By Andrew Johnston
On my first viewing, I liked “The Gold Violin” pretty well but was bugged by a few things, some of which left me with an odd hunch that a number of fans would proclaim it an all-out clunker. A second viewing resolved some of my initial objections by giving me a better idea of Matthew Weiner & Co’s intent, but it didn’t shake my feeling this one won’t be a lot of peoples’ favorite. Some of it is the unexpected return of the Barretts, which both needlessly extended a story that had come to a fairly satisfying conclusion, then pulled a 180 on the conclusion's message. Another issue might be the relatively large distance between Don’s story and that of the junior executives, which allows the latter to flower but also dilutes the sense of a unified theme.
Like a number of early-mid first season episodes (“5G”, “The Hobo Code”), “The Gold Violin” seeks to juxtapose a story about the tension between Don’s past and future with one about the junior execs living lives of thwarted dreams. But here, the connection felt less organic--Ken and Salvatore’s unexpected friendship felt like a self-contained short story, while Don’s felt more like an excerpt from the novel (or, at the very least, like a non-entirely-hermetic story plucked from a nonsequential cycle). There have been other episodes of Mad Men that did this, but here the seams were just a little more visible than usual.
We begin with Don at a Cadillac dealership, where he’s pondering the purchase of a 1962 El Dorado (Don isn’t just looking for a toy, don’t forget--he’s in genuine need of a new vehicle after totaling his car in "The New Girl"). The dealer’s comment that he bets Don “would be as comfortable in one of these as you are in your own skin” inaugurates a flashback to a moment ten years earlier, not more than two year’s after walking away from his Dick Whitman identity, when he wasn’t quite so comfortable in his own skin. At the time, ironically, he was working as a used-car dealer, and was about to sell a presumed lemon to a high school student when a Patricia Arquette-lookalike startled him by coming by in search of the real Don Draper. Spooked by the memory, Don cuts the sale short and heads back to Sterling Cooper, to meet with Roger and Duck about the Martinson’s (now just ‘Martinson’) coffee account that has gone unmentioned for several episodes.
Meanwhile, Peggy, Paul, Sal and Ken are working on the Pampers account that Sterling Cooper hopes to land, all of them vexed by the seemingly-intractible problem of the product’s high price (a necessity to offset Procter & Gamble’s R&D costs). Subsequent interruptions by Harry and Jane, Don’s new secretary, result in Jane, Ken, Sal and Harry sneaking into Burt Cooper’s office for a gander at the Mark Rothko painting on which Cooper just dropped a bundle. To Jane and Harry, it’s entirely abstract--”fuzzy squares”, says Jane--but a deep struck is struck within Ken by Sal’s sympathetic reaction to Ken’s interpretation of the painting as something that’s meant to be experienced rather than merely seen.
“You’re not like everyone else here,” says Ken, by which he means artistically sensitive, rather than queer (Sal gets slightly defensive nonetheless). So it is that Ken seeks Sal’s opinion of his latest story, which in turn leads to a Sunday night dinner invitation that gives us our first good look at Sal’s (relatively) new wife, Kitty Romano.
It’s the characterizations in this scene that left me thinking the episode may get branded a clunker. Ken has been portrayed as little more than Sterling Cooper’s most avid pussy hound for all of the season to date, and Sal has generally come off as (almost) all bitchy snark, all the time, making his sensitivity to Ken’s art somewhat unexpected (to be sure, we saw some of this when he let his guard down in "The Hobo Code," but that was much less specific). There’s also the issue of his relationship with Kitty, which I appear to have completely misread when I said they seemed like genuinely loving partners earlier this season.
Ken’s statement that writing is something he only does for fun, as a hobby, actually makes sense in light of what we’ve seen this season, and while he sniffs out Sal as more artistic than the rest of SC, Sal too sniffs him out as an idiot savant of sorts. Many people, I’m sure, will predict Sal developing a deep crush on Ken, but I think it’s far more likely that he’ll push Ken to actually put his gift to use, encouraging him to write, taking him to parties where he can make useful connections, that sort of thing....as he drifts all the further away from Kitty in the process.
