Mad About Mad Men

[WestwayKid]

It's interesting how Don's Park Avenue apartment "changes" over the later part of the series. In S5, it's often bright and lively, think of Megan's surprise party for Don. By the time we get to S7, it's often filmed in muted colors. It feels used up. Perhaps I'm reading too much into it, but it feels like it parallels the evolution of Don and Megan's marriage.

[JennyB]

It's interesting how Don's Park Avenue apartment "changes" over the later part of the series. In S5, it's often bright and lively, think of Megan's surprise party for Don. By the time we get to S7, it's often filmed in muted colors. It feels used up. Perhaps I'm reading too much into it, but it feels like it parallels the evolution of Don and Megan's marriage.

You should really read the Tom and Lorenzo Mad Style recaps I posted yesterday. If you picked up on those parallels, you would find them interesting. Here's a sample again: https://tomandlorenzo.com/2015/05/mad-s ... t-horizon/

[WestwayKid]

It's interesting how Don's Park Avenue apartment "changes" over the later part of the series. In S5, it's often bright and lively, think of Megan's surprise party for Don. By the time we get to S7, it's often filmed in muted colors. It feels used up. Perhaps I'm reading too much into it, but it feels like it parallels the evolution of Don and Megan's marriage.

You should really read the Tom and Lorenzo Mad Style recaps I posted yesterday. If you picked up on those parallels, you would find them interesting. Here's a sample again: https://tomandlorenzo.com/2015/05/mad-s ... t-horizon/

These are FANTASTIC! I can't stop reading them!!

[JennyB]

It's interesting how Don's Park Avenue apartment "changes" over the later part of the series. In S5, it's often bright and lively, think of Megan's surprise party for Don. By the time we get to S7, it's often filmed in muted colors. It feels used up. Perhaps I'm reading too much into it, but it feels like it parallels the evolution of Don and Megan's marriage.

You should really read the Tom and Lorenzo Mad Style recaps I posted yesterday. If you picked up on those parallels, you would find them interesting. Here's a sample again: https://tomandlorenzo.com/2015/05/mad-s ... t-horizon/

These are FANTASTIC! I can't stop reading them!!

Aren't they though? I loved their analysis.

[Dr. Medulla]

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-ente ... 18997.html

Here's what I wrote to a colleague, who both taught a course inspired by the show and is a specialist in gay history:

My initial reaction is that this is criticism rooted in a desire for it to be a fundamentally different show, one that should go wider/more diverse in presenting experiences. Yes, the presentation of non-white characters and gay characters (and working-class characters) was thin and peripheral, but that seems to me the point (at least in part) of the show. The main cast are, generally speaking, entitled assholes experiencing a social revolution but interpreted from their elite position that still insulates them from huge swaths of society. Non-elites are peripheral to their existence and so thinly experienced. Maybe I’m betraying my own biases here, but I wasn’t invested in the happiness of rich people. I didn’t see the point was to validate and empathize with their difficulties in the 60s (please, won’t somebody think of the rich white people!). As a group, they’ll be fine. I was fascinated by their negotiations with social changes and personal demons, but I didn’t give a damn about, say, Roger finding peace and love. He’s clever, he’s funny, but an entitled asshole who was born on third base. To expand the palette more widely to consider the experiences of those who genuinely struggle would alter the nature of the show. It’s a tougher sell, to me, to make a critique that demands a massive restructuring of approach.

All that said, I’m open to the idea that I might be giving Weiner et al too much benefit of the doubt.

[Low Down Low]

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-ente ... 18997.html

Here's what I wrote to a colleague, who both taught a course inspired by the show and is a specialist in gay history:

My initial reaction is that this is criticism rooted in a desire for it to be a fundamentally different show, one that should go wider/more diverse in presenting experiences. Yes, the presentation of non-white characters and gay characters (and working-class characters) was thin and peripheral, but that seems to me the point (at least in part) of the show. The main cast are, generally speaking, entitled assholes experiencing a social revolution but interpreted from their elite position that still insulates them from huge swaths of society. Non-elites are peripheral to their existence and so thinly experienced. Maybe I’m betraying my own biases here, but I wasn’t invested in the happiness of rich people. I didn’t see the point was to validate and empathize with their difficulties in the 60s (please, won’t somebody think of the rich white people!). As a group, they’ll be fine. I was fascinated by their negotiations with social changes and personal demons, but I didn’t give a damn about, say, Roger finding peace and love. He’s clever, he’s funny, but an entitled asshole who was born on third base. To expand the palette more widely to consider the experiences of those who genuinely struggle would alter the nature of the show. It’s a tougher sell, to me, to make a critique that demands a massive restructuring of approach.

