The House Next Door has moved.

You should be automatically redirected in 6 seconds. If not, visit
http://www.slantmagazine.com/house/
and update your bookmarks. Thank you!

Showing posts with label Mad Men. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mad Men. Show all posts

Saturday, November 14, 2009

Mad Men Mondays (on Friday): Season 3, Ep. 13, "Shut the Door. Have a Seat"



Todd VanDerWerff joins Luke De Smet and Myles McNutt for this special Mad Men season three recap podcast, produced in conjunction with TV on the Internet. The three spend just under an hour talking about the season finale, the season as a whole, their favorite moments of the season and where the show can go from here.

If you like this edition of TV on the Internet, you can find more episodes on iTunes. You can also check the show out at Podcast Alley, Podcast Pickle or the TV on the Internet blog.

Here's a direct link to the episode.

The entirety of the episode is dedicated to discussion of Mad Men's third season. If you have not seen the season, we spoil absolutely everything, up to and including the finale's final shots, so you may want to listen until you've had a chance to see the season in question.

Clips are from Mad Men (ep: "Shut the Door. Have a Seat," script by Matthew Weiner and Erin Levy).

We hope to have a transcript up in this space sometime this weekend, so keep checking back.

______________________________________________

House contributing editor Todd VanDerWerff is the publisher of the pop culture blog South Dakota Dark and co-host of the podcast TV on the Internet. His writing also appears at The AV Club and Hitfix.

House contributor Luke De Smet is a freelance writer and disgruntled warehouse stock boy from Edmonton, Alberta, where he is regular contributor to SEE Magazine. Follow him on Twitter or check out his blog Bring Me Back a Goat.

House Contributor Myles McNutt is the author of television review blog Cultural Learnings.

Read more!

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

Mad Men Mondays (on next Wednesday): Season 3, Ep. 12, “The Grown-Ups”

By Luke de Smet



Mad Men is nothing if not thematically well organized, and typically, writing about an episode consists of picking out the throughline and explicating how it brings together all the disparate plot elements. Typically, though, that throughline exists in the subtext, which makes “The Grown-Ups”, written by Brett Johnson and Matthew Weiner and directed by Barbet Schroeder, both a deliberate change of pace and a difficult episode to write about. Well, that, or an exceedingly easy one: hey everyone, this episode’s about the Kennedy assassination!

This isn’t to say that nothing is happening beneath the surface — it is still Mad Men, after all — but the episode does mirror the way an event this huge and tragic can derail everything else going on around it. Last year, series creator Weiner told Alan Sepinwall that he couldn’t see himself adding anything new to the “well-trod” Kennedy assassination. This was before, of course, the third season began foreshadowing the event in nearly every episode, but Weiner’s words still effectively hold true. The assassination isn’t really thematized or dissected, or even treated as subject matter in-of-itself. As Mad Men episodes go, “The Grown-Ups” is mostly a visceral experience; it’s something we all knew was coming, and now we simply have to watch the characters endure, rather than having to get all interpretive.

Watching them endure, however, inevitably means watching them sit in front of the TV a lot. Two of my TV-critic betters (Sepinwall and Todd VanDerWerff) felt the episode suffered somewhat for this, as it’s hard to turn characters watching TV into something compelling. While I agree to a certain extent — this wasn’t one of the season’s truly great episodes — it’s not a problem that I personally encountered. I wonder if this has something to do with the mere fact that I have far less exposure to television, and not that well-versed in the iconography of this seminal moment. Yet at the same time I find “The Grown-Ups” to be formally and stylistically interesting in its own right, beyond the stock footage.

As Todd has commented, this season has largely focused on the characters’ foundations coming loose — senses of identity are shaken, and the ideas upon which lives have been built are thrown into question. Of course, the historical context mirrors the more intimate character development, as America continues to plunge into the unknown territory of the 1960s. Stylistically, Mad Men is just as adept at developing the sense that something is off kilter (the filming during much of the California arc feels otherworldly at times), and from the opening scene of “The Grown-Ups” something about the pacing and the editing is decidedly off.

We open on Pete (Vincent Kartheiser), sleeping on an office couch, bundled up in winter gear to protect from the cold. That the building has yet to turn on the heat situates the episode in early winter, our first hint that this is sometime around the time of the assassination. It’s also off-putting to see the office setting permeated by the elements, as if some small measure of control has been lost over this well-structured environment. The camera barely moves in the first two minutes, cutting between medium shots of individual characters in a staccato rhythm, and we’re given little sense of the scene as Pete is called to Pryce’s (Jared Harris) office to learn he has lost his promotion to Cosgrove (Aaron Staton). Pete politely shakes Pryce’s hand and leaves, the shot remaining static. It’s not until we cut next, and vaguely creepy, ambient music beings to play, that the camera begins to follow Pete through the office, itself appearing surreal, filled with workers in scarves and jackets. The sudden fluidity creates a strange tone, and as Pete passes by Cosgrove fixing a small electric heater, I half expected him to throw his hot drink into his rival’s face. As I watched Pete storm into his office, only to emerge seconds later just as quickly, I inexplicably blurted out, “God, he’s bringing out the gun!”

I was wrong, sadly; he was merely grabbing his briefcase so as to petulantly storm out. But the experience left me as uncertain of the future as the characters themselves. As trite as it may sound, the episode effectively establishes the sense that anything can happen; we’ve watched the drama stew beneath the surface for so long, it finally feels as if things are unhinged enough for everything to come crashing down. Our first sight of Don (Jon Hamm) provides a more poignant example: with his lies finally exposed, it’s unclear how much Dick Whitman we’ll see, as opposed to Don Draper. In the past we’ve seen Don ready to abandon his family at the mere threat of having his past exposed, but now that it actually has been we instead see him rocking his infant child back to sleep. It’s a gentle, almost sweet shot, but it’s also shrouded in shadow, and it’s a short and very isolated nighttime shot, being sharply cut, both to and from, against scenes clearly set in daytime. There’s something deeply enigmatic and uncertain about Don, here. Sure, he’s simply being a good father, but it’s somehow an uncomfortable experience for the viewer, as if we expect something to abruptly change at any moment.

Of course change comes for literally everyone, as news of Kennedy being shot fills the airwaves and the uncertainty moving forward becomes much more explicit. Harry Crane (Rich Sommer), who sits in his office watching television all day, complains that no one notices what he does, yet moments later his office is flooded with onlookers staring at the TV, trying to catch a glimpse of what’s going on. It’s harrowing, but it’s a moment of transition both for Harry’s career and America’s relationship with television. The episode effectively strikes a balance in every reaction scene between the tone of utter desolation and disintegration and the feeling that the characters are also changing in some way—it’s a moment of both death and rebirth.

Perhaps the most striking scene of the entire episode is Carla (Deborah Lacey) entering the house, obviously distraught, and sharing a moment with Betty (January Jones) in which all social norms collapse and in which everything that had been so tersely separating the two women becomes trivial. It’s doubtful we’ll ever see Carla collapse onto Betty’s couch and smoke a cigarette again, but that it happened even once demonstrates how even the most constraining of social rules can ultimately prove incredibly frail.

But somehow I find Pete and Trudy (Alison Brie) most interesting. In an episode called “The Grown-Ups”, we witness a fair amount of regression and childish behavior. We become adults when we develop a firm idea of who we are and are able to maintain a concrete sense of identity. The Kennedy assassination caused many people to question these very things, and in that respect the episode questions the very notion of adulthood. Yet Pete and Trudy fill a special role here, as they are typically the characters most unsure of who they are. They’re married, they live in a nice home, Pete has his career and Trudy wants children; they are two people who continually try to act out expected, adult behavior, yet ultimately doing so only serves to confuse and alienate them. Coming on the heels of Pete being passed over for the promotion, the assassination affords them the opportunity to differentiate themselves from those older or from different social groups who react improperly to the event. Trudy’s transition from encouraging her husband to do the respectable and sensible thing, to actively cheerleading the idea that he gather his clients and set out on his own path, is incredibly striking. At a time when everyone else’s identity seems to be thrown into question, these might just be two people who are finally developing their own.

And this is part of what makes Mad Men such a complex show: it deconstructs the identities we build for ourselves, yet it always manages to acknowledge the necessity that we continue to build these identities. Naturally, we see this most of all with Don. At the wedding reception, Betty asks him if everything is going to be okay, and in a rare display of self-doubt, Don is without an assertive reply. They kiss, and Don says, “We’ll see.” Later, when Betty musters the initiative to demand a divorce, she cites this kiss as evidence that she no longer loves him; it becomes clear that it’s not the lying, cheating and mistreatment that’s breaking up the Draper household. It’s that Betty can’t love Dick Whitman. We’ve been waiting for Don’s bravado, philandering and arrogance to get him in trouble, but ultimately it is his frailties and vulnerabilities that cost him his marriage. This may not condone some of Don’s actions, but it does give us a glimpse at the reasons why Dick Whitman had to become Donald Draper. It makes it all the more fitting that the episode ends with Don and Peggy (Elisabeth Moss) together: She understands much more than most — and certainly much more than Betty — what’s involved in becoming the person you need to be.