In Kitty’s first appearances, she and Sal enjoyed a playful, easygoing chemistry that left me suspecting they might turn out to be a happy couple despite the issue of Sal’s sexuality. Sal’s pointed effort to keep Kitty out of the conversation pretty well torpedoes that theory. Still, Ken must have seen some of what I did, or else he wouldn’t have remarked on how their relationship is the kind of thing he thinks he’d want when he tires of skirtchasing.
I’m was surprised by the revelations about Sal and Kitty’s background. She was a neighbor from Baltimore who followed Sal’s mom up to the city when he moved her there, and who kept the torch burning until he finally gave in. What surprised me the most is that Sal’s mom is apparently still alive (unless that’s Kitty’s mom we see dozing off on the couch in the final scene at the Romano home). I guess I figured Sal wouldn’t really feel the need for a full-time beard as long as his mother was alive, and she obviously wasn’t around for the meal--did they park her with a neighbor for the duration, or what? (There wasn’t any sign of her in the brief glimpse of Sal and Kitty getting cozy at home that we caught earlier in the season).
Like Ken and Roger, I’m increasingly intrigued by Jane Siegel, Don’s new secretary (presumably one of SC’s first Jewish hires since the Rachel Menken debacle). She’s by far the sharpest and most professional secretary Don has had yet (I love the way she cock-blocks Duck from access to Don’s liquor cabinet after he’s summoned to Cooper’s office), and she has a three-dimensional view of SC’s workings that lets her see when it’s safe to bend the rules in the interest of satisfying her curiosity (or just having a little fun). She also knows how to play the game much better than Joan does. Her exploitation of Roger’s crush on her as a means of holding onto her job after Joan axes her is pitch-perfect, as is her simultaneous blowing off/stringing along of Ken). A couple of episodes ago, I took her sunburn for a throwaway sight gag, but now I see it was a pretty neat piece of groundwork being layed--thanks to the color, Jane looks like a normal human being in her confrontations with Joan, whose alabaster skin and increasingly apparent insecurity gives her the air of an elegant vampire chafing under the restrictions that limit the powers of the undead.
The return of the Barretts, via the Stork Club bash to celebrate the pickup of “Grin and Barrett” (I never got the pun in the title until now, can you believe it?) struck me as little more as a contrived way to have Betty learn of Don’s affair with Bobbie. Jimmy presumably knew of the affair when he dragged his butt to SC to tell Don his alleged deepest secret, that he’s really not a bad guy, and having him totally renege on that felt, to me, like a needless extension of the storyline (in addition to making Jimmy a less interesting character). And no matter how high the wall is that Bobbie has built between her personal and professional lives, I can’t seeing her being at all cordial to Don after their last encounter, at least not this soon. I love how the episode ends with Betty puking inside the Cadillac, but surely the writers could have come up with a more interesting way to get us there.
At the end of the episode, the biggest thematic question remains unanswered: Who is the golden violin, apparently perfect in all ways but unable to play music? It’s a metaphor for unfulfilled potential, of course, and it can’t apply to Ken because he (unlike almost everyone else at SC) is doing something real with his talent, even if he doesn’t take it very seriously. It could apply to a frustrated Betty, of course, but she has sufficiently few scenes in the episode to be a likely candidate. It could also apply to Don, but his lack of direct involvement in any scenes with Ken and Sal makes him an odd fit. I’m sure someone has a theory that solves everything perfectly, but for now it seems like a metaphor the writers liked too much not to use and chose to shoehorn into the episode to give it more of a theme. That the episode still plays so well under these presumed circumstances is a testament to what a talented team Matthew Weiner has assembled.
Miscellaneous Notes: Don’s invitation to join the board of the Museum of Early American Folk Art (now known as the American Folk Art Museum) arrives right on time: The museum was chartered in 1961, and opened in September, 1963--making it a little hard for Bert Cooper to have already seen the first exhibit. His crack about “whirligigs” is spot on, as the museum put an early focus on weathervanes and quilts from the Northeast.
