By Andrew Johnston
After hitting fans with bombshells a-plenty in “Six Months’ Leave,” it’s only to be expected from Mad Men that the follow-up would go in an entirely different direction. Well, that’s partly true—certainly, Betty’s angst and its effects on her marriage to Don are among the prime orders of business here. The heavy focus on Betty and Pete Campbell and their respective problems with aging parents gives the episode a very melancholy feeling as, despite being surrounded by family, circumstances leave them feeling very much alone.
When we last saw Betty’s father Gene, it was just a few months after her mother’s death, and he’d just started carrying on with his new girlfriend Gloria, which created a rift between Betty and Don. With the passage of almost two years, their bond is that much tighter, and Betty’s less comfortable about it than ever. Her physical distance from her dad (unlike her brother William, who stayed nearby) made it all too easy for William and Gloria to join forces (or so Betty believes) in taking everything they please from the house, disinheriting Betty in practice if not on paper. I’m inclined to think Betty is overreacting, but William’s failure to tell Betty about the stroke for three days—or to even mention earlier strokes—certainly doesn’t speak well of him.
As for Pete, Trudy’s inability to conceive is causing him ever more headaches as he labors under the implicit promise he made to give her parents a grandchild in exchange for “help” buying their apartment. Presumably because of their lack of a connection to the “old money” mindframe, Trudy’s parents apparently don’t have a problem with adoption. Pete does, however, and one gets the sense that it was drilled into him by his family and isn’t really a personal thing. When Pete’s mother catches wind of the possibility of an adoption and tells Pete he can kiss the family goodbye if he goes down that road with Trudy, he twists the knife in his mother by revealing just how puny a sum she’ll have to live on for the rest of her days thanks to his father’s devotion to keeping up appearances.
Especially after the scene between Pete and Peggy at S-C, I suspect a lot of fans will be spinning theories about scenarios in which Pete and Peggy’s baby could be adopted by Trudy. I don’t see that happening—it seems way too soap-opera and there are a ton of hoops that would have to be jumped through. However, I’d buy a situation in which Peggy somehow let the truth slip to Pete, who would later drunkenly confess the truth to Trudy, thereby casting a long, dark shadow over the relationship that keeps the two from ever really trusting each other again.
It seems likely that Don is using the visit to Betty’s father as an opportunity to get cracking on mending the relationship, and Don keeps a respectful distance while also making it clear that he’s ready to help Betty in any way he can. The only fresh intimacy between them comes when Betty, who’s been sleeping on the bed in the spare room, rouses Don, who’s been sleeping on the floor, and mounts him. It’s a fascinating sex scene—on the one hand, it only makes sense for Betty to turn to good old-fashioned carnal energy in response to all the stress the visit has put her under, notwithstanding her feud with Don. On the other, the texture of the scene almost makes it feel like it’s actually a dream that Don is having. Subsequent events, however, make it pretty clear that the tryst was for real.
Somewhat unusually, the episode basically dispenses with plot business when there are still several minutes to go, using the remaining time for a series of brief character studies in loneliness which were key to why I found the episode so deeply affecting. When Don and Betty return to Ossining, he’s operating under the assumption (or “desperate hope,” take your pick) that the experience of visiting her father together brought them close enough to cancel out their recent differences. Before the stroke, Don and Gene had a fairly cordial relationship, but now he’s ranting that Don is not to be trusted because he has no “people” in the world—a slur that surely slices deep for Don, as practically everything he’s done since ditching the “Dick Whitman” identity has been in the interest of acquiring people and setting down roots.
More than anything else, Don wants to move back in as if nothing had ever happened, but he encounters no such luck: Betty soon makes it quite clear that she doesn’t think Don should stick around, and Don is quickly on the brink of tears. We’ve seldom seen him in such a vulnerable state, and while Jon Hamm plays the moment to perfection, what follows—which I’ll discuss momentarily—makes his performance all the more impressive.
The next morning, the Draper dog leads Betty to the treehouse Don built in “Marriage of Figaro,” which is being used as a hide-out by none other than her old partner in existential despair, Glen Bishop. Glen ran away from home a few days earlier, seeking to avoid being sent off to live with his father and “mean” stepmother. Life with his mother doesn’t seem like the world’s greatest alternative—ignoring her kids, she prefers to devote her time to political activism and going on dates (though I’m sure Glen is exaggerating her activity in the latter department.