Some other stuff:

  • Working off the last point, I want to ask an open question: Has Mad Men made Don too sympathetic? This is a common problem with anti-heroes, where attempts to critique who and what they are fall apart simply because we like them too much. We’ve all seen Travis Bickle and Alex DeLarge posters in various dorm rooms, and I can’t help but wonder if the same phenomenon is happening with Don. Sure, most people recognize that this is a social critique, yet at the end of the day Mad Men fans typically just think Don is really, really awesome. I know I do, even after his monstrous treatment of Sal (Bryan Batt). Is this a problem?


  • Something a little silly: my wife and I play a game where, riffing off of the “dick/asshole/pussy” thing from Team America, we try to separate the male cast of Mad Men into the categories ‘dick’, ‘asshole’ and ‘douchebag’. We’re working on the assumption that none of them are particularly good people, so we divide them up into the dicks, whom we love anyway (Don, obviously), the assholes who are often amusing, but just all-around miserable people (Pete, when he forces himself on foreign nannies, though not when he dances or punches Cosgrove), and the lowly douchebags, whom we hold in scorn and contempt. Some big moves this episode! Roger’s (John Slattery) been mired in asshole territory for the better part of two seasons now, but between his chance to explain himself a bit last week, and his overall decent handling of Margaret’s (Elizabeth Rice) wedding and his very genuine phone call to Joan (Christina Hendricks), we’re in agreement that he’s shot back up to being a dick. With authority! Duck (Mark Moses), meanwhile, has put himself back in the running for the show’s #1 douchebag by unplugging the television so as to not allow JFK to rudely disrupt his plans to sex Peggy. It’s a position he seemed to have for life after the whole Chauncey affair, but we couldn’t deny Greg Harris (Sam Page) after the raping-Joan thing. Don, of course, continues to transition from small ‘d’ dick to big ‘D’ Dick, but that’s a different story altogether.


  • Quite a few characters act childish and petulant in this episode, but Pete, opening the episode by complaining about his hot chocolate being made with water instead of milk, just continues to top himself.


  • Roger, sitting on his bed with a glass of whiskey and a cigar, the phone ringing on the bedside table a foot away from him: “Would somebody get that?”


  • “Just because she went to India, doesn’t mean she’s not an idiot.”


  • I apologize about the lateness of this article, and fully realize that it’s about as relevant as a season one Lost theory now that everyone’s seen the superb finale. I still wanted to get it up, though, if for no other reason than to organize my own thoughts before recording the podcast Todd has planned for the coming days. I look forward to participating, and discussing the finale. Obviously, there’s a lot to talk about.
______________________________________________

House contributor Luke De Smet is a freelance writer and disgruntled warehouse stock boy from Edmonton, Alberta, where he is regular contributor to SEE Magazine. Follow him on Twitter or check out his blog Bring Me Back a Goat.

Read more!

Monday, November 02, 2009

Mad Men Mondays (on Monday, just a week late): Season 3, Ep. 11, "The Gypsy and the Hobo"

By Todd VanDerWerff



Marriage and sex bring with them the promise of intimacy, but it often seems like we confuse the former two for the latter all too often. Sex promises the ideal of knowing everything about your partner, and ostensibly, you know your spouse better than anyone else on the face of the Earth, but both are simultaneously facades. When I was a teenager growing up in a conservative Christian church, more energy was devoted to keeping me a virgin than anything else, and one of the central tenets of this drive was that sex opens up such powerful emotions that it can only be dealt with correctly within the confines of marriage, where both partners can give in to those emotions. But sex doesn’t automatically dredge up those emotions. Intimacy does. And, yes, physical intimacy, where you know every corner of your partner’s body, is a part of intimacy, but it’s nothing like the true intimacy that comes from two people knowing each other on a deeply emotional level, knowing the other’s head and heart as well as anyone can understand someone else. Being true with someone else so you can be true TO them is one of the most remarkable feelings in the world, but it often takes an amount of courage few of us possess.

We have little idea what kind of sex life the Drapers on Mad Men share outside of the few times we’ve seen them together. But we do know that the marriage, in some ways, was doomed when the series began. Betty (January Jones) seemed to be permanently trapped in a state of arrested development, while Don (Jon Hamm) was masking huge portions of his life from her – not just his affairs and the other matters that would have immediately angered and shocked her but deeper, more basic stuff, like the fact that he was a poor boy from the sticks named Dick Whitman before an act of happenstance allowed him to assume the life of another man and go about re-constructing himself in another image. Dick Whitman learned how to sell products, but the biggest product he learned how to sell was the image of the confident, handsome Donald Draper. That image was enough to rope in a pretty model, a giant advertising firm and an assortment of others, intoxicated on the very idea of what Whitman-as-Draper was able to sell.

It’s easy to want to focus on the scene where Betty finally manages to get Don to come clean about his past by exposing that she knows what’s in his secret drawer. It’s one of those potent Mad Men moments we as an audience have known was coming since the beginning of the series, and the show plays it almost completely right. But the entire episode was about the ways couples do or don’t build those intimate ties, the ways they either lie or tell the truth to each other. Even the central advertising storyline is about a company that simply cannot be forthright with the public about what’s in their product, lest the public turn on them, then finds itself backed into a corner and having to figure out a way to weasel out of the truth. Like Don, though, there is no backing out of this situation.

Instead of with the Drapers, then, let’s start with Joan (Christina Hendricks) and husband Greg (Sam Page), who are struggling financially, to the point where Joan calls in a favor from Roger (John Slattery), asking him to help her get a job as a shop girl (which pays more than her old job at Sterling-Cooper would). The two are struggling because of money concerns, yes, but they’re also trapped in a situation where Greg simply doesn’t seem to be telling Joan much of anything. It came as a surprise to her that his seemingly sure ascension to the Chief of Surgery position was in any danger whatsoever, and tonight, she learns that his dad had a nervous breakdown he’s never told her about. Since he’s training to be a psychiatrist, his utter failure to figure out how to share his own feelings seems like a potential problem (or he’s going to become the lead of a wacky TNT series about a psychiatrist who has just as many problems in his own life as his patients do), but it’s also emblematic of deeper concerns in the marriage. Greg is a rapist, yes, and that is what’s most concerning to our modern eyes, but he’s also a complete cipher, unable to express just why he feels the things he does, creating situations where he has to assert himself however he can. The rape is the worst example of this, obviously, but he and Joan seem perpetually trapped in this cycle.

The Joan and Greg storyline is essentially a vignette that floats through the episode. Joan helps Greg prepare for his interview. She calls Roger to look for work. Greg doesn’t get the job, and when he says something very insensitive, Joan clubs him over the head with a vase. And then he joins the Army. That’s pretty much it, but in those tiny moments, the story almost functions as an origin story for how Don and Betty came to be separated by such chasms in the show’s first couple seasons. Greg, in many ways, is play-acting a confidence he doesn’t quite have, a confidence his wife just naturally has. And despite her devotion to him, that divide always stands between them, fostering resentment. I’m not trying to minimize the very serious issues of physical abuse we’ve seen depicted by Greg toward Joan on the series at all, but it does seem the series is trying to show that there are other huge problems at work here. (For that matter, the scene where Greg revealed he’d joined the Army was overwritten in a lot of places, particularly as the show tried to shoehorn in a reference to Vietnam in a “Were you paying attention to that?!” way that the show has mostly gotten away from since the first half of its first season.)

The show’s other more minor plotline – Roger reconnecting with an old flame who works for the dog food company that retains Sterling-Cooper for help in overcoming a scandal involving the fact that their products offer horse meat (which Don admits he’s eaten to Roger’s surprise) – offers another subtle commentary on the Draper marriage. Mary Page Keller plays Annabelle, the woman Roger loved before Mona, who moved on. The plot helps humanize Roger, who’s been a little opaque this season, so consumed by his irritation at Don has he been, and it also shows that he is, indeed, very much in love with his new wife, Jane, whom many have assumed was just a late in life fling. Poor guy’s genuinely smitten with her, and this seems like it can only end poorly for him. At the same time, the episode seems to show that the sort of intimacy Roger and Annabelle can have at that late-night dinner conversation about their past and where they’re heading in the future is largely possible because they’re peers. A part of intimacy is empathy and understanding, and it’s hard for that bridge to be built between two people with as much of a gulf between them as Roger and Jane. (You could alternately read Roger’s lost love as Joan, and many have. I’m thinking he’s referring to Jane when he talks about the One, but I am willing to admit I am likely wrong about this.)

But the biggest part of intimacy is honesty, and honesty is the hardest thing to come by. All of human life is predicated on certain lies we tell ourselves and each other to keep things humming along nicely (or, see: everything ever produced by David Milch). This is not a bad system, but the underpinnings of it often seem to go out of their way to encourage us to lie when it’s more convenient for us or when it would help us out. Lying is, in some ways, an intrinsic part of human nature, and one of the biggest lies you can tell anyone is that you will love them forever. You can love someone much of the time. You can even love someone most of the time, but you can never quite promise to love someone forever. It’s more like, I will always have enough love for you that I won’t kill you (and, yes, that’s meant to be sarcasm). Marriage, like most other human institutions, is about a long combination of saying what you really think and feel and compromising with the other person in order to keep things humming along smoothly.

The Draper marriage, then, has always been built on a foundation of lies, so since Don couldn’t ever really let Betty in to see who he was, it made it that much easier for the gaps to grow, for the suspicion and dishonesty to override whatever love was there when the two first started dating. For all of Don’s cheating and Betty’s emotional disconnection, that was the central cancer eating away at their marriage, and when Betty discovered the contents of his secret drawer in the episode preceding this one then didn’t do anything about it, it seemed like the whole thing might be a bomb ticking underneath the rest of the season, like the impending Kennedy assassination has driven a lot of tension as the season has gone on.