Mark Rothko, already an established painter at the time, adopted the style of the painting shown in the episode circa the late 1940s, at which point his reputation escalated significantly. This being the case, his work shouldn’t have seemed *that* far out there to anyone at SC, at least anyone who knew the least bit about art (Sal’s reaction struck me as just about right). I can’t ID the painting shown in the episode--I even took a crack at browsing the (incomplete) Google Books scan of his catalog raisonne, but it was definitely a genuine Rothko (a reproduction of one, at least) and not a pastiche thrown together by the art department, as the end credits include a copyright notice followed by the names of the painter’s children, Dr. Kate Rothko Prizel and Christopher Rothko, who control his estate.
I’m sure I’m not alone in having been convinced we’d seen the last of the young Turks that Duck brought by SC in the season premiere. After coming across as such clowns, I was surprised that they basically hit one out of the park with their extended jingle for Martinson’s, which--with the right background animation--could well have gone on to attain legendary status in the world in which Mad Men takes place (I was more surprised still that Don, and not Duck, received credit for the "win"). Students for a Democratic Society, the group Smith’s friend back in Michigan belongs to, was the most prominent leftist student group of the 1960s, and the excerpt that Smith reads to Don is a verbatim quote from the Port Huron Statement, the group’s manifesto, adopted later in 1962 at its first convention. I was a little disappointed that the quote was from the version that passed at the convention, a/k/a the “compromised second draft”; I suppose it was too much to hope that Weiner had somehow gotten hold of a copy of the legendary “original Port Huron Statement,” which one Jeffrey Lebowski claims a hand in authoring.
Andrew Johnston is the television critic for Time Out New York.
Sunday, September 07, 2008
Mad Men Mondays: Season Two, Episode 7, "The Gold Violin"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
44 comments:
at first blush I was really taken with the episode, but now that I read it back, the things didn't hang together so well, did they? but at the very least it did give us some interesting color in some of the background players' personalities. I'm enjoying seeing Jane get her claws out.
First off, if I may make a small correction on the headline, this is episode seven not six.
Jimmy presumably knew of the affair when he dragged his butt to SC to tell Don his alleged deepest secret, that he’s really not a bad guy, and having him totally renege on that felt, to me, like a needless extension of the storyline (in addition to making Jimmy a less interesting character).
I gotta kind of disagree here. How exactly does what Jimmy did here (getting back at the guy who was banging his wife) make him a bad guy. I seriously loved seeing him do that. I wanted to give him a high five. I thought taking someone who had been a rather dull jackass and showing him to be really crafty bastard made him much more interesting.
andrew: That was an editor's mistake (mine), since corrected. Thanks for the eagle eye.
I don't see how Bobbie's and Jimmy's story could be considered concluded, since they had an ongoing business relationship with Don, and that neither B or J seemed to be people who took being insulted (or tied up and left to rot), er, lying down. If Bobbie didn't tell Jimmy about the affair, she simply had to scatter the breadcrumbs until Jimmy got the hint, then emphasized just how much cash was at stake if Jimmy publicly lost his temper. Bobbie knows how to play him, yes, like a violin, and they probably have tag-teamed their vengeful way towards anyone who's harmed them. They probably have a system of misery set up, and that's just for their friends who stray....
Jimmy's multi-episode setup and explosion regarding the affair was perfectly pitched -- he made Don feel at ease, got in with Betty comfortably, made her feel the queen of the may, then dropped the bomb like it was Dresden. He did the worst thing he could do to Betty: Point out the narcotic haze she's been living under, to willfully not see how Don relates to women he respects (and has sex with), compared to her. Jimmy couldn't have done it better if he were a made man with a gun.
Jimmy knows that if he went the route of insults as with the Utz owners, he'd be canned just as he got 'everything he wanted'. In this setting, with that low, reasonable pitch, he made Don be the one wondering whether to shit or go blind. Don became the uncivilized one unfit for that place, despite that punim, that breeding he shows (and stole). And, since Don knows just how much *he* does not belong, he couldn't do a damn thing about it.
Also, I thought the car dealer said the vehicle as a Coupe De Ville....as noted in the AMC recap.