All that said, I’m open to the idea that I might be giving Weiner et al too much benefit of the doubt.

My memory of precise details of the show is a bit vague now, but that would broadly be my take too. I can't think of too many of the well fleshed out characters who emerge happy and fulfilled at the end. Joan, perhaps, but offhand I can't think of others. To have enhanced the roles of any of the gay characters and given them happy, life-affirming resolutions would, I think, have run counter to the overall nature of the show. That's how it seems to me anyway.

[Dr. Medulla]

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-ente ... 18997.html

Here's what I wrote to a colleague, who both taught a course inspired by the show and is a specialist in gay history:

My initial reaction is that this is criticism rooted in a desire for it to be a fundamentally different show, one that should go wider/more diverse in presenting experiences. Yes, the presentation of non-white characters and gay characters (and working-class characters) was thin and peripheral, but that seems to me the point (at least in part) of the show. The main cast are, generally speaking, entitled assholes experiencing a social revolution but interpreted from their elite position that still insulates them from huge swaths of society. Non-elites are peripheral to their existence and so thinly experienced. Maybe I’m betraying my own biases here, but I wasn’t invested in the happiness of rich people. I didn’t see the point was to validate and empathize with their difficulties in the 60s (please, won’t somebody think of the rich white people!). As a group, they’ll be fine. I was fascinated by their negotiations with social changes and personal demons, but I didn’t give a damn about, say, Roger finding peace and love. He’s clever, he’s funny, but an entitled asshole who was born on third base. To expand the palette more widely to consider the experiences of those who genuinely struggle would alter the nature of the show. It’s a tougher sell, to me, to make a critique that demands a massive restructuring of approach.

All that said, I’m open to the idea that I might be giving Weiner et al too much benefit of the doubt.

My memory of precise details of the show is a bit vague now, but that would broadly be my take too. I can't think of too many of the well fleshed out characters who emerge happy and fulfilled at the end. Joan, perhaps, but offhand I can't think of others. To have enhanced the roles of any of the gay characters and given them happy, life-affirming resolutions would, I think, have run counter to the overall nature of the show. That's how it seems to me anyway.

One of the reasons why I really didn't care for the final episode is that the main cast all get some kind of happy-ish resolution: Don finds some kind of inner peace and the Coke jingle; Roger is with Megan's mother; Pete and Trudy start over in Kansas; Peggy and Stan become a couple; Joan is starting her own venture independently. Yay! I thought Wiener chickened out from the reckoning theme of the series, where these privileged people's lives paralleled that of imperial America in the same period. America in 1970 was pretty fucked up and disillusioned, but that's not how the series' main characters wind up.

[Low Down Low]

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-ente ... 18997.html

Here's what I wrote to a colleague, who both taught a course inspired by the show and is a specialist in gay history:

My initial reaction is that this is criticism rooted in a desire for it to be a fundamentally different show, one that should go wider/more diverse in presenting experiences. Yes, the presentation of non-white characters and gay characters (and working-class characters) was thin and peripheral, but that seems to me the point (at least in part) of the show. The main cast are, generally speaking, entitled assholes experiencing a social revolution but interpreted from their elite position that still insulates them from huge swaths of society. Non-elites are peripheral to their existence and so thinly experienced. Maybe I’m betraying my own biases here, but I wasn’t invested in the happiness of rich people. I didn’t see the point was to validate and empathize with their difficulties in the 60s (please, won’t somebody think of the rich white people!). As a group, they’ll be fine. I was fascinated by their negotiations with social changes and personal demons, but I didn’t give a damn about, say, Roger finding peace and love. He’s clever, he’s funny, but an entitled asshole who was born on third base. To expand the palette more widely to consider the experiences of those who genuinely struggle would alter the nature of the show. It’s a tougher sell, to me, to make a critique that demands a massive restructuring of approach.