Instead, “The Gypsy and the Hobo,” written by Marti Noxon, Cathryn Humphis and Matt Weiner and directed by Jennifer Getzinger, just dives right into this around the episode’s midpoint, when Don comes home, thinking Betty and the kids are away in Philadelphia, with his latest mistress, Suzanne Farrell (Abigail Spencer). Leaving her out in the car, he heads in, where Betty confronts him with everything she knows, he crumbles, telling her the entire story of how Dick Whitman became Don Draper, right down to when Adam hung himself back in season one. There’s very little here that the audience doesn’t already know, and literally all of the tension derives from wondering how Betty will react, but somehow, the sequence works almost perfectly, largely thanks to Getzinger’s intelligent direction and Hamm and Jones’ performances. (The decision to leave Suzanne just outside the Drapers’ front door also helped in this regard, creating a structural time bomb that ultimately didn’t go off but seemed like it would at any moment.) There’s not enough that can be said about the way Hamm flip flops from Don to Dick in what seems like a second with just a shift of his eyes and also not enough to be said for the way Jones non-verbally shifts Betty from angry to skeptical to trying hard to not feel sympathy to actually feeling sympathy. These are two great actors, and this was likely their finest moment.

It’s hard to say where the Draper marriage goes from here. When Don tells Suzanne that she’s out of the picture, he clearly lets her know that she’s not out of it indefinitely. Even though you can see the relief wash over him as he realizes that the truth has, in some ways, set him free, created a situation where he can finally talk to his wife as another adult, all of the lies and philandering have done their damage. I’d like to say that this will be the thing that finally puts Don and Betty on the same footing, that the two of them will now find a way to compromise and move forward together, but at the same time, the series has made abundantly clear that these two have a lot of bad blood between them, and there are no guarantees in attempting to rebuild something that has withstood so much casual damage to its foundations.

That’s the thing about intimacy. It can be the thing that comes along to save a relationship at just the right moment, but it has to be coupled with some amount of good faith. In the case of Don, it was presented in good faith, but only when it was tricked out of him. While I’m hopeful that this new honestly will be the thing that leads to the Draper marriage slowly being patched up, it’s not immediately clear that that’s even possible.

Some other thoughts:

  • As I compose this last page of my review, I’m watching this week’s episode and seeing that some of my assumptions above were incorrect. Hopefully, I’ll be able to talk about them in the comments of Luke de Smet’s piece later this week, but I’m also not going to edit my thoughts to make myself look smarter than I actually am.


  • Mad Men usually does a very good job of capturing the feel of various holidays, and its evocation of the kind of Halloween where neighborhoods turned into children’s playgrounds was really terrific. I also liked the final line, “And who are you supposed to be?,” directed at Don. It was incredibly on the nose, but in a way that was oddly endearing.


  • Similarly, while Don has very often identified himself with hobos throughout the series and his wandering nature would also mark him as similar to the popular conception of gypsies, the title could also refer to Betty, whose free-spirited nature was gradually worn down by the process of being with Don, perhaps meaning Betty was the gypsy and Don the hobo.


  • Favorite line: “I can’t turn it off. It’s actually happening!” I’m going to start saying that in my real life, Peggy (Elisabeth Moss).


  • As shown by the fact that I’m just talking about Peggy now, the show has laid a lot of cards on the table this season without actually resolving a lot of those storylines. Here’s hoping the tying together of all of these loose ends works as well as it did in season two, but I wonder if they haven’t bitten off more than they can chew.


  • If I could ask Matthew Weiner any question, it would be how carefully they plotted out the dates between episodes this season. It sure SEEMS like they’ve been taking carefully calibrated three-week jumps designed to land them at the JFK assassination in episode 12 from the start of the season, but I’m not sure if that was by design. (And this was a point I wrote before seeing episode 12.)


  • Finally, Luke will cover “The Grown-Ups,” and then he, some others and I will be doing a special podcast devoted to the season three finale and the season as a whole a couple of days after the finale. Hope to see you there!

______________________________________________

House contributing editor Todd VanDerWerff is the publisher of the pop culture blog South Dakota Dark and co-host of the podcast TV on the Internet. His writing also appears at The AV Club and Hitfix.

Read more!

Thursday, October 22, 2009

Mad Men Mondays (on Thursday): Season 3, Ep. 10, "The Color Blue"

By Luke de Smet



By Mad Men standards, this week’s episode, “The Color Blue," written by Kater Gordon and Matthew Weiner and directed by Michael Uppendahl, gives viewers a couple surprisingly major plot developments. In the first, new information is revealed to the audience, as we learn that Sterling Cooper is for sale again, seemingly setting up a season-ending conclusion to the “British” storyline that roughly mirrors Duck Phillips’ (Mark Moses) arc in season two.

The second, decidedly more major, development involves information known by the audience since season one, and which has loomed over the series ever since as its biggest we-know-it’s-coming-eventually moment (larger even than the Kennedy assassination, which continues to cast its (fore)shadow over each episode of season three). Betty Draper (January Jones) opening Don’s (Jon Hamm) secret drawer and discovering the box that contains both divorce papers from Anna Draper and the pictures and fragments of his past as Dick Whitman is one of the very few explicitly plotted Mad Men moments we’ve all known is coming; in Mad Men’s own hushed sort of way, it’s on the level of the Galactica crew discovering the final cylon, or the audience finding out what put John Locke into his wheelchair.

Like both of those, it’s a hand that could have easily been overplayed, and regardless will undoubtedly disappoint many fans. As Betty discovers that she’s not the first Mrs. Draper, the scene is set for Mad Men to finally unleash so much of its pent-up, repressed energy that has been so thoroughly hidden behind gender roles and good manners. Yet, instead of a melodramatic breakdown in which Betty throws down the suburban housewife bit and finally says her piece, the show, in its usual reserved way, gives us … nothing. Well, not nothing, but certainly no fireworks, as Betty internalizes this development just like all the others, setting up a final scene that ranks right up there with Mad Men’s most barely constrained and viciously uncomfortable moments.

The lack of fanfare with which “The Color Blue” greets its big moments is hardly surprising, as this is a series that rarely confronts its larger issues directly, focusing instead on the ways in which the characters move around those issues, therefore relegating everything large and sweeping to something we only catch glimpses of through momentary cracks in the surface. Mad Men’s methods of offering us these glimpses are typically as subtle as anything we’ve come to expect from the show, and are usually left to be inferred by the audience.

Seldom has this been as true as in the final scene of “The Color Blue”, set at a celebration of Sterling Cooper’s 40th anniversary. The event, as we know, is a façade. The British owners are selling the company, Bert Cooper (Robert Morse) has no desire to celebrate his greatest accomplishments as it merely highlights that they are all in the past, Roger (John Slattery) and Don hate each other, and Don’s general discomfort in these situations is such a foregone conclusion that the show has no need to make it explicit. Yet there they are, cheering and clapping, as Roger disingenuously introduces Don’s keynote speech.

Earlier in the episode, when John Hooker (Ryan Cartwright) refers to an address Lane Pryce (Jared Harris) has prepared for the party as “rousing,” Lane asks him: “Churchill rousing or Hitler rousing?” It’s a humorous reference to the grand histrionics of speechmaking, but of course when Don steps up to the podium to give his climactic speech the episode fades to credits. It’s a reminder that it’s not the big moments that make this show tick, but the small moments that surround them. In this case, these few moments before Don’s speech offer us one of those cracks in the surface I mentioned — the sort of glimpse we rarely see. Of course, it comes to us via Betty Draper, whose presence at the event is the biggest ruse of all.

January Jones’ performance here will be rightfully remembered as amongst this season’s best, as Betty appears barely contained, applauding the man who has been lying to her for years. She could erupt at any second with an outburst rivalling the histrionics of any speech, but of course she doesn’t. The camerawork, however, is every bit as important as the performance: The shot of Don at the podium is not the slowly approaching or slowly retreating view we’re typically given. It’s stationary, and angled strangely — for some reason, it’s as utterly uncomfortable as the entire fraudulent event. But with the final shot of Betty abruptly ceasing her applause, we understand why: It’s from Betty’s point of view. The shot gives us a new perspective on Don, because Betty herself now sees her husband differently. This is beyond even her discovery of Don’s affair in season two. Something has fundamentally changed.

The use of a perspective shot is important, both in terms of style and content, as perspective itself is one of the episode’s major themes. Mad Men gives us a lot of information, but we’re not typically given perspective. With the possible exception of Don’s and Betty’s respective hallucinations of their pasts and their families, we haven’t spent a lot of time in the characters’ heads. The camera moves fluidly and methodically, providing an omniscient view but always keeping us at arm’s length; it questions, but never enters, never deploying the handheld shot or any other device that might put us on the ground with the characters.

“The Color Blue," however, may be Mad Men’s most explicit treatment of perspective as a theme. The title refers to a bedroom conversation between Don and Miss Farrell (Abigail Spencer), his new mistress, who, in one of her increasingly unsettling (to Don, anyway) displays of domesticity, tells Don about a child in her class who asks how we can know whether the blue he sees is the same as the blue everyone else sees. Anecdotally, this question seems like a common shared experience — it represents our first foray, as children, into metaphysical problems and the first time we began to question the foundations of what we consider real and true. Don, seemingly missing the point of the exercise, dismisses a problem concerning universality by referencing something particular: his own perspective as an adman, the same insular world that so many of Mad Men’s characters seem constrained by. Advertising, he explains, is about “boiling down communication,” and, ever the practical realist, he seems to claim that producing the same reaction in a group of people indicates a shared experience.