At the end of the episode, the biggest thematic question remains unanswered: Who is the golden violin, apparently perfect in all ways but unable to play music? It’s a metaphor for unfulfilled potential, of course...
I don't think the violin is a metaphor for unfulfilled potential, nor do I think it stands for a person, per se. It's a symbol of Mad Men's kind of skin-deep beauty - which quickly disappears as soon as one looks beyond outward appearances. The Drapers' picnic seems like an idyllic scene, but in the end they leave behind a ton of garbage. Jimmy Barrett claims to have "everything he wants," but only at the expense of his dignity (and he doesn't really have what he wants, anyway). Sal's marriage seems (to Ken) to be ideal, but we know it's a sham. Cooper's new painting seems (to his employees) to say something about his aesthetic, but it's really just an investment. Don's new car is supposed to say something about his status, but Betty quite literally tarnishes it after being forced to confront the ugliness lurking behind her and Don's "perfect" marriage. Like all these things, the violin only appears to be beautiful; it can't do the one thing it's supposed to.
No mention/analysis of the picnic scene? I couldn't help but crack up at that last extended take. That was a lot of trash...
I take the gold violin to stand in for the two marriages on display tonight. Both appear to be perfect in every way, but neither can make music.
It must have been hard for Duck to go birding with the Martinson folks just a few weeks after ditching his own bird dog, Chauncey. Serves him right.
Andrew..nice review.
I enjoyed the episode. I hope that the writers are keeping a master timeline board somewhere charting Don's life as they incorporate different flashbacks into the story :)
Am I wrong, but at the dealership, didn't Don see the chubby guy with glasses from season one who approached him on a train and recognized him as Dick Whitman? There was a quick shot of the man across the dealership checking out another car. I thought that's what led to Don's flashback and part of why he abruptly hurried out.
Also, my take on Jimmy's anger is that he's jealous over Bobbie having strong feelings for Don as opposed to her usually casual lays. Jimmy may have sensed Bobbie being down after the accident which he mistakenly (or perhaps not) attributes to love.
I loved this episode. I thought the various character pairings were amazing: joan/jane, dan/jimmy, cooper/harry, ken/sal...etc. I like the central metaphor, and I am really curious about the previews for next week's episode.
I am surprised you didn't like it- I susally agree with most everything you write.
Many people, I’m sure, will predict Sal developing a deep crush on Ken
Sal's behavior during the dinner was so much like a schoolboy crush that I thought it the attraction was clear, though by the episode's end I think Sal's resigned himself to the idea that nothing could ever come of it.
This recap doesn't mention the business with the cigarette lighter, but Sal's look when Ken lights his cigarette didn't leave much doubt for me. And if Sal's interest in Ken were purely artistic, I don't think the episode would go out its way to show Sal secretly hanging on to the lighter as a romantic/erotic keepsake.
That final shot of Sal using the lighter while glancing at his wife seemed clearly meant to sum up the whole relationship -- the fact that he's resigned to living the happy family lie while quietly hanging on to thoughts about what could have been.
Pretty much agree with Corey's interpretation of the gold violin theme, which fits in nicely with Ken's description within the episode. It represents an aesthetically beautiful object that is fatally-flawed. This metaphor works for describing the relationships of Don/Betty, Jimmy/Bobbie, and Sal/Kitty, all of which seem perfect from the exterior to others.
Really enjoyed the picnic scene as well as a great metaphor for the Drapers' marriage. Their selfishness, and apparent obliviousness or disregard for their actions, effectively destroys everything of value and beauty around them. This is pretty consistent with Don's attitude about womanizing as well, and we see how his carelessness destroys his beautiful new Cadillac in a similar way. In neither case does Don really care about or consider the consequences of what he is doing. He doesn't realize that throwing trash on the beautiful countryside ruins the experience for others, just as he never considers that sleeping with another man's wife has equally ruinous effects.
Finally, loved the way that Jimmy refers to Don as "trash" at the end. Thought it was a nice way to come full circle on the picnic scene.