In many ways, it’s a replay of the season one scene in which Betty squeezed Glen for dirt on Helen, but with a key difference: That time, Betty was seeking info to help her feel superior to Helen; this time, she’s driven by an apparent instinct that Helen’s post-divorce life, for better or worse, may turn out to be a preview of her own.
Betty is so starved for true empathy that she loses sight of reality for a second and lets Glen cross a line when he takes her hand and announces his intent to “rescue” her. This quickly leads to a phone call to Helen, who thanks Betty for taking care of Glen while sternly admonishing her that the weird connection between Betty and Glen must end immediately. In response, Betty does the closest thing she can do to playing a trump card and telling Helen that Don has left. Helen—instantly stigmatized no longer—reaches out to Betty, offering the kind of support and grown-up advice she needs if she’s going to take baby steps toward her own life. “The hardest part,” says Helen, “is realizing you’re in charge.” And, as Bert Cooper said, loyalty’s been made from stranger stuff.
Don, of course, is a perpetual outsider who always carries a little cloud of loneliness with him, and he probably feels a little more like an outsider than ever when he makes an early return to the SC office—it’s largely empty, and he hasn’t a clue why. Turns out a party celebrating Harry Crane’s impending fatherhood is in progress, and the celebration—or is it his frustration with SC in general?—makes Don snap. Don’s decision to bigfoot Paul off the trip and go to California for the engineering conference with Pete is the decision of a lonely man, one who’s confident and aggressive but lonely nonetheless. Sitting next to Pete on the plane and sucking down one cigarette after another, Don has the look of a rapacious predator contemplating its next move, ensuring that the prospect of Don at liberty in L.A. is as frightening as it is intriguing.
Miscellaneous Notes
Since there wasn’t a convenient place to address the situation in the body of the recap itself, I’ve held my comments on the Paul and Sheila situation for down here. I like Sheila a lot, and while Paul is one of my favorite Mad Men characters, I would never deny that he’s an unbelievable blowhard. Sheila clearly seems smart enough to see through that, so there must be another side to him that we haven’t seen yet but which does the trick for her. She certainly deserves much better treatment than what Paul gives her in this episode, however—his “you can work at a supermarket anywhere” line was particularly crass. After Don boots him off the trip, his decision not to tell her and to act like he canceled because he had a change of heart is perhaps even worse, but it falls under the umbrella of classic cad behavior without really having a racial tinge to it. His speech on the bus could well be the most inane that he’s ever had on the show, and more than ever it makes me want an episode that gives us a little more of a glance at what makes this guy tick.
As to their trip to register voters in Mississippi ... my immediate suspicion was that 1962 was a little early for that sort of thing, which some quick research seems to bear out (for lack of time, I used the Wikipedia articles “African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_(1955–1968)” and “Timeline_of_the_African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement” as my sources) Certainly, the first freedom rides took place in the summer of 1961, but 1962 seems to have been a fairly quiet year in the Civil Rights struggle, with far more activism and protest from locals on the ground than by liberals from up North. 1963 and 1964 were the true watershed years of the struggle (it’s *amazing* how many famous events from the crusade took place in 1963). Still, cheesy though Paul may be, he deserves credit for volunteering on behalf of the call, especially for doing so ahead of the curve.
Andrew Johnston is the television critic for Time Out New York.
Monday, October 06, 2008
Mad Men Mondays: Season Two, Episode 10, "The Inheritance"
Labels:
Andrew Johnston,
Mad Men,
TV Recap
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
37 comments:
I believe that Helen said to Betty that "The hardest part is realizing YOU'RE in charge". In other words, there's no one else to turn to. Someone back me up on this one?
I agree, liz c. That's the way I heard it.
Liz,
That's what I heard too.
Well, now it's just beating a dead horse, but that's what I heard, too.
I have to say, I think Mad Men is proving to be a bit tone deaf on race issues and on the Civil Rights Movement. The scene with Paul greeting and kissing his black girlfriend in the office felt very 2008 -- I know Weiner has to go out of his way to avoid repeating Hollywood cliches about race -- but he has gone so far as to place interracial dating in the same category as passing gas in public (something considered somewhat gauche, but tolerable). This is not a good representation of the opprobrium interracial couples faced in the 1960s-- 18 states still had laws against interracial marriage in 1963. I expect more from this excellent and usually nuanced drama.