Mad Men has dealt with this theme before, though typically in much larger strokes. The show itself, after all, is about the very particular world the characters have created for themselves, and much of the show’s tension comes from the collision between this world and the rapidly changing outside world of 1960s America. It’s a collision that very few of the characters, being so trapped by the narrow perspective of their milieu, seem particularly prepared for.

As Todd pointed out in his piece on this season’s premiere, series creator Matthew Weiner has largely avoided any overly plotted moments and twists external to the characters themselves, because he knows that the viewers provide the tension a sweeping narrative offers themselves. We all know things are about to change, and so Weiner is free to allow the era’s historical weight to develop in the background, and move between the spaces where the show’s major dramatic conflict takes place.

Mad Men is therefore left with an audience perspective largely incongruous with that of the characters. For all the show’s historical recreation and meticulous attention to verisimilitude, the audience is essentially cut off from its world. We hold knowledge that the characters do not. We see what’s hiding around the corner, and the way it casts its shadow over everything that happens on screen. We cannot see the Mad Men world from the characters’ perspective, and therefore are not asked to suspend ourselves to look at the world through Don Draper’s eyes. Rather, we are required to bring our own perspective to the table, with all the knowledge and hindsight that comes with it, a move that brings Sterling Cooper’s world into collision with our own.

This dramatic irony does far more than create tension. It sets into motion many of the show’s major themes, including the fragility (and obstinacy) of identity and the elusiveness of truth and value. It provides us with hints not only as to how we should relate with the characters, but also how they relate to each other. Don points out on several occasions throughout the series that the staff at Sterling Cooper does more than sell products, they sell perspective, a way of looking at the world. Don is in the business of universalizing his own perspective, as he says to Miss Farrell: “The truth is people may see things differently, but they don’t really want to.” (Their conversation takes place in a very hushed, post-coital scene, with Hamm delivering his lines barely above a whisper, yet he hits such a subtle note of self-assuredness that it comes across as Don Draper bravado at its most arrogant.)

It seems important, then, that Mad Men so effectively builds barriers between differing perspectives and worldviews. Mirroring the characters’ lack of preparedness for the sweeping social change to come, perspective in Mad Men is so sedimented that any break can only be painful, causing those involved to question not only how they see the world, but how they see themselves. Like a child’s questions concerning the color blue, it brings into doubt the foundations of what they know and consider true. There will certainly be many valid interpretations of Betty’s decision not to confront Don, and future episodes will undoubtedly develop the plotline further, but personally, I see a character who has based so much of her own identity on her perspective of a man she thought she knew. It’s not a simple matter of Don hurting her, as he has in the past; if she brings Don to task on this, she not only brings him into question, she brings herself into question as well.

We see this elsewhere in the episode, as well, such as Paul’s (Michael Gladis) “my God” moment with Peggy (Elisabeth Moss). Paul spends much of the episode awaiting divine inspiration, with jazz, smoke and the smell of scotch pouring out from underneath his door. He even goes so far as to converse with Achilles. (Really! Well, okay, Achilles the janitor.) When the moment finally arrives, he proceeds to fall into a drunken stupor before writing his genius idea down, of course forgetting it by morning. To Paul this is absolute catastrophe, akin to Homer dreaming up the Iliad one morning only to forget it by afternoon. Don and Peggy both react with sympathy and a small degree of solidarity: it’s surely one of the most frustrating experiences for a writer. Yet at the same time neither seems particularly troubled, and Peggy, with nary a hint of divine inspiration, plays off of some offhand comment Paul makes to develop a great idea anyway, one which Don quickly jumps in to put a button on. Paul’s shocked reaction is hardly a grand event, but in many ways it’s an essential character moment. He’s realizing that Peggy, like Don, sees blue differently than he does. It’s a gap he cannot bridge with his Ivy League education or reading.

A much more poignant example of the same event happens in the car between Don and Miss Farrell’s brother, Danny (Marshall Allman). It reminded me of two scenes from season one. The first was when Don thoroughly owns Midge’s (Rosemarie DeWitt) unbearable Bohemian friends with quips such as, “make something of yourself,” “the universe is indifferent,” and most memorably, “you can’t.” The second is the scene with Don’s own brother, Adam (Jay Paulson), in which he gives Adam $5000 and encourages him to remake his life. When Don says, partly to Danny, but mostly to himself, “I swore to myself I’d try to do this right, once,” he is, for the first time, acknowledging his failure with Adam. It’s a profoundly painful scene, as despite Don’s efforts he can do no more than he did for Adam: giving Danny some money and sending him away.

But Don is also discovering the root of his failure with Adam. When he dresses down the Bohemians and tells them to make something of themselves, it’s effective, because we all know that they are more than capable of doing so; they are intelligent, idle people. Don’s air of superiority is not rooted in classism or some sense of inherent ability. It’s rooted in his being the proverbial self-made man and his knowledge that any of those Bohemians could do what he has done, but haven’t.

The epilepsy with which Danny has been “afflicted”, however, is something foreign to Don’s perspective and something he has trouble processing. When Danny reacts badly to Don suggesting they can “still change things,” we catch a brief glimpse of the Don that shot down Midge’s friends, firing back, “does that just sound stupid to you?” It’s Don that’s shot down here, however, as Danny explains his situation, and claims that he “can’t do” anything that Don can do. The line “It’s not a question of will” seems especially important, as it’s what separates Danny and Adam from Don, and also from those kids in Midge’s apartment. It’s not a question of will, it’s simply that Danny can’t see blue the way Don does, and neither could Adam.

Some other stuff:

  • Todd floated the idea to me that the ‘Kinsey theater’ mock ad was an allusion to the JFK assassination. It’s not something that I personally caught, but it fits with the assassination’s increasingly looming presence over the third season.


  • Talk about perspective: Betty’s casual racism continues to play its part in her relationship with Carla (Deborah Lacey), as she seemingly thinks the Drapers aren’t required to go to church as often as Carla is. It’s almost as uncomfortable as Betty’s reaction to the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing.


  • Even little things in the episode are about the different ways in which people can see the same thing. The hang up and the contrasting assumptions it causes Don and Betty to respectively jump to, is a fascinating example.


  • “The driver’s Chinese!”

______________________________________________

House contributor Luke De Smet is a freelance writer and disgruntled warehouse stock boy from Edmonton, Alberta, where he is regular contributor to SEE Magazine. Follow him on Twitter or check out his blog Bring Me Back a Goat.

Read more!

Monday, October 19, 2009

Link for the Day (October 19th, 2009): Mad Props

House reader Melissa Crago sends us today's link—Maribeth Keane and Jessica Lewisan's interview with Mad Men prop master Scott Buckwald for the Collector's Weekly. An excerpt:

"Getting the Sara Lee logo from 1960 was easy, but finding an actual cheesecake box was hard. Again, that’s not very collectible. Pretty much the second after the cake was taken out, the box would have been thrown away, so I looked through pictures of kitchen scenes, hoping to find a cherry cheesecake box sitting there. After looking through 3,000 pictures, I was able to capture every angle of the box and I was able to redraw it on Illustrator and tweak it on Photoshop and then print it out and rebuild the box."

_____________________________________________________

"Link for the Day": Each day the House editors post a link to an item that we hope will spark discussion. We encourage our readers to submit candidates for consideration to keithuhlich@gmail.com and to converse in the comments section.

Read more!

Friday, October 16, 2009

Mad Men Mondays (on Friday): Season 3, Ep. 9, "Wee Small Hours"

By Todd VanDerWerff



My grandfather always said that nothing good happens after midnight. (This isn’t a How I Met Your Mother riff either; he actually did always say that.) If the morning is for productivity and the afternoon is for wondering why you didn’t sleep as much as you should have last night and the night is for winding down and relaxing with loved ones, the wee small hours are the time when the world crackles with possibility and when questionable judgment reigns. There are reasons we sleep during these hours. I, myself, like to go out walking at 3 in the morning, see whose lights are still on, watch my town sleep, but it’s worth bearing my grandfather’s advice in mind: “Nothing good happens after midnight. Even if you’re not doing anything, people will think you are.” Indeed.

Much of “Wee Small Hours,” written by Dahvi Waller and series creator and mastermind Matthew Weiner and directed by Scott Hornbacher, takes place in the titular hours between midnight and 6 a.m., but the many other moments that don’t take place when everyone else is in bed still have that woozy feeling that anything could happen and that what happens will be, invariably, bad. This season of Mad Men has perhaps over-relied on dream sequences, but there’s only one in this episode – where Betty (January Jones) imagines herself sprawled on her new couch while a lover’s patient hands slowly unwrap the clothes from her body. Instead, it’s the rest of the episode that feels like a dream. Everyone’s a little overtired, and there’s a sense that the story is going to turn around a corner and meet a monster just waiting to devour everyone. Except, in this case, the monsters are powerful men who hold out and hold out and hold out until they get what they want, and they jerk around some of our characters in the process.