I completely disagree about the episode - I think it's one of the best so far and much more complex than you give it credit for. I also disagree with most of your observations, but in the interest of time I'll just mention the most important:
Jimmy presumably knew of the affair when he dragged his butt to SC to tell Don his alleged deepest secret, that he’s really not a bad guy, and having him totally renege on that felt, to me, like a needless extension of the storyline (in addition to making Jimmy a less interesting character).
As another poster noted; there's no reason to think that Jimmy knew for certain about the affair during his trip to SC (perhaps he was suspicious and was going to observe the interaction between Don and Bobbie), but in any case, there was certainly a reason for him NOT to make waves at that particular time (before making the pilot/being signed for the series). Also, why does one man expressing anger to another man who's slept with his wife mean he's a bad guy? I actually think Jimmy's behavior to both Betty and Don made him seem more human and likable.
More importantly, his behavior at the club was most certainly NOT a needless extension of the storyline; it was one of the most critical events to happen in the series so far this season. This is the first time in the entire run of the show (and, as far as we know, in Betty and Don's life) that either one has been confronted with the impact and effect of Don's womanizing on other people. To me it felt like an earthquake, compared to mild tremors from Don's previous pangs of conscience. If there aren't serious after effects from this episode, I will be disappointed in Weiner and Co.
Furthermore, you're way off base about the golden violin; "It’s a metaphor for unfulfilled potential, of course..." - I think you're doing a bit of what Sal was trying to do with the Rothko ("It must mean something.") - struggling for something deeper when the simplest explanation is the most elegant and apropos:
A golden violin is something which appears very beautiful... and yet doesn't function. If you can't figure out what that applies to in the episode, I think you need to give it a second look.
This was my first episode of "Mad Men" and I really enjoyed it. If this one was below-par, I'm in for some treats from here on out.
I also adore Mark Rothko, so I was gratified to see one of his paintings in the episode. It's true, you DO just have to "experience" it. Unfortunately, they don't work well in reproduction - only "in person" do you really see the subtle gradiations of translucent tints - those squares seem to almost levitate off the canvas.
That was an editor's mistake (mine), since corrected.
Not yet!
And to follow up on the "Sal's crush" storyline, Bryan Batt, who plays Salvatore, says some insightful things about the crush on the "Inside Mad Men" video on AMC. I thought the final shot with the lighter that Judd mentioned, was a lovely summation of what I assume was a glimpse into Salvatore's life; I would be surprised if we saw much more from Sal and Ken in future episodes, since I think that pretty much said it all.
Not my favorite episode of the season but not my least favorite either - and I think I tend to prefer episodes that focus on the more main characters (Peggy, Pete, Betty, Duck) than on the worker bees in the office, though I thought Joan was great in this episode. I'm interested to see how she handles the new girl, who is clearly unafraid of manipulating men with her looks, as well as defying Joan.
wrongshore: Not yet!
D'oh, Blogger! I fixed the headline, hit publish and apparently it didn't take.
Just did it again, apparently with success.
As for the Mark Rothko painting, I don't have the episode in front of me, but it looks like this piece.
Interesting... that page says it was donated to the museum in 1962... so I guess Mr. Cooper didn't hold onto it for long!
My favorite part was the family picnic scene, which ended with a rather alarming display of littering. I'm left wondering if that was considered "normal" in this period, or if we're supposed to view the family as being uncaring. Daddy... are we rich?
Love Mr. Johnston's essay and all of the insightful comments (I was also struck by the other man in the dealership - thanks for identifying him.) To add: I thought he was purchasing a Coupe de Ville. I also thought the beer can that Don pitched out into the woods; the trash left behind after the picnic; and the new Pampers you just throw away were indicative of the times and made me smile.
It would have to be a reproduction of a real Rothko b/c it is ID'ed in dialogue. If you call it a Rothko (or any other artist going back at least 100 years if not more), you have to get permission from the artist's estate, and then you have to observe stringent guidelines for creating a reproduction.
A pastiche can't look too much like a real work or evoke a real artist's work too closely. I've heard 60% floated as a guideline for how close a work can resemble or evoke.
These rules have a lot to do with preventing art fraud.