All that said, I’m open to the idea that I might be giving Weiner et al too much benefit of the doubt.

My memory of precise details of the show is a bit vague now, but that would broadly be my take too. I can't think of too many of the well fleshed out characters who emerge happy and fulfilled at the end. Joan, perhaps, but offhand I can't think of others. To have enhanced the roles of any of the gay characters and given them happy, life-affirming resolutions would, I think, have run counter to the overall nature of the show. That's how it seems to me anyway.

One of the reasons why I really didn't care for the final episode is that the main cast all get some kind of happy-ish resolution: Don finds some kind of inner peace and the Coke jingle; Roger is with Megan's mother; Pete and Trudy start over in Kansas; Peggy and Stan become a couple; Joan is starting her own venture independently. Yay! I thought Wiener chickened out from the reckoning theme of the series, where these privileged people's lives paralleled that of imperial America in the same period. America in 1970 was pretty fucked up and disillusioned, but that's not how the series' main characters wind up.

It's interesting because I've always viewed it a bit differently. This may well be in hot take territory but I've always viewed the outcomes in terms of who not just leaves but escapes the business, which is the all encompassing trap where no redemption is possible. Joan managed it and I'd forgotten about Pete who undergoes a rather meteoric character transformation and emerges happy and fulfilled off the back of it. I never saw Roger as that central anyway, his life has just been one long catalogue of surface happiness from war patriot to making money and bedding women. I sense he'd be the same whether he ended up with a happy marriage or not, just full of one line zingers and philosophical about all the things he either won or lost. Peggy finds her man but I'm doing so, she spurns the chance to escape the business and join Joan. As for Don, he leaves the business - or it leaves him! - but I think the finale shows not just that he can't escape it, but that there is never any chance he will. So, the sense of inner peace is an ilusion, just like the perfect ad he is reminded of.

All that mishmash said, it is a series I really do need to return to and I'd likely repudiate at least half of that next time round!

[Dr. Medulla]

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-ente ... 18997.html

Here's what I wrote to a colleague, who both taught a course inspired by the show and is a specialist in gay history:

My initial reaction is that this is criticism rooted in a desire for it to be a fundamentally different show, one that should go wider/more diverse in presenting experiences. Yes, the presentation of non-white characters and gay characters (and working-class characters) was thin and peripheral, but that seems to me the point (at least in part) of the show. The main cast are, generally speaking, entitled assholes experiencing a social revolution but interpreted from their elite position that still insulates them from huge swaths of society. Non-elites are peripheral to their existence and so thinly experienced. Maybe I’m betraying my own biases here, but I wasn’t invested in the happiness of rich people. I didn’t see the point was to validate and empathize with their difficulties in the 60s (please, won’t somebody think of the rich white people!). As a group, they’ll be fine. I was fascinated by their negotiations with social changes and personal demons, but I didn’t give a damn about, say, Roger finding peace and love. He’s clever, he’s funny, but an entitled asshole who was born on third base. To expand the palette more widely to consider the experiences of those who genuinely struggle would alter the nature of the show. It’s a tougher sell, to me, to make a critique that demands a massive restructuring of approach.

All that said, I’m open to the idea that I might be giving Weiner et al too much benefit of the doubt.

My memory of precise details of the show is a bit vague now, but that would broadly be my take too. I can't think of too many of the well fleshed out characters who emerge happy and fulfilled at the end. Joan, perhaps, but offhand I can't think of others. To have enhanced the roles of any of the gay characters and given them happy, life-affirming resolutions would, I think, have run counter to the overall nature of the show. That's how it seems to me anyway.

One of the reasons why I really didn't care for the final episode is that the main cast all get some kind of happy-ish resolution: Don finds some kind of inner peace and the Coke jingle; Roger is with Megan's mother; Pete and Trudy start over in Kansas; Peggy and Stan become a couple; Joan is starting her own venture independently. Yay! I thought Wiener chickened out from the reckoning theme of the series, where these privileged people's lives paralleled that of imperial America in the same period. America in 1970 was pretty fucked up and disillusioned, but that's not how the series' main characters wind up.