Oh, I should also add that the first freedom rides actually took place in 1947, although they were quashed very quickly and were not as successful as the later expeditions.
I've thought a good deal about that kiss. It was shocking in the day; shocking twenty years later, in fact. But even the picture Paul keeps of Sheila on his desk is shocking and dangerous.
I believe that Paul, in his attempt to be cool or more-tolerant-than-thou, is also being reckless. It's specific to the character. I believe this is not a writing mistake but a deliberate choice. I have felt all along that Paul would endanger himself with this relationship, we shall see.
From one anonymous to another: They're in New York, which places them amongst the more progressive of their generation - and which is why Joan's psychological dissection of Paul earlier in the season resonated. Amongst these people, in his environment, Paul dating Sheila is a visual sign of his "cutting-edge-ness". It is precisely the opprobrium (which exists in furtive glances from various secretaries and associates around the SC office) which lends Paul the counter-cultural currency he needs to offset the "positively Cro-Magnon" sensibilities of his time.
Paul is an actor. The pipe, the neck scarf, Sheila - these are all props. His public display of interracial intimacy was a dramatic moment (with Sheila as his ignorant co-star), it was for show, staged to coax condemning glances just as much as exhortations of valor.
I don’t see that happening—it seems way too soap-opera and there are a ton of hoops that would have to be jumped through.
In addition, how often do couples adopt two year old kids? I'm far from an adoption expert, but I can't imagine it to be that common.
My mis-transcription of Helen Bishop's comment (I heard it the right way both time I saw the episode yet still somehow bolloxed it in the recap). Thanks to everyone who caught it...
It may come to pass that Don will be a "rapacious predator" in LA, but that's not how the final scene looked to me. It reminded me, in a way, of The Limey (a film referred to at length in another recent post), as the light through the plane window moves up Don's melancholic face.
The shot of Don sitting at the plane window brings us back to the first episode of the season and the ad campaign for Mohawk. Don told the team he wanted to see the city through the window, as flights represent adventure and freedom, or something like that. We don't get to see the buildings through the window, but it's clear that this time, as with the Kodak Carousel ad, Don buys his own campaign, and it's not just one of his cynical poses.
"The Subterraneans" by Kerouac came out in 1958 and featured his more-or-less out in the open relationship with an African American woman. In 1962, Kinsey certainly seems to be emulating choice bits of the Beat style, so he would go to great lengths to show her off.
Sheila clearly seems smart enough to see through that, so there must be another side to him that we haven’t seen yet but which does the trick for her.
Haven't you ever heard the old saying?:
Once you go pasty-flabby-white-scarf-wearing-dilettante-pretender, you never go back.
I was surprised you didn't mention in more detail the scene between Glenn and Betty. It was amazing how infant-like Betty seemed as she sat there with the milkshake-in-hand next to Glenn who eerily resembled a boyish Don in his oversized white t-shirt. The image of the two of them together only underlines the idea of Betty as a child unable to cope with the adult world around her. I wish you would have written more about this as I'm sure your analysis would have been far more in-depth than my own.
Up 'til now I thought that the Don/Betty breakup would have to be a brief one... but I'm starting to think that it could go on more or less indefinitely. I'm really looking forward to next week's episode - Betty's so hard to read, and I can't wait to find out whether the conversation with her neighbor turned her off the whole idea - or empowered her to think she could handle life on her own.
Speaking of turnoffs, I was seriously squicked by the scene with glen on the couch... it's dangerous how needy she is for affirmation that she's desirable.
I am also disappointed about the lack of discussion about Betty and Glen. Glen comes home, begs to come in, is allowed to clean up, wears Don's shirt, holds Betty's hand (all things Don has been denied). The writers here aren't being subtle -- Glen is some kind of Don stand-in in these segments. What do you make of this?
Paul is an actor. The pipe, the neck scarf, Sheila - these are all props. His public display of interracial intimacy was a dramatic moment (with Sheila as his ignorant co-star), it was for show, staged to coax condemning glances just as much as exhortations of valor."
YES!!
It amazes me how quick we are to ascribe noble motives to someone making 2008-sanctioned choices. The reason Joan's dissection was so shocking is b/c she nailed it. She's petty, but not necessarily any more racist than anyone else. You could argue that Paul himself is even more racist. Note that he made the grocery store comment in front of the elevator operator, who had been humanized just the week before. And his spouting off on the bus--ugh.