Signed,
the person who cleared the art for POLLOCK
E. Conty: That's not the painting from the episode, but it is similar in some ways.
Trevor Turk: I'd like to know exactly that from someone who was around at that time. This era is before the "littering is bad" PSAs (like the crying Indian) as far as I know, and it certainly ties into the "disposable" diapers also discussed in the episode. Did people just not even think twice about it? Or did the Drapers assume that park groundskeepers would pick it up?
Joan only called out Jane, Salvatore, and Ken for breaking into Bertran's office. She didn't know about Harry because he took the stairs.
I'm a huge fan of Mad Men (as you can tell from my blog), and I thought this episode was perfection.
I'm dying to know what Rothko piece that was. I've always loved Rothko, and I've always said that if I could have one piece of artwork, it would be one of his. Considering this is such a mood-driven show, Rothko is a fitting choice.
I'm still trying to figure out how Jimmy found out about the affair.
I think the "gold violin" had to do with all the various facades of the characters: (the seemingly perfect marriages, people living lies, and the empty status symbols of the Cadillac and the painting, etc.)
Lady Bird Johnson was the champion of Beautify America! Don't be a litter bug was a huge comercial in New England when I was a kid. So, Do Not Litter, Curb your Dog, and all that sort of thing occurred during the Great Society era.
Finally caught up to this episode -- it's been a busy week -- and was thoroughly impressed. It boasted some of the sharpest exchanges of the series -- the final conversation between Jane and Joan, Jimmy's knife-twisting scenes with Don and Betty and all the dinner-at-Sal's stuff felt just right. Lots of little moments of characterization revealed through silent reaction -- Sal's wife flinching a bit when Sal shuts her out of the conversation; Sal's almost nauseous-seeming reaction when Ken says he covets Sal's (sham) happy marriage.
I didn't think the littering business was overdone, either -- in fact this was clearly an instance where the filmmakers thought it was a significant point to make, yet went the extra mile to make it as subtly as they could (the family getting into the car and driving off is played in a wide shot, and they cut one, maybe two seconds after the car leaves the frame). There was a fair bit of naysaying about the excellence of "Mad Men" last year, and there's been some more this year, and a good deal of that centers on the question of whether the show overdoes the sexism/racism/consumerism/bad manners of the period in order to make the contemporary viewer feel superior. I don't think that complaint really holds up; with a few clunky exceptions, I think the show has been true to the reality of how people acted. We were a disposable society until very recently; I distinctly remember going on picnics or other outings with my family and not giving a second thought to the trash we left behind (sometimes there was a trash can conveniently close and we didn't use it). The TV ads with the crying Native American (almost typed "Indian"!) were still eight or so years away.
Also: Jimmy's scenes were superb, and necessary; I don't think I would have cared about his character one way or the other without this week's business. That Jimmy waited to take a leak in the Draper family pool until after the show was a done deal convinces me that the character is a realistic portrait of a showbiz survivor, and it makes me think that he wasn't born with his asshole suit of armor -- he built it himself.
D'oh...ignore my earlier question about the other customer in the dealership. My eyes really played a trick on me. After watching "Violin" a second time, the man with glasses seen in a quick shot looking over another car is NOT the guy from the train scene in Season One confronting Don about being Dick Whitman.
Matt..There was a fair bit of naysaying about the excellence of "Mad Men" last year...on the question of whether the show overdoes the sexism/racism/consumerism/bad manners of the period in order to make the contemporary viewer feel superior.
Based on my own experience with women from that period, I sometimes think that "Mad Men" overplays their helplessness a bit for drama's sake. To be sure, women from that era were very much 2nd class citizens. But, as antidotal as this sounds, my mom and aunts all worked in office settings in the early 60's and indeed experienced their share of sexism. BUT, they were all pretty tough gals and only took SO much shit (certainly never secretly cried in the Ladies Room). As I said, antidotal. Bobbie comes close to that idea. But she has so much other baggage.
Also, another minor nit, but people then weren't all THAT clueless about homosexuality. Again, I asked my mom about it and she reported that, for instance, the rumors of Rock Hudson's homosexuality were fairly well known. And they had associates that everyone knew were gay. They just didn't address it. Certainly, a sort of denial, but not the type of seemingly blatent ignorance as portrayed in "Mad Men".
a showbiz survivor, and it makes me think that he wasn't born with his asshole suit of armor -- he built it himself.