So much of Mad Men is about wanting, about desiring something that is just out of your reach either because society won’t allow you to compulsively follow your id or because it’s harmful to the people around you, the people you care about. One of the reasons some fans of the show seem to have not warmed to this season, I think, is because this season has been so rampantly interested in closing off these characters’ dreams and showing them to be rather unrealistic. Don Draper (Jon Hamm), in particular, who’s mostly skated through what amounts to a life that appears to be a desirable fantasy for many a man on the surface, has been brought back down to Earth this season. He’s just a man, trapped between a workplace he’s increasingly less in control of, a wife who is realizing she’s less than enamored of the life she has so far and a life he simply cannot escape anymore. Being Don Draper was good for a time, but actually stepping up to be that man on a full-time basis has become something of a trap for him.

My good friend Luke de Smet (about whom more in a moment) says that while he thinks the show portrayed Don’s descent into yet another extramarital affair well, it’s something the show has turned to so often that he’s a little disappointed to see them go back to it. I disagree. Where Don’s relationships with Midge (Rosemarie DeWitt, whom I hope comes back at some point) and Rachel (Maggie Siff) in season one were about getting things from them that he could not get from his wife and his relationship with Bobbie Barrett (Melinda McGraw) was about his subconscious desires to have it all, his new relationship with Miss Farrell (Abigail Spencer) is as much about his subconscious desire for an escape route, to be caught and removed from all of the responsibilities he sees as trapping him. Miss Farrell is not only someone his wife sees every so often, she’s also got an element of instability he finds fascinating because he knows it will ultimately blow up in his face.

Alan Sepinwall has been saying for a while now that he would find it unbelievable if all of the characters at Sterling-Cooper stayed at Sterling-Cooper for the duration of the series, which is probably true. Peggy (Elisabeth Moss) and Pete (Vincent Kartheiser), in particular, seem as though they would realize at some point that their unique talents would be better served at an advertising agency that is fond of riskier, more youth-edged work, rather than one that seems to be heading into the ad revolution of the ‘60s kicking and screaming (and penny pinching). But despite the realism of that idea, I never thought Weiner and his creative crew would ever actually do it. One of the things that makes Mad Men work so well is its economy, the fact that it confines these nation-spanning stories to just a handful of settings. Even when the characters go on trips to other settings, the trips feel deliberately small. Some of this is a function of budget, but some of it is also a function of the show’s most obvious spiritual forebear, The Sopranos. Both series had novelistic sweep to their storytelling but went about their episode-by-episode plotting as though each episode were a tiny short story that hooked in with all of the other short stories to create something larger. Contrast this with the approach utilized on a show like Deadwood or The Wire or even Lost, where every episode is much more consciously a chapter in a larger work.

And yet, here we are, heading into season three’s final act (with the JFK assassination just nine weeks away) and Weiner is steadfastly breaking up the old gang. Joan (Christina Hendricks), who doesn’t appear in this episode, left Sterling-Cooper in episode six and is now working elsewhere to help make ends meet as her husband has realized he’s never going to be made Chief of Surgery. Peggy and Pete have been wooed by Duck Phillips (Mark Moses), who now works for another agency and would love nothing more than to sign one or both away. And in this episode, a client’s petulance leads to the firing of Salvatore Romano (Bryan Batt), a character who felt like a joke in the pilot but has since become one of the show’s most tragic figures and the most obvious expression of the season’s overriding idea that wanting something and actually having it are two very different things. Really, the only character who doesn’t seem as if they’re being shifted out of Sterling-Cooper is the ever hobo-like Don. Maybe that’s why he seems so angry.

It’s the Sal story that tugs the most at the heartstrings here. Mad Men rarely goes for the big, emotionally manipulative moment, playing those cards close to its vest when it can (a notable exception being the big speeches characters have made in both season finales so far), but it feels, clearly, that it can get away with pushing the emotions in the case of Sal. This is probably because Sal’s story is both inherently tragic and inherently realistic. There have always been gay men, but they have been forced to stay hidden for most of history, unable to act on their impulses in any open way. When Sal was introduced in the pilot, he seemed almost a too-broad joke, but as the first season went on, it became clear that the man had never acted on his impulses and was, indeed, living a very sad life. As he became engaged in a sham marriage that he tried like hell to make real, pined for Ken Cosgrove (Aaron Staton) and just generally tried to deny himself. The cracks in that disguise have been showing this season – particularly in the premiere, when he nearly hooked up with a hotel bellboy – and that has led to him more openly expressing himself. Even if he doesn’t know it, even his wife is starting to pick up on something being very, very incompatible in her relationship with her husband.

As Don reminded Sal in the season premiere, if he were ever exposed, it would essentially spell the end of his career, a ticking time bomb I think more of us should have seen coming. What I wouldn’t have predicted, though, was that Sal would end up removed from his position because of the actions of someone else who was buried deeply in the closet but seemingly far more fine with that fact, returning Lucky Strike cigarettes man Lee Gardner, Jr. When the two are in the editing room, Gardner comes on to Sal (perhaps realizing that the whole conception of the ad is deeply homoerotic), but Sal, perhaps regarding Don’s advice and perhaps just wanting to focus on the task at hand, rebuffs his advances, insisting he has a wife. Gardner leaves the scene, yet rings up Harry Crane (Rich Sommer), of all people, to have Sal fired. And after some confusion, first Roger (John Slattery) and then Don do, summarily, fire Sal, the latter telling Sal the same variation of “You’ll land on your feet” he seems to tell everyone. And so the gang splinters further.

What’s remarkable about that scene where Don fires Sal is how emotionally direct it is. Mad Men is criticized by some for its obfuscation, for the way it keeps everything its characters are feeling buried beneath layers of period detail and indirectness and the like. But that scene is absolutely to the point. Sal insists nothing happened. We know nothing happened. But Don, operating under the prejudices of the time, does not and makes the assumption that Sal angered Gardner by coming on to him. (To be fair to Don, it’s easy to see where Gardner’s anger would indicate more that Sal misread some signs and came on to the man rather than the reverse.) For as much of a modern presence on the show as Don seems sometimes, as much of an indication of the direction his world is moving in, he’s still very much a product of his time, and this scene is not afraid to make Don both a bigot and deeply unsympathetic. His “You people” to Sal is both perfectly scathing and completely in character, and it’s one of the series’ most heartbreaking moments. He ends the episode in the park, about to pursue something the show has never led us to believe he’s pursued in the past.

Don, of course, is dealing with his own issues, particularly the hard to parse Conrad Hilton (Chelcie Ross), who’s putting Don through his own dance of incomprehensible seduction. Connie’s the one driving Don’s late night jaunts, since he’s constantly calling the guy in the middle of the night to have him come over and talk ideas. He handles his Prohibition-era liquor better than Don. He’s lonelier than Don. And he’s got a very clear idea of what he wants, yet it’s something no one could ever hope to deliver. The more Connie asks Don for things like working the moon into his ad campaign, the clearer it becomes that both men are chasing unrealizable dreams, chasing ideals more than concrete things. Connie doesn’t just want his ad campaign to sell his hotel chain; he wants it to sell ideas of goodness, of American decency, of the nation itself. He wants his chain to be some sort of luxurious Marshall Plan, and the fact that this sort of thing isn’t really in his power frustrates him, so he takes it out on Don, who takes out his anger in an abstract way by bedding Miss Farrell. And so it goes.

That’s the way of things on Mad Men. Everybody wants something, but no one is really capable of stepping up and getting it. In some cases, they’re held back by themselves. In other cases, they’re held back by the people around them. In still other cases, the society they occupy is designed to keep them from getting anywhere near what they want. And that’s why the setting of the episode – those wee small hours – is so important. It’s the one time of day when both great dreams and great nightmares seem possible, and you often don’t even have to be in bed to experience them.

Some other thoughts:


  • Most notably, I’m going to be trading off Mad Men duties with Luke de Smet in the weeks to come. He’ll cover episodes 10 and 12, and I’ll cover episode 11. We have something special planned for the season finale. I’m just doing too much writing elsewhere to really devote the time to these pieces that I like to devote (I got lucky without having anything scheduled for today). Luke’s a great writer, and he thinks of the show in a very different way than I do. I’m excited to see what he’ll come up with.


  • I didn’t really say anything about Betty, whose affair with the guy from Rockefeller’s office petered out before it even began, after a few clandestine letter exchanges, a fund-raiser that did not turn out how Betty wanted and a meeting in his office that ended as quickly as it began. I was predicting that Don would withhold having an affair while Betty would engage in one, but it sure seems as though the show flipped that on its head. It’s interesting to me that Henry (Christopher Stanley) both wanted Betty in a very clear way and knew that was really the only way this affair could play out and the fact that she didn’t get exactly what she wanted was as much to blame for her anger as anything.


  • Similarly, I liked the way that Betty and Carla (Deborah Lacey) just can’t talk about civil rights in any way. Even when they’re both on the same side of the issue, Betty just can’t figure out a way to make herself see the world as Carla must.


  • On the topic of civil rights, I liked the way the episode used the “I Have a Dream” speech. It’s there, the characters are aware of it, but no one really gets too invested in it except proto-hippie Miss Farrell.


  • I’ll say it: I understand just why Roger is behaving the way he is, but I’m a little tired of it. I want him to get a comeuppance. This being this show, though, it seems incredibly unlikely that will happen.


