Kevin's Watch

Ok, I'm up to date with this now. Season 3 took some turns that I really didn't see coming. It'll be interesting to see where it goes from here.

Without giving too much away, I think it's indicative of good characterisation that despite all of Don's philandering and betrayal, I sympathise with him and hate Betty Draper.

I completely agree.

Without giving too much away, I think it's indicative of good characterisation that despite all of Don's philandering and betrayal, I sympathise with him and hate Betty Draper.

Agreed.

There's a reason people still like corsets hundreds of years on.

Best show on TV by far. Love it.

dlbpharmd wrote: After the first 2-3 episodes, my impression was "what's the big deal?"

That's where I'm at. We just finished episode 2, in search of a new series now that we're done with Breaking Bad for the moment, and I just can't get into this at all. The writing of this show treats the audience like morons. Every single scene rams 60s stereotypes down our throats with a series of utterly unlikable characters. There's not a single redeeming quality to any of these people. Are we supposed to believe that every man in the 60s was a womanizer, and every woman cared more about appearances than life itself? The final straw for me was when Draper's wife bemoaned the possibility that her daughter may have scarred her face in the car wreck--not dying, but living with a scar. In fact, she explicitly said that a scar on a woman was worse than death. Pathetic. Utterly unbelievable.

It's not just that these people are all despicable. I mean, like I said, I just finished S3 of Breaking Bad (which has much more "evil" characters) and I loved it. It's that all these people are stereotypically "bad." There's nothing even cool about them, much less redeemable. It's like the writers don't even like the characters. You can feel the writers judging their characters, and telling us how sexist and shallow the white corporate/suburban life was back then. The characters are merely a way to judge society ... well, white corporate/suburban society. And thus the writers craft every scene with this judgement--not character development--in mind. Every single character "trait" is 60s stereotypical social problem. They smoke. They don't buckle their children in the car. They let their kids put plastic bags over their heads. They smoke while pregnant. They gossip about single women with children. They sexually harrass women in the office. They make excuses for cigarette companies. They only care about what women want so they can market to them.

When every single character trait is something that has later been "solved" or addressed by government and laws, you get the feeling that the point isn't character development, but preachiness. The characters are there only as a backdrop for our own feelings of superiority. We are invited to watch them and mock, watch them and feel so enlightened because we have solved these social issues (disguised as character flaws), and we are so much better people (thanks to government regulations, not personal triumphs).

And of course, there were "bad guys" who resisted these changes ... the auto industry, the cigarette industry, Nixon, etc. The show reeks of a certain kind of political elitism (that will remain nameless for the sake of forum purity). But worse than the judgmentalism, the writing is just bad. It's boring. It's obvious. It's not even an ironic presentation of these judgments, it's just a parade of literal stereotypes given to us as if that's reality.

Can anyone give me a reason to keep watching that isn't spoilerish? Is there anything that undermines my impression, that would give me some hope that there is actually some depth beneath this shallow, overt, judgmental variety of "character development?" For instance, is there ever a single reason to like the main character?

Statements like this aren't very encouraging:

CovenantJr wrote:Alright, I just finished up season 2. I like this series, but I'm not sure why. For a long time, I didn't like any of the characters. Most of them are repellent, and every time I think someone's becoming quite likable, they do something to change my mind.

Big saggy boobs crammed into ill-fitting bras don't do it for me, so I need something more.

Zarathustra wrote:Can anyone give me a reason to keep watching that isn't spoilerish? Is there anything that undermines my impression, that would give me some hope that there is actually some depth beneath this shallow, overt, judgmental variety of "character development?" For instance, is there ever a single reason to like the main character?

Not sure that I'm up to the task and there may be some basic political differences at the root of the opposing views (what's new ) but I'll give it a go.

[....revving up the engines! (As Vraith might say)] Firstly let me say that I disagree with you on many counts. I have only watched two series of Mad Men but I think that it is one of the best of all the series I have ever watched in terms of writing, acting, characterisation and stylishness (on a par with The Wire and The Sopranos, IMO).

The next thing that I would say is that Mad Men should not be taken as an attempt at historical representation; the closest category that I could choose for it would be Fairytale.

Spoiler

IMO, the fairytale that it is closest to is Puss in Boots (but it also has overtones of Dick Whittington, a clue to this being Don Draper's true name which is Richard (Dick) Whitman) Betty, of course, is a princess

Seen as a Fairytale the almost pantomime nature of some of the characters not only becomes bearable it becomes enjoyable. And contrary to a smug 'aren't we so superior to these people' attitude the program, for me, demonstrates that the layer that feminism and PC have imposed on society and relationships is just that, a thin veneer that hides and distorts stuff that actually hasn't changed a jot. The problems and concerns of characters, especially Betty, in the first two series are the same problems and concerns that we have now except we have PC to cover them up rather than a rapidly expanding economy and an opening up and liberalisation of society.