I too, gained a lot more respect for Jimmy after he took on Don. I still maintain that Bobbie's meaningless infidelities are a fairly common thing that Jimmy has gotten used to. But, Jimmy's sense that there's more to her thing with Don than sex is what's really sticking in his craw.
Matt Naul: Based on my own experience with women from that period, I sometimes think that "Mad Men" overplays their helplessness a bit for drama's sake.
Hmmm...I could agree with you if we only saw the women at Sterling Cooper, where they're in socially subordinate positions because of their gender. But there are a lot of scenes outside the office -- conversations between girlfriends, the stuff with Peggy's family -- where we get a sense that the women live independent lives within the constraints of a male-dominated society. Also, I think that between Rachel, Bobbie, Joan, Jane and Peggy -- and sometimes Betty, who seems to be both toughening up and forging more of a partnership with Don this season -- "Mad Men" offers a pretty good gallery of female characters, not as rich and surprising as "Deadwood" but probably more varied than what we saw on "The Sopranos." (Bobbie is fast becoming one of my favorite characters -- a hardcase who grabs the world by the scruff of its neck and gives it a shake.)
First of let me say: anecdotal, anecdotal, anecdotal...(I knew it looked wrong, but I was in too much of a bloody hurry to question my spell checker)
Anyway...
Matt Z, I could agree with you if we only saw the women at Sterling Cooper, where they're in socially subordinate positions because of their gender. But there are a lot of scenes outside the office -- conversations between girlfriends, the stuff with Peggy's family -- where we get a sense that the women live independent lives within the constraints of a male-dominated society.
I love the show and realize that I'm arguing in the margins here (sometimes, my favorite place), but the women outside of the office don't seem to be doing that much better than those at SC.
Betty's girlfriends seem to exist only as a vehicle for Betty's character to play off of (which is fine, I'm just saying). But to the extent that they are defined, they come off as a bit Stepford Wife-ish.
I really don't see Rachel as a woman leading an independent life.
I never quite got into the Midge character. The beatnick thing was a bit overdone. BUT, she arguably hurts my case.
Peggy, of course, is a train wreck who literally went hysterical at the end of last season. But then there's Peggy's sister. I mention her because she's a more fully fleshed out character and, to me, seems even more tragic than Peggy (boring marriage, saddled with a bunch of kids not all her own, dashed aspirations for some sort of artist career).
As I said, I think Bobbie is the only woman who seems to flourish (for the most part).
To be fair and at the risk of contradicting myself, NO ONE on "Mad Men" is really happy. Except for Cooper, and he's nuts :)
BTW, is Betty finished with her therapy?
Matt Maul: First of let me say: anecdotal, anecdotal, anecdotal...(I knew it looked wrong, but I was in too much of a bloody hurry to question my spell checker)
No worries. I misspelled your last name up above!
Love the name, though -- it sounds like the name of a superviolent comics antihero, maybe somebody who would have teamed up with The Punisher.
PS -- I don't see Rachel as leading an independent life, either, but if independence (meaning a fair degree of autonomy from social constraints) is the yardstick by which we're judging strength of character, this is an argument I can't possibly win because of the period in which "Mad Men" is set. All the characters are chafing under multiple yokes, the women somewhat more so than the men because they're women. But to my mind, that doesn't necessarily mean they're all victims -- quite the contrary, one of the fascinating things here (as on "Deadwood" and "The Sopranos") is seeing the machinations that the female characters go through in order to assert some kind of identity, and carve out some sort of mental room of one's own, even though they're living in an alpha male-dominated dramatic landscape.
But to my mind, that doesn't necessarily mean they're all victims -- quite the contrary, one of the fascinating things here (as on "Deadwood" and "The Sopranos") is seeing the machinations that the female characters go through in order to assert some kind of identity, and carve out some sort of mental room of one's own, even though they're living in an alpha male-dominated dramatic landscape.