  • How do you think about how the cast is being utilized this season? It’s pretty clear that all of them have major storylines this season, but those storylines will often recede into the background for long periods of time. That seems to be upsetting some fans, but I’m mostly enjoying it, especially as it’s placing Don very clearly at the center of the show.


  • Finally, it’s probably worth saying something about the fact that Emmy winner Kater Gordon left the show and/or was fired (depending on whose account you believe). I think it’s a non-issue. This is just how TV works – writers being fired suddenly and unexpectedly – and I think the ink spilled over it is a little unnecessary.

______________________________________________

House contributing editor Todd VanDerWerff is the publisher of the pop culture blog South Dakota Dark and co-host of the podcast TV on the Internet. His writing also appears at The AV Club and Hitfix.

Read more!

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

Link for the Day (October 14th, 2009): Open Mind Advised

Toronto man and House contributor Adam Nayman is the subject of today's link. He's written a beautiful wrap-up of the 28th Vancouver International Film Festival for the Auteurs Notebook. Here's an excerpt, from his section on Mario Llinás’ Historias extraordinarias:

"Then there’s the question of the film’s generally ugly video aesthetics, but this too deserves closer attention. Besides the not unimportant note that Llinás pulled off such a physically ambitious epic for very little money, there’s an impressive continuity to the visuals despite the ever-shifting locations. I’d also argue that the TV-style presentation comments subtly on our willingness (or not) as filmgoers to accept run-on cinematic narratives, as opposed to television, where twists and turns and the illogical distension of character arcs is not only expected but welcomed. Perhaps the best way to describe and to recommend Historias extraordinarias, at a time when even very devoted cinephiles seem more willing to mainline DVDs of Mad Men but blanch at the prospect of a festival movie running more than 90 minutes, is to say that it feels finally like a great, short-run season of high-end television (and also that it won’t lose much being viewed on DVD)."

_____________________________________________________

"Link for the Day": Each day the House editors post a link to an item that we hope will spark discussion. We encourage our readers to submit candidates for consideration to keithuhlich@gmail.com and to converse in the comments section.

Read more!

Thursday, October 08, 2009

The Cracks in Our Foundations: Mad Men season three, episodes 5-8

By Todd VanDerWerff



A parable, let’s say. You’ve got a house, and you want to build it on a firm foundation, right? The wise man built his house upon the rock and all that. But let’s say I want to make your house come tumbling down – like the man who built his house upon the sand – and I’m stymied by your rock basis. Obviously, I could attack the house directly, but so long as it’s firmly rooted, so to speak, it’ll be easy enough for you to defend it or preserve enough of the structure to rebuild or what have you. But if I attack the foundations direction, if I bore holes through the rock, if I figure out a way to turn your biggest strength into your biggest weakness, then maybe I can prosper and defeat you where you stand. If the wise man builds his house upon the rock, then the wise opponent directly attacks that rock, rather than the house. Weaken the rock enough, and the house falls down regardless of what else happens.

The idea of attacking your opponent’s biggest strength head on is an old one. You’ll see it in everything from politics – where Karl Rove made a science out of turning a political opponent’s strength into a weakness (as when he made John Kerry’s military service somehow a liability in 2004) – to TV scheduling – where it’s all too common for a network to take one of its upstart hits and program it directly opposite a much bigger hit in the hope of weakening it enough to eventually deliver the killing blow. And it’s all over the place in Mad Men’s third season, a season that has prompted some grousing from various corners of the Internet, especially in its first four episodes.

The main complaint has been that the series has slowed its already deliberate movement to a snail’s pace, burying all plot development in a tidal wave of atmosphere and tiny moments that add up to something larger that still remains cryptic. Every season of Mad Men is somewhat similar to a puzzle where all of the pieces don’t make immediate sense, but they do once you have the season finale there to pull them all together, but this season eschewed the previous seasons’ structure – where the plotlines started slowly but were at least introduced in the first handful of episodes and then deepened through episodes that mostly took time to examine the series’ characters before closing out with a bang – and jumbled it all around. Even the individual episodes occasionally feel like episodes of some other series. In this season alone, “My Old Kentucky Home,” “The Fog,” “Guy Walks Into an Advertising Agency” and “Seven Twenty Three” have either made minor or fairly major changes to the typical underlying structure of a Mad Men episode. Mad Men is deliberately mucking with its foundations, which is apropos because this is a season about what happens when your foundations erode out from under you, when your strengths become your weaknesses.

With the third season of Mad Men almost two thirds done, it’s becoming clearer and clearer that the series has flipped its usual structure on its ear. The first four of the season, while entertaining and engaging, were all character deepening episodes that contained the minimum of plot scraps that such episodes usually required. “My Old Kentucky Home,” for example, was almost entirely about getting lost in the world Mad Men has created on one long, lazy weekend day, as the characters attended a variety of social functions. A lot of the stuff that happened in the episode (such as the arrival of Conrad Hilton on the scene) has paid off in future episodes, but at the time, it was just an hour of luxuriating in the world this show has meticulously constructed. The next four episodes – the four I aim to primarily cover in this essay – were then the episodes when the plot got moving in earnest, as we learned the primary battlefields that the season will be fought on and just where the characters stand in relation to each other.

Perhaps fittingly, then, all of these episodes have had structures that play with the idea of just what a Mad Men episode is in some very real and intriguing ways. “The Fog” is interspersed with dream sequences that stay just this side of on-the-nose and abandons Sterling-Cooper for a long stretch of its action. “Guy Walks Into an Advertising Agency” sets up what looks like an epic story arc before just as quickly subverting it through one of the most outlandishly inventive plot devices the series has come up with yet. “Seven Twenty Three,” which I’ve been calling one of the best episodes in the history of television to anyone who will listen, subtly jumbles its timeline around as it tells the stories of three people who are backed into corners of their own making. And “Souvenir” primarily follows two men who are flip sides of the same coin, then shows how one of them seems to screw everything up only to win everything back at the last minute while the other seems to do everything perfectly, only to be rebuffed in the end because of things he’s not even aware of.

The central gamble in Mad Men’s third season has been that the show knows you know that the Kennedy assassination is lurking somewhere near the season’s end (in episode eight, we’re up to August, while the assassination occurs in November). The appearance of the invitation to Roger’s daughter’s wedding – scheduled for the day after the assassination – early in the season is one of those increasingly rare tips of the hat that Mad Men makes to its audience about the story. “Yes, we know this is coming,” it says, “and if you’ll hang on, we’ll get to it.” The entire season, then, has been an exercise in foreshadowing something we already know is coming. If JFK’s death left the entire country reeling, then the purpose of this season is to leave as many of the individual characters as possible reeling from personal crises that come from moments when their foundations begin to crumble. Those first four episodes were all set-up, sure, but they were also episodes that saw Matt Weiner and his writers poking as many holes in what the characters were standing on as possible.

The most obvious example of this is with Don Draper (Jon Hamm), a man who started the series having it all and is now having that “all” assaulted on an almost weekly basis. From the moment his daughter’s teacher first showed up, it seemed obvious that Don would eventually sleep with her. While he still might, the one time he tries to talk to her one on one, she snipes at him to stop hitting on her. His friendship with Roger Sterling (John Slattery), once one of the things that kept him in good standing at Sterling-Cooper, despite the air of casual menace underscoring it, is essentially dead after Roger mistook his advice last season as an excuse to leave his wife and after he made too aggressive a play to get Don under contract at the agency. His marriage to Betty (January Jones), something that occasionally seemed just for show in the series’ first two seasons, is nearly in tatters as she realizes that her happiness in it is necessarily limited and tries to stretch her wings in self-destructive ways, even as Don is trying harder than ever – maybe for the first time ever – to be a good husband. Even his much vaunted ability to run away, to be free at any moment, is imperiled by the contract Roger and Bert (Robert Morse) want him to sign. He eventually does, tying him down to one life, one world, something he tried desperately to avoid in the first two seasons.

Don has always been the series’ point-of-view character because he most readily embraces the contradictions of enjoying Mad Men. In his ambivalence about the traditional institutions he participates in outside of how those institutions can serve him (best expressed through his “Hobo code”), he reflects the modernist sensibilities that would engulf the ‘60s in the latter half of the decade. But he’s also somewhat charmingly retrograde. One of the things about Mad Men that has taken some viewers a while to get used to (and one of the things about it that seems to appeal to some of its newer fans in a less savory fashion) is that it doesn’t really do anything to point out its political incorrectness anymore. These people are sexist, racist and a variety of other things just because they are. To watch Mad Men is both to get wrapped up in the story of how Don Draper becomes someone else but also to get just a little wrapped up in the idea of BEING him to some degree, of getting lost in his world with all that entails.

Don’s not the only character having their foundations eroded, though. Betty is increasingly realizing that the life she’s leading is mostly devoid of love, no matter how hard her husband tries, and not terribly fulfilling for her. Peggy (Elisabeth Moss) finds her previously unimpeachable relationship with her mentor and boss, Don, to be challenged when she can’t quite get on the same page as him in regards to her worth to the agency, all of which leads her to a flirtation with Duck (Mark Moses) that first just seems to be a business thing and then turns disturbingly literal. And Pete’s (Vincent Kartheiser) both damaging his marriage via flirtations (that lead to more) with German nannies and attacking the very underpinnings of the advertising industry as he knows it by randomly inventing demographic marketing in the only way he knows how – as asshole-ishly as possible. Every character – Roger, Joan (Christina Hendricks), even little Sally (Kiernan Shipka) – is trapped in a situation where everything they believe to be true is coming apart at the seams.