I really hope that Mad Men has a subtler, more complex take on race relations than just "racism is bad." I mean, Hairspray already went down the road that Paul & Sheila are on--twice, in fact.
Yes, Paul is a poseur. Whether he is a racist, I don't know.
But Joan made it perfectly clear in "Flight 1" that she is a racist. Why was it so important for her to point out that Paul was being a poseur in his relationship with Sheila? No one has ever been able to answer this. Instead, they point out that Joan had accurately assessed Paul's personality and brush aside her own racism?
Why did Joan make those comments to Sheila back in "Flight 1"? What was her purpose? To warn Sheila? I doubt it. When she suspected Peggy and Paul of being romantically interested in each other, she didn't react with such hostility. But she certainly did when she discovered that Paul was dating Sheila.
Why do fans continue to point out Paul's flaws, while ignoring Joan's when it comes to Sheila?
Well, the Betty/Glen thing is so weird that it seems to resist analysis. Betty's always been at her neediest when Glen shows up, and she's always been oddly unaffected by his creepier overtures. But because he seems to be able to discuss things or empathize at a level that's above her chronological age, she confides in him. They're almost the perfect match-- she's a little girl in a woman's body, while he's a man in little boy's body.
The entire episode is about the contrast between bonds which are created by flesh versus those created by choice, so it makes sense for this bizarre relationship to come back into play.
I can almost give Betty a little slack for the Glen situation, at least until it gets weird with the whole eating off his plate and dressing him up in Don's clothes. Betty's dad is pretty much right about Don-- his lack of any "people" does say a lot about the way he's tried to package himself. Betty's always been blessed with having close relationships with her "people," but what is that worth when your brother doesn't bother calling you when your dad's had a stroke and when your dad's blissfully unaware that he's taking liberties with his own daughter. Kinda makes you think having people is overrated
This emphasis on creating family bonds, exemplified by Trudy's cheery rejoinder that Pete loves her even though they're not related by blood, is what makes me think that Kinsey's going to mature into loving Sheila for being more than just the Other. He'll start out with bad intentions, but mature into something better than what he is.
That being said, I'm hopeful that we won't see many more scenes like the bus ride. MM should be exploring contemporary race issues, but more properly within the context of Sterling Cooper, etc. The second the show starts taking us on location to all the big historical developments of the 1960s is when it becomes that NBC show from a couple of years ago that none of us would be caught dead watching.
Was I the only one who thought the final scene w/ Sheila was a juxtaposition? The look on her face, IMO, made it seem that now Paul was the prop (for a change).
I think people are being a little unfair to Kinsey - I'm most definitely biased because he's my show crush (c'mon! he's smart and funny and looks like a young orson welles!!! if I worked at sterling cooper I'd be all over that) but while I agree that he's *pleased* with himself for having a black girlfriend (Joan was right on *that* score) we have no reason to think that he isn't ALSO actually enamored with her as a person.
As for Betty - I don't think she's childish (nor do I think glen's wise beyond his years) and if the sexes were reversed I think everyone would be more freaked out by her encouragement of his crush. I'm not accusing Betty of pedophilia - I am saying that her hair-giving and hand holding are *weird and unhealthy* and that his mother has every right to be concerned.
Was it just me, or did Don actually feel a moment of empathy with Betty, an understanding that she was a human being with feelings that needed to be acknowledged (at the same time they needed to be covered up) when her dad grabbed her breast at the table? The look on his face, coming as it did after she had turned to him for sex (which, in Don's mind always means you need to stick around), was devastating. He knew she was feeling a rejection from her father, which of course he knew something about, that hurt her to the core. That's why he believed they would be reconciled, because he felt her pain, and he knew that the way to get through it was to pretend everything was okay.
"Was I the only one who thought the final scene w/ Sheila was a juxtaposition? The look on her face, IMO, made it seem that now Paul was the prop (for a change)."
What if Paul isn't a prop? What if Paul and Sheila actually liked each other?
I'll have to go back and check my recording again, but I believe Don's encounter with Betty the night at her dad's place was a dream, as it seemed to me at the time that the blanket under which they coupled was different than the one under which Don woke up (one had a flower pattern, the other did not).
This could have been a continuity error, of course. But it could also be one of those too-subtle clues that Weiner has shown himself ready to drop to signal a shift in time or reality (remember the chalkboard at the restaurant that completely discombobulated the timeline in Three Sundays?)
