this infatuation with Cosgrove to lead except tragedy.

The Joan Holloway and Jane (Draper's secretary) dynamic looks like it will play out to be interesting. I wonder if Jane is meant to be a younger version of Joan. In any case, Joan doesn't strike me as one who rolls over. Her dismay at losing the power play will likely make for an intense office struggle going forward.

 

[darthraidr]

yeah, the litter shot went way too long... i kept wondering if something else would happen... maybe a Native American would show up and cry, giving Don an idea.

not much ever seems to really happen in the show. this last episode i found myself reading a magazine and listening to the show in the background. i'd look up often to see the new scene, and once i took it in, i'd turn back to my reading.

i dont think i missed much because things move very slow in that show, and they tend to linger on scenes long after the point has been made. the exception being the very last scene. it lingers on the set up for a good long while, then bam, and end scene.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Its not about forcing characters through artificial plot mechanics. Like every other show on tv these days.

You must not watch a whole lot of TV. Lost, Dexter, Entourage and Big Love are also dramas about human relationships that are far more than just plot gimmickry. And they manage to be entertaining at all times. Artsiness is no excuse for boring the audience. The best shows nowadays are intelligent, artistically impressive and as entertaining as anything on TV. Granted, my TV standards have become pretty damn high compared with how I used to be, but why not demand everything?

The ad business might be an ideal place for the series, because they've already started to address the issue of new audience/new buyers for a new era, and it'll be great to see that play out in terms of which character 'get it' and which have to just 'get with the program' or 'drop out.'

I'll still agree that choosing an ad agency as the focal point is an unexpected but great way of holding up a mirror to a society. I'm just annoyed at the general lack of historical dramas that go back further than the lifespans of the people making those dramas. Maybe that's more of a general complaint about the lack of vision in TV overall.

Moving on to Rothko - I noticed that particular painting (and from what I recall, other of his paintings) used colors and forms that were just similar enough to each other that they didn't set up a pleasing contrast, and therefore kept you looking obsessively at the painting because the lack of resolution means your eyes go round and round, in a futile attempt to find that resolution and "a way out." Keeping the audience off balance and unsatisfied is a way to keep their attention, and perhaps there's a clever metaphor for the whole business of advertising in the choice of that particular painting?

One of the elements I like about the show, even if it is uncomfortable, is the the feeling the other shoe is always ready to drop.

The show keeps us in a state of suspension, without satisfying resolutions, just like the painting and the ad business. Heh.

My problem is that I know what the Rothko painting's gimmick is, and it annoys me!!! Ditto for advertising and for Mad Men. Clever but also annoying.

 

[Top41]

I would strongly disagree that the picnic litter was just atmosphere. Its also a metaphor about how these characters don't think about the effect their actions will have on the future. In an overall generational sense - What burdens will the current generation leave to the next. As well as a more specific sense. It mirrors how oblivious Don and Betty are about the long term effect their disintegrating relationship will have on their children.

Yeah, I really liked that detail. It was something that really stood out to me--because I'm a woman living in the 21st century. I like the details like that--stuff like seeing people smoking inside--that really remind me that this was a different era without hitting me over the head with it. It feels natural as opposed to metaphorical neon signs saying, "This is the 60s! It's a different time."

I also loved the subtle build between Jimmy and Betty--I didn't in a million years expect him to confront her about Don and Bobbie...and I don't think she did either. Loved that she threw up in Don's new car. That was a jarring and surprising way to end the episode.

I have a feeling Joan is not a woman who loses. She might lose a battle here and there, but I bet she always wins the war. I guess we'll see what happens next.

Roger is such a sleazoid!

I'm intrigued by the show. It's not like Lost or Dexter, where I'm on the edge of my seat to find out what happens next, but I really enjoy each episode and make a point not to miss it.