I guess from a "Steve McQueen playing catch with himself in solitary so as to defy his German guards" view, they're "carving out a mental room" (I'm laughing while writing this), but, alas, I react to the characters from more of a "glass is half full" perspective and see them more as "victims" than not. My original point was that real women from that era didn't all wallow in the sort of personal dissatisfaction spotlighted on MM, but, instead lived what they viewed as productive, fulfilling lives (i.e., my aforementioned mom and aunts).
And as I said, it's a minor point and certainly doesn't lessen my enjoyment of the show. On the contrary, I accept it as part of MM's personality (just as Battlestar Galactica is more about dread and helplessness than hope and happiness).
Then again, maybe I have issues :)
I've been way to busy with work and health issues to follow and take part in this discussion, but I'm really happy to see my write-up inspire such a rich conversation. Marmad in particular makes some very good points which have me hanging my head over stuff I missed and/or misinterpreted. Thanks, everybody, for giving me plenty of food for thought.
I said: alas, I react to the characters from more of a "glass is half full" perspective and see them more as "victims" than not.
Oops...I meant:
alas, I react to the characters from a "glass is half EMPTY" perspective and see them more as "victims" than not.
I'm in the middle of reading Girls Like Us: Carole King, Joni Mitchell, Carly Simon--And the Journey of a Generation, which follows those three artists through the 1960's and 70's, and even though we associate these women as strong and independent, they all, in 1962, had similar issues as the women portrayed in Mad Men. Namely, fighting an uphill battle for respect in a man's world. They'd all achieve it, but part of the reason they did was a change in how women were treated -- which they in small ways helped cause.
It could be just because I'm in neck deep in both Mad Men and this book that I see incredible parallels, but as I read the book, I'm more and more amazed at Weiner's portrayals.
"If Bobbie didn't tell Jimmy about the affair, she simply had to scatter the breadcrumbs until Jimmy got the hint, then emphasized just how much cash was at stake if Jimmy publicly lost his temper."
I agree exactly. Bobbie was probably not thrilled with being left alone tied to the bed, and covertly egged Jimmy on to exact revenge. To my mind this was one of the best episodes of the season. Gotta love the Joan/Jane thing!
I think this was another excellent episode for this season. I've never been bothered by the presence of the Barretts. In fact, I rather like them. They're interesting . . . and no better or worse than the other characters.
"It’s the characterizations in this scene that left me thinking the episode may get branded a clunker."
From what I have read on various forums and blogs, a lot of fans seemed to enjoy this particular episode very much.
Based on my own experience with women from that period, I sometimes think that "Mad Men" overplays their helplessness a bit for drama's sake.
One of the rules in writing fiction of any kind is that the author has to exaggerate the drama or the situations.
Juanita said: One of the rules in writing fiction of any kind is that the author has to exaggerate the drama or the situations.
I don't disagree. I was just responding to one of Matt Z's comments:
on the question of whether the show overdoes the sexism/racism/consumerism/bad manners of the period in order to make the contemporary viewer feel superior. I don't think that complaint really holds up; with a few clunky exceptions, I think the show has been true to the reality of how people acted.
I feel that the complaint is more valid than Matt Z does. However, I also hastened to add that I'm a big fan of the show and this is more of an observation than a "complaint" on MY part.
When I was a little girl, my grandfather used to refer to my sisters and/or me as “Susan Spotless” when he wanted us to pick something up or help wash dishes, or if we had just had a bath and put on clean clothes. I barely knew what he was referring to (the PSAs were slightly before my time), but apparently back in those days, littering was only just starting to be a serious enough problem that it actually required a little gentle finger-wagging:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qd_iM4hMWyI
I’m guessing it was pretty typical of the post-war, “just do whatever you want! Everything will always be perfect in America, so don’t worry about it” mentality that was really starting to make a serious mess of t generally.
I've been very much enjoying these essays on Mad Men, but for the past couple of posts, the episode labels show up as one large link instead of as the individual actor names and so on. This makes searching more difficult.
Is there a post for the episode of Sunday Sept 14? I can't find it.
Where's the review for "A Night To Remember?!?!" Gah!
Post a Comment