I endeavor to report back as soon as I get a chance to review my DVD recording, but until then, perhaps someone else noticed?
the sex part wasn't a dream. it's why don thought everything was all better and that he was back in the house.
I see that no one has any intention of answering my questions about Joan's racism. Someone once said on the TWOP forum that it is easier for today's American society to address the issues of sexism or homosexuality than the issue of race.
I see that person was correct.
I am hooked on the show, but I am a bit sad. There is a certain something missing that I loved about the first season. The fashions, attitudes, music, and the values people strived to emmulate are not entertaining me as they did last season, or am I more hard to please? This show was fun to watch last season. For instance, I only got a few laughs out of this weeks episode. Big boss says Happy B'day at the baby shower and Harry wearing the baby bonnet. And I miss seeing the products from my childhood. Maybe I am too sentimental.
Betty is no more childish than most of the other characters. She just doesn't hide it as well.
As for Paul, there must be something about him that attracts the likes of Sheila and Joan, despite his pretentious attitude. Both women seemed clearly aware of this particular trait of his. Besides, the other characters are just as bad as Paul when it comes to maintaining a facade that makes them look good. Like Betty, Paul doesn't really do much to hide this particular trait.
Don is the biggest poseur of them all.
Wow...I'm surprised no one commented on the numerous Hitchcock references sprinkled like Easter eggs throughout the episode. I counted at least four or five.
"As to their trip to register voters in Mississippi ... my immediate suspicion was that 1962 was a little early for that sort of thing, which some quick research seems to bear out (for lack of time, I used the Wikipedia articles “African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_(1955–1968)” and “Timeline_of_the_African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement” as my sources) Certainly, the first freedom rides took place in the summer of 1961, but 1962 seems to have been a fairly quiet year in the Civil Rights struggle, with far more activism and protest from locals on the ground than by liberals from up North. 1963 and 1964 were the true watershed years of the struggle (it’s *amazing* how many famous events from the crusade took place in 1963)."
I found this web site about a voters' registration drive in McComb, Mississippi in 1962.
By the way, I watched the scene featuring Don, Betty and her family at the breakfast table. It seemed apparent to me that Gene had no idea who Betty was. She even lamented upon this fact to Viola.
Don't be a tease, Matt Maul. I remember Pete alluding to "Rope". What did you get?
Hi- the second "anonymous" here to respond to the debate about Paul and the treatment of his interracial relationship on the show (far too late, I know, since we are about to have a new episode to mull over)
There have been some excellent points made about why *Paul* wanted to kiss his girlfriend in the office, but my concern about Mad Men's treatment of interracial relationships really centered around the larger office reaction (very muted -- interracial dating could easily lose you your job in the early 1960s) and the lack of any credible explanation for Sheila's motives. In a show that has done a good job of giving supporting characters interesting motivations, Sheila is right now a cipher whose actions make little sense. Even if Paul can be naive about what could happen if he showed off his black girlfriend, I am not prepared to believe that she would be so blind.
I do like the suggestion of the poster upthread who pointed out that she might be proud of her unorthodox choice of mate as well. In any case, I hope Weiner starts to flesh out the black characters a bit more (so far we have 2 Magical Negro Mammies, one potentially promising elevator operator, and a civil rights activist who we are to believe is unaware of how whites reacted to interracial couples.)
Sheila IS NOT blind to Paul's faults. This episode has made it perfectly clear.
And I've noticed that you, along with everyone else, is buying Joan's argument that Paul's only interest in Sheila is in showing others how "liberal" he is. Which doesn't make any sense, considering he works in an office environment in which most of the workers tend to be conservative.
And by the way, Paul is DATING Sheila. He is not married or engaged to her. Most of them probably don't take his involvement in her that seriously. Like Joan, they probably see his relationship with Sheila as another example of Paul trying to pretend how "hip" he can be. They also probably see the relationship as Paul indulging in a little "poontang" (if you pardon the expression) before he moves on with someone more acceptable. Sheila is not a threat to them. Not yet.
dying to read the newest update ... what gives?
No more "Mad Men" recaps? Throw me a bone, here!
Try this site - (not mine!) - it has great Mad Men recaps:
http://sepinwall.blogspot.com/2008/10/mad-men-mountain-king-mergers-and.html
Post a Comment