Another thing that I liked about it (and I thought that you would like it too, Z) is that in the new economic world of the post-war it is the men [sic] of ability that count not the WASP/old-money people

Spoiler

(e.g. Sterling's support for Don even after he finds out about his past).

A sidebar to this for me would be that there is a psychological/spiritual price to be paid for the success which is also a contemporary concern (but that's my liberal side showing again )

I have seen criticisms similar to yours elsewhere and they may be related to perspective. From Europe none of this is personal whereas from some US positions it probably could be perceived as a very unsubtle sideswipe. I honestly don't think it is. I think the true dramas in Mad Men are personal/psychological (and thus contemporary) and not smug/judgemental political and economic ones.

As for liking the characters, I came to like them all because of the vulnerability which inevitably emerges. Even Roger has traits that caused me to re-evaluate him (see spoilered example above). The thing I like about the people was that their concerns are universal because human concerns are universal. (If rus was around he'd probably concur with me here.) Birth, fertility and death remain mysteries regardless of the technological, economic or political situation. Our humanity trumps all else at all times.

[Apologies if this is short on specifics, it's a while since I watched the series and I didn't ever expect to have to be making a case for it ]

u.

U, thanks! That's exactly what I was looking for ... particularly this:

ussusimiel wrote:The next thing that I would say is that Mad Men should not be taken as an attempt at historical representation; the closest category that I could choose for it would be Fairytale. ... Seen as a Fairytale the almost pantomime nature of some of the characters not only becomes bearable it becomes enjoyable. And contrary to a smug 'aren't we so superior to these people' attitude the program, for me, demonstrates that the layer that feminism and PC have imposed on society and relationships is just that, a thin veneer that hides and distorts stuff that actually hasn't changed a jot. The problems and concerns of characters, especially Betty, in the first two series are the same problems and concerns that we have now except we have PC to cover them up rather than a rapidly expanding economy and an opening up and liberalisation of society.

I was hoping for an ironic twist to the presentation of these stereotypes, some inkling that these people weren't quite so bad as they seemed and that we (the "enlightened" moderns) aren't as good as we think, that we don't really have as much room to judge them as we naively believe. The irony here would be that our judgmentalism is only possible because we've inauthentically/artifically suppressed the very same tendencies which they exhibit, which we find so abhorrent. We think we're better people, when in reality we're just not as honest and open. (Maybe that's more hypocritical than ironic.)

I don't necessarily believe that's true, or that things are that simple [for instance, I'm sure there were quite a few womanizers back then and there are genuinely better people now], but at least it would add some depth and make it interesting.

The fairytale idea is intriguing. If that's true, it takes a little bit of the sting out of the beating-you-over-the head with blatant stereotypes. You're saying they are caricatures? I get that ... I just prefer characters.

ussusimiel wrote:A sidebar to this for me would be that there is a psychological/spiritual price to be paid for the success which is also a contemporary concern (but that's my liberal side showing again )

I'm willing to admit that there are prices to be paid for success, so I wouldn't say that's a strictly liberal interpretation. I just think those prices are paid by the individual, and aren't really society's concern.

ussusimiel wrote:I have seen criticisms similar to yours elsewhere and they may be related to perspective. From Europe none of this is personal whereas from some US positions it probably could be perceived as a very unsubtle sideswipe. I honestly don't think it is. I think the true dramas in Mad Men are personal/psychological (and thus contemporary) and not smug/judgemental political and economic ones.

Maybe you're right. After all, you've seen more of this series than I have. But I submit for your consideration that perhaps it's harder to see judgmentalism which you instinctively share?

ussusimiel wrote:As for liking the characters, I came to like them all because of the vulnerability which inevitably emerges.

That's encouraging.

Flawed characters make for interesting stories. My main complaint boils down to presentation.

Glad you found it of some use, Z.

I hope you didn't look at the spoilers. I'd thought you'd watched the first two series not the first two episodes

I'd definitely recommend watching the first series and if it hasn't grabbed you by then it probably isn't for you. I posted in response to your request because I would be disappointed to think that you'd missed out on something that, IMO, is of very high quality.

Zarathustra wrote:The irony here would be that our judgmentalism is only possible because we've inauthentically/artifically suppressed the very same tendencies which they exhibit, which we find so abhorrent. We think we're better people, when in reality we're just not as honest and open. (Maybe that's more hypocritical than ironic.)