It's interesting because I've always viewed it a bit differently. This may well be in hot take territory but I've always viewed the outcomes in terms of who not just leaves but escapes the business, which is the all encompassing trap where no redemption is possible. Joan managed it and I'd forgotten about Pete who undergoes a rather meteoric character transformation and emerges happy and fulfilled off the back of it. I never saw Roger as that central anyway, his life has just been one long catalogue of surface happiness from war patriot to making money and bedding women. I sense he'd be the same whether he ended up with a happy marriage or not, just full of one line zingers and philosophical about all the things he either won or lost. Peggy finds her man but I'm doing so, she spurns the chance to escape the business and join Joan. As for Don, he leaves the business - or it leaves him! - but I think the finale shows not just that he can't escape it, but that there is never any chance he will. So, the sense of inner peace is an ilusion, just like the perfect ad he is reminded of.

All that mishmash said, it is a series I really do need to return to and I'd likely repudiate at least half of that next time round!

Back in the day, and our earlier Mad Men thread, I offered this counter-reading to the final episode. I don't think it's what Weiner actually intended, but I prefer my reading because I think it stays closer to the theme of the series: https://www.clashcity.com/boards/viewto ... 43#p406843

[Low Down Low]

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-ente ... 18997.html

Here's what I wrote to a colleague, who both taught a course inspired by the show and is a specialist in gay history:

My memory of precise details of the show is a bit vague now, but that would broadly be my take too. I can't think of too many of the well fleshed out characters who emerge happy and fulfilled at the end. Joan, perhaps, but offhand I can't think of others. To have enhanced the roles of any of the gay characters and given them happy, life-affirming resolutions would, I think, have run counter to the overall nature of the show. That's how it seems to me anyway.

One of the reasons why I really didn't care for the final episode is that the main cast all get some kind of happy-ish resolution: Don finds some kind of inner peace and the Coke jingle; Roger is with Megan's mother; Pete and Trudy start over in Kansas; Peggy and Stan become a couple; Joan is starting her own venture independently. Yay! I thought Wiener chickened out from the reckoning theme of the series, where these privileged people's lives paralleled that of imperial America in the same period. America in 1970 was pretty fucked up and disillusioned, but that's not how the series' main characters wind up.

It's interesting because I've always viewed it a bit differently. This may well be in hot take territory but I've always viewed the outcomes in terms of who not just leaves but escapes the business, which is the all encompassing trap where no redemption is possible. Joan managed it and I'd forgotten about Pete who undergoes a rather meteoric character transformation and emerges happy and fulfilled off the back of it. I never saw Roger as that central anyway, his life has just been one long catalogue of surface happiness from war patriot to making money and bedding women. I sense he'd be the same whether he ended up with a happy marriage or not, just full of one line zingers and philosophical about all the things he either won or lost. Peggy finds her man but I'm doing so, she spurns the chance to escape the business and join Joan. As for Don, he leaves the business - or it leaves him! - but I think the finale shows not just that he can't escape it, but that there is never any chance he will. So, the sense of inner peace is an ilusion, just like the perfect ad he is reminded of.

All that mishmash said, it is a series I really do need to return to and I'd likely repudiate at least half of that next time round!

Back in the day, and our earlier Mad Men thread, I offered this counter-reading to the final episode. I don't think it's what Weiner actually intended, but I prefer my reading because I think it stays closer to the theme of the series: https://www.clashcity.com/boards/viewto ... 43#p406843

I think that holds up superbly well. If there is happiness there, I'd definitely agree it's not one we should implicitly trust or feel it's anything other than ephemeral. The Weiner-as-Draper motif is one I am very willing to buy. I also think leaving so many challenges and ambiguities must have been so much more appealing than just routinely tieing up a load of loose ends together. It keeps us talking longer, for one!

[Dr. Medulla]

I also think leaving so many challenges and ambiguities must have been so much more appealing than just routinely tieing up a load of loose ends together. It keeps us talking longer, for one!

I agree, especially given that the magic of advertising is to get us to fill in the blanks, situating ourselves in a way that we are happy. Advertising needs our imagination to work, but it does steer us to preferred areas.

The actor who played Sally said somewhat recently she'd be open to a new series following her character in the 80s. That could have some appeal, working the line of the rightward turn of Boomers, from anti-establishment outsiders to scumbag yuppies.