Mad Men’s third season, then, is about the build-up to an event we know is coming, even more than any season of the show was previously, but it’s also about attempting to clue us in to that event on some metaphorical, thematic level. Most works that incorporate the Kennedy assassination in some way use that as a way to spur their characters to some sort of realization that Nothing Is As They Thought. When Kennedy is killed in this season of Mad Men, though, it’s going to be different, because it will only provide a new context for these people to realize that the lives they’re leading have brought they decreasing amounts of happiness. It’s an interesting strategy – using an event the audience knows is coming against itself – and it perhaps explains why the entire midsection of “Guy Walks Into an Advertising Agency” is devoted to an extended, roughly symbolic recreation of the Kennedy assassination involving a secretary on a lawn tractor.

We cling to the ‘60s as a point in our collective memory as a country because it was a time when the truths we accepted to be self-evident were all put on assault by people who dared question them, who dared say that all men might be created equal, but we certainly weren’t treating them as such. The ‘60s setting of Mad Men has always been something of a red herring in the show’s development, I think. It’s a way to contrast the series with the present day, yes, but it’s also not as important as a lot of the show’s critics want it to be. The period detail is impressive, but it’s ultimately something that distracts from the universality of the story at the series’ center. The third season, though, is different. Every single one of the characters has become a microcosm of America itself, perched on the edge of a time when every single thing that the country believed to be true would be shown to be at least questionable as truth. Now, all of these characters find themselves questioning the things they believe to be self-evident about themselves. We like to live in certainty because that means we have all of the answers. When something comes along to rattle the status quo, it frightens us less because of its implications for society as a whole and more for its implications for our very selves.

Some other thoughts:

  • Sorry this took so long to throw together. I was planning on doing four separate essays that became two that became one. But I was amazed just how often I kept making the same points as I started up those essays, so I think this works. The middle four episodes of this season work remarkably well as one, cohesive unit.


  • So what’s everybody watching this fall season? Since I so rarely turn up here anyway, I thought I’d toss in a vote for ABC’s new sitcom Modern Family, which isn’t perfect yet, but has the potential to be the next great network sitcom. It has a warmth and generosity toward its characters that the best sitcoms all had, and I look forward to seeing where it goes next. The whole run, so far, is available on Hulu.com


  • One of the things I love about the character of Pete is just how desperate he is to appeal to the old ways, to the older generation he feels like he has been cheated out of resembling in some ways, even as most of the actual advertising ideas he has are so ahead of their time that he’d be a Don Draper in the ‘90s.


  • I didn’t get to say a lot about Peggy and Joan, who’ve both seen pretty seismic changes happen to them in these four episodes. Your thoughts?


  • Hopefully, I’ll be able to do week-by-week reviews for the rest of the season to come, but if I can’t, Luke de Smet is all caught up, and he and I may alternate heading into the season finale. We’ll see how it all plays out.

______________________________________________

House contributing editor Todd VanDerWerff is the publisher of the pop culture blog South Dakota Dark and co-host of the podcast TV on the Internet. His writing also appears at The AV Club and Hitfix.

Read more!

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Link for the Day (September 23rd, 2009): A Taste of Madison Avenue

Today's link will take you to Elusive Lucidity, where proprietor Zach Campbell gives his thoughts on Mad Men (having just finished the first season) in an entry titled "A Taste of Madison Avenue." Here's a sample:

"Who wouldn't, shouldn't grimace at this undignified gesture toward the enlightened viewer's very … enlightenment? 'Ah, they were so sexist, so myopic, so unhealthy, so milquetoast, so closeted, so repressed, so hypocritical, so lacking in self-awareness.' And in 50 years the popular art of tomorrow will no doubt disparage us in ways that are unfair and self-congratulatory. C'est la vie (in an idiocracy). For one thing: Mad Men is good, but it's not even close to Tashlin's critiques. It remains exquisitely tasteful, on the surface, and ultimately middlebrow. Therein lie a few of the problems."
_____________________________________________________

"Link for the Day": Each day the House editors post a link to an item that we hope will spark discussion. We encourage our readers to submit candidates for consideration to keithuhlich@gmail.com and to converse in the comments section.

Read more!

Friday, September 11, 2009

Mad Men Mondays (now, on Fridays!): Season 3, Ep. 4, "The Arrangements"

By Todd VanDerWerff



There are weeks when the theme of a Mad Men episode reveals itself to you only gradually, forcing you to wind your way ever deeper into the show’s intoxicating mood and sense of time and place. And then there are the weeks when the show all but clubs you over the head with what it’s trying to say. “The Arrangements,” written by Andrew Colville and Matthew Weiner and directed by Michael Uppendahl, strays uncomfortably close to the latter for much of its running time, but it manages to avoid falling too far into that particular sinkhole through some deft writing and some unexpected character comparisons.

The theme “The Arrangements” wants us to ponder is that of parents and their children and the various ways both groups disappoint each other. As if we weren’t getting the point already, there’s a scene midway through the episode where Don (Jon Hamm) stares at a photo of his parents, his face pensive and unreadable, considering, perhaps, just how far he’s come from them or how close he still is in his bafflement about how to deal with, say, his own children. As the third season progresses, there’s a sense that those opening scenes did say even more about the season than they seemed to. This is a season about the way things change, the way things are given birth to, be they offspring or cultural movements or new ideas. When the episode ends with “Over There,” it’s a callback to Grandpa Gene’s (Ryan Cutrona)World War I service, yes, but it’s also a conscious reflection of the conflict that made the United States the growing superpower it was in the 20th century. That conflict gave birth to a radically shattered and changed world, in a way few wars before it had, just as the conflict lurking at the other end of this series’ run will give birth to a radically shattered and changed country.

What’s interesting is that the clearest parallels in the episode are drawn between two characters who have had virtually nothing to do with the story so far. Sally Draper (Kiernan Shipka) has lurked on the edges of the story, mostly there for a laugh or two about how different parenting standards were in the ‘60s (one of the most irksome things about the first season) or an ominous note or two about how poorly regarded she is by her mother. Horace Cook, Jr. (Aaron Stanford), erstwhile college pal of Pete Campbell (Vincent Kartheiser) and son of one of Bert Cooper’s (Robert Morse) friends, is someone we’ve literally just met, as he appears in this episode like a money providing dream somehow conjured out of thin air by Pete, even as Don feels less enthused about taking that money. The two don’t seem to have many obvious parallels at first, but the way the story forces us to consider them draws out the parallels anyway.

I’ve talked about how Mad Men relies on our knowledge of the conflicts coming in the 1960s to play up the series in our heads, even when nothing seems to be happening. It’s all but inviting us to play a game where we’re trying to guess just how historical events are going to fit into its narrative. Unlike a lot of movies and TV series that use a historical setting, the historical events are rarely the point of things on Mad Men, and the series thinks nothing of mostly skipping over some of the things we consider iconic moments of the ‘60s in the present that weren’t perhaps as important at the time (though it always pauses for the earth-shattering stories of the time that still resonate today – like the 1960 election or the Cuban missile crisis).

But the third season seems even more aggressive in this regard than previous seasons (especially the slow-building second season, which made less use of blatant historical event name-checking than almost any work of historical fiction set in the ‘60s in many years). At first, I worried that this was a loss of confidence on the part of the show – that it had decided it was time to turn into a mainstream hit and was aping the trappings of what a mainstream story about the ‘60s might look like – but as the season goes on, I’m intrigued by how the series is not just showing us the tinier moments of history that we now know to be far more seismic events but how it’s also showing us who’s paying attention to those moments, who’s keyed in to how the world is or isn’t changing. Some of the characters are stuck inextricably in the past (like Roger Sterling (John Slattery)), while some of the characters will occasionally get a bead on the future and then just as quickly retreat to the comforts of the past (like Pete). Others seem to have a firm vision of where the world is going, even if they don’t quite get it yet (Peggy (Elisabeth Moss) would seem to be the best example of this), while still others are free agents, slippery enough to play all sides (Don).

The true free agents here, of course, are Don’s children. With the possible exception of Peggy, who only seems 40, none of the characters we’ve come to know well are going to be young enough to participate in the coming revolutions. Don, for example, may sympathize (though his penchant for irritation at people who make nuisances of themselves may put him against the hippies after all), but he will likely simply not be young enough to, say, go to Woodstock or participate in the Summer of Love. Sally, though, is absolutely at the right age to be rebelling against everything her parents stand for as the end of the decade rolls around, and her already repressed fury against Betty (January Jones) seems likely to pour out as things progress.

That Sally is the only one who notices the story of the self-immolating monk, one of the first really big stories to hit U.S. shores from the conflict in Vietnam, seems telling. Everyone else is dealing with a more immediate problem (Gene’s death), but it’s also something that’s, by definition, glancing into the past. Sally, even though she has no idea, is glancing into the future, forlorn and alone (Uppendahl’s final shot of a small child lying before a TV, lost in sadness, is hauntingly evocative of a time when we’re all shut out of the mysterious world of adults). It’s not that Sally’s parents and uncle are being cruel when they laugh about Gene’s second wife; they’re just talking on an emotional level she’s not yet mature enough to understand, and both the societal dictates of the time and her uneasy relationship with Betty declare that she can’t have someone scoop her up and explain it to her, even though Don clearly longs to. And so even as she seems to be confronted with a family that doesn’t care for her feelings, she’s looking at a world that simply doesn’t care about certain things or even overlooks them as curiosities. (On a more literary note, the parallel between this and a similar scene in Phillip Roth’s American Pastoral – maybe the finest American novel of the last 25 years – is simply astounding. While I doubt the series would similarly turn Sally into a terrorist and completely steal that book’s structure, Weiner may be tipping his hat toward her ultimate estrangement from the rest of her family.)