I agree with this. Part of the fantasy/fairytale aspect of Mad Men is the overt objectification/sexualisation of women by men. This has not changed in our time, it has simply gone out of sight; the volume of pornography on the Internet is an indication of this.

Zarathustra wrote: You're saying they are caricatures? I get that ... I just prefer characters.

I suppose what I'm saying here is that to our perspective the characters from that time could easily be seen/portrayed as caricatures. By casting the story in the guise of a fairytale the writers have allowed themselves the room to reveal the characters (that have to be present) while maintaining the surface as it appears (from this distance in time) to us.

Zarathustra wrote:But I submit for your consideration that perhaps it's harder to see judgmentalism which you instinctively share?

I won't argue with you here, but I might add that like the devil having all the good tunes, maybe liberals have more of the good stories

u.

Hmm ... I think if you can tell the politics of the writer simply from the way he chooses which scenes to include or which dialog to write, then he's not doing his job properly, and we've moved from story-telling to polemics or political allegory. There is nothing about human drama that is particularly partisan. Even a story about politics doesn't have to be told from the authorial perspective of one side over the other.

Maybe I'm repeating myself, but let me try one more time. By the selection of the scenes, the writers seem to be using the show at the service of their agenda rather than at the service of the characters. For instance, in ep.2 there was a scene with Draper's daughter playing with a plastic bag over her head. The mother scolds her for--wait for it--getting the dry cleaned clothes on the floor. And of course, we're supposed to be horrified that the child might suffocate and the mother doesn't care, isn't "enlightened" enough to share this fear that we have now all been taught to feel. Does that develop the mother? The daughter? No, it tells us absolutely nothing about them as people. One might argue that it says something about the culture at the time, but really it just says their society hasn't been exposed to enough children suffocating in bags to worry about it. That's not a moral point, or even a cultural one. It's entirely contingent upon circumstances and utterly unimportant as either a cultural or character statement. And yet the writers, when faced with the question, "What scene do we write next?" chose to put that detail in there, knowing full well that our reaction would be, "Look at those ignorant people who don't know enough to keep their children from putting bags over their heads." You can't look at that image and not think about the difference between our knowledge and theirs.

And then shortly afterward we have a scene with the children playing in the car without seatbelts. Same damn thing: no character development, no social commentary, just another image to show how we have accrued a sense of fear and caution which those people hadn't developed yet because they hadn't been exposed to enough car wrecks; didn't have the same media attention to disseminate this fear. Perhaps that's an interesting bit of historical trivia, but it's not a story. And yet scene after scene is exactly like this: no character development, just a series of dramatized historical trivia. Hey look, they think aerosal deoderant cans look like rockets! So what? Cue cheating-on-wife scene to give the appearance of character development. Have character come up with the obligatory ad slogan per episode. Drink, smoke, tits, we're done.

Bleh.

It's a show that's grown on me. There is some actual character growth for many of the leads, and in Roger Sterling's case, I find it fascinating.

Early on in the show, I think they tried to cram in too many of the "look how different things were in the '60s" moments, and I think that all they did was jar me out of the show.

It's not a great show, but it's pretty serviceable as a character-driven period piece.

As far as it being "historical," I've heard two different opinions.

One group of people says it's so stereotypical as to be a farce.
Another group of people says it's spot on, and exactly as they remembered the 60s.

The character development is really rather intriguing... You could argue all day about the change the characters go through, but you cannot deny that they struggle with change.

Anybody else following this? I loved the last two episodes... the both made me squirm, but were also exceptionally well done.

Mad Men is my favorite show out there right now. In retrospect I like it more than Lost. You know a show is good when you can make people standing around in offices look entertaining.

And yeah; the last two episodes were among the best in the series. Who saw any of that coming? Not this guy!

I saw Lane coming a mile away, ever since he wrote out that check. They did keep me guessing about the how of it, though.

The whole sequence with him trying to kill himself in the Jaguar was so well done - since Jaguar was so intertwined with the show this season. Then when they are trying to get into his office and can't, so they look in over the top of the wall and you know something bad has happened, but you don't see it right away... great tension.

The last two episodes were brilliant, a good conclusion for the season.

[Syl] wrote:I saw Lane coming a mile away

I thought I did... then when the Jaguar wouldn't start, it seemed like he had changed his mind. I was wrong

It's too bad, too, as Lane was one of my favorite characters. Despite the fact that I identify more with Peter than with many of the others, I loved that Lane was the one who finally had the guts to punch him!