For his part, Horace, Jr., is trying to make jai alai happen in America. All it takes is looking out the window or through the morning paper (or scanning a newspaper Web site, if you’re not on these shores) to see that jai alai simply never took off in America, its many virtues as a sport aside, so it, like the conclusion of the Sally storyline, is consciously calling our attention to the course of history. Unlike in the Sally story beat, though, everyone is pretty aware that jai alai isn’t going to take off, to the point where Horace, Jr., is a bit of a laughing stock around the Sterling-Cooper office, a poor little rich boy who can be shaken down for all he’s worth. At first, this seemingly comic storyline doesn’t seem like it’s going to have a lot of parallel with the sadder storyline of Gene’s death, but as the episode continues, it worms its way to a point where it does. Like Sally, Horace, Jr., just wants to be included, only he wishes to be included among the important businessmen who make up his father’s world. He, too, simply lacks the maturity to understand why they do what they do, and his parent, too, makes the decision to exclude him via force (in this case, through a long series of brutal punishments in which he will lose all of his money). But the old, moneyed world of Cooper and Horace, Sr., (David Selby) isn’t wholly safe either. After all, Bert’s ants are the ones who are killed when Don casually attempts to play jai alai in one of the offices. The crash is coming.

But just like Horace, Jr., and Sally are linked by a desire to be a part of a world that doesn’t quite want them, Horace, Jr., and Peggy are linked by a desire to strike out on their own and placate their parents via gifts. In Peggy’s case, it’s a new TV for her mother (Myra Turley), both a preemptive peace offering on the occasion of her move into Manhattan (a move that will anger her mother) and a genuine attempt to show her mother just how successful she’s become. Of course, none of this matters. Peggy’s wayward nature, the fact that she had a child and then gave it up, will always be foremost in her mother’s mind, no matter how many televisions she can give her. The difficulty of every parent-child relationship is managing the transition from having the parent be responsible for the child to having the child be responsible for the parent. Peggy’s not quite there yet (Ma Olsen can still take care of herself), but the fact that both she and her mother are adults is causing that delicate dance we all go through in our early 20s – the dance of trying to figure out just how much family bonds trump being on a more level playing field – a dance Peggy is eager to break out of, even as she’s learning to enjoy her youth while she has it. (Hell, there’s even a meta-mother/daughter scene here, where Peggy’s search for a new roommate is helped by Joan (Christina Hendricks), who was Peggy’s maternal figure in the show’s early episodes and has now been supplanted in so many ways by the younger woman, who’s less bound by convention.)

Parent-child conflicts reverberate throughout “The Arrangements” perhaps because that’s primarily how we think of the conflicts of the ‘60s (or, hey, how we think of most classic conflicts). The big one, of course, is between Gene and everyone else in his life. We’ve gotten a sense that Gene was maybe not the world’s best father, and we see here that he was unable to figure out a way to improve the relationship between Betty and her mother. But while he’s ensconced at the Draper house, he’s going to do his best to make up for some of that, particularly in paying attention to the under-noticed Sally or in telling Bobby (Jared Gilmore) stories of his time in the war (even if the stories horrify Don, as does his gift of a helmet taken from a German soldier). Gene has loomed as a presence in these last few episodes, one of those vestiges of an America that was just letting go of its grasp on a generation ready to take the country in new directions, which makes it all the more fascinating that Gene was the one who was most plugged in to our two recurring players who are in that generation.

To have a child is to enter into a lifelong compact that you will always be their parent. Negotiating the changes in that relationship, the shifts from dependency to independence right back to dependency, is one of the hardest things for a parent or child to do. “The Arrangements” may have tried a little too hard to have all of the characters reflecting on the ways that these relationships can cause us confusion or consternation, but it was uniquely nuanced in its sense that we never give up trying to understand our parents, that we never stop trying to be a part of their world. But the third season of Mad Men, with all of its Bye Bye, Birdie references, understands the flip side was becoming true as well. You can build a bridge across the generation gap, but you can never really fill it in.

Some other thoughts:

  • I’m going to not turn this section into the, “Sorry this was late!” section, but sorry this was late. The fall season is kicking my ass, and if I am too bogged down in the next couple of weeks, I’ll get someone else to cover the show until I can get back to doing this in a timely fashion.


  • The one storyline that I couldn’t really fit into my parents and children thesis was that of Sal (Bryan Batt) and his ordeal with the Patio commercial (though I almost did it at the end there with the reference to Bye Bye, Birdie). Even as Sal’s career worries are cleared up with Don assuring him that he’ll be directing more commercials (and he did a bang-up job at recreating the Ann-Margret shot, even if it ended up being lackluster from being ill-conceived and having an absolutely atrocious actress in the lead), he’s sparked a whole new series of worries at home, as his wife, Kitty (Sarah Drew), now is beginning to realize that there’s a whole other reason her husband is not “tending” to her needs. Drew’s one of my favorite journeywomen on the TV guest star circuit, always effortlessly engaging wherever she pops up, and the slow, dawning realization on her face as Sal performs for her was one of the episode’s highlights.


  • At first I thought the image of Sally driving the car was one of those attempts to show us how wacky parenting in the ‘60s was, and I was prepared to cry foul. I’m glad the episode put it in a character-specific context, since I doubt even in the early days of the automobile, little kids were getting to drive them.


  • Mad Men was renewed for a fourth season. Since this is such a flagship show for AMC and since this season has been better rated than the previous two, this was all but a sure thing, but it’s nice to have the confirmation anyway.


  • I’ve always kind of found jai alai exciting to watch. I wish it had taken off.


  • Another of my favorite TV journeywomen turned up as Peggy’s new roommate, Karen. I still best know Carla Gallo for being the object of the main character’s affections on Undeclared, but she’s bounced around a lot of series over the past decade, always bringing an odd, nervous energy to her performances.


  • Two things that have become almost hilarious this season: The choices of where to insert ad breaks have come to seem almost arbitrary (to the point where one in this episode – after Gene says, “There was this girl …” – seemed to cut a scene off before it was finished), and the “Next week on Mad Men” previews now seem to consist of 11 or 12 declarative sentences lifted from the script at random and stitched together into something vaguely approximating a preview. I’m sure that Weiner prefers his previews to be as oblique as possible, but these have just about turned into those odd, disconnected “This week on” episode previews that used to air before ‘80s detective shows. (Moonlighting made fun of them once.) I’d almost rather they not do previews at all if this is what we’re going to get.

______________________________________________

House contributor Todd VanDerWerff is the publisher of the pop culture blog South Dakota Dark and co-host of the podcast TV on the Internet. His writing also appears at The AV Club.

Read more!

Thursday, September 03, 2009

Mad Men Mondays (on Thursday): Season 3, Ep. 3, "My Old Kentucky Home"

By Todd VanDerWerff



We generally think of performing as a way of opening up to the people we’re performing for, a way of sharing some bit of ourselves – be it a song or a dance or a comedy routine – with our friends or family or strangers. But that obscures some of the essential truth of what performance actually is, of what our relationship is both with those we’re performing for and those who perform to us. To perform is also to hide, to place a literal or figurative mask over your face and see if you can’t distract everyone from the things you’re really thinking or feeling just long enough to maybe distract yourself as well. When we talk about the irony of a sad comedian or how strange it is that a rock star on top of the world killed himself, what we’re really talking about is how good their games of distraction are. All art is driven by a variety of sources, but a lot of great art, a lot of art that really sticks with us, is driven by pain, even as that art tries to play a quick game of Three Card Monte to keep us from that fact.

Everybody in “My Old Kentucky Home,” written by Dahvi Waller and Matthew Weiner and directed by Jennifer Getzinger, is performing on one level or another. But, then, Mad Men, obsessed as it is with ideas of social conventions and both how we live up to them and subvert them, features a large cast of characters who are almost always performing for everyone they see. In some ways, they and the show take their cues from Don Draper (Jon Hamm), who’s spent his whole life pretending to be someone he’s not, the ultimate example of performance becoming reality. Don has been performing so long that when he has to add on that extra level of it – acting as though he’s comfortable at a party where he’s really not, say – it just doesn’t ever seem to work as well as when he’s striding around Sterling-Cooper or something of the sort.

“My Old Kentucky Home” actually foregrounds this theme almost blatantly, something Mad Men manages surprisingly well in this one. Joan (Christina Hendricks) plays the accordion for her dinner party guests. Roger (John Slattery) sings the song in the episode title while in blackface. The episode even begins with a scene where an actress is called in to audition for the Patio commercial Peggy (Elisabeth Moss) fought so hard against last week, Harry (Rich Sommer) leering in delight as she does the twist. Even if it were just these three characters, it would be something the episode was clearly trying to get at, but everyone on the show seems to be dealing with it one way or another. Even Sally Draper (Kiernan Shipka) engages in both the performance of a lie and the performance of reading aloud for her grandfather. And what’s she reading about? The end of the Roman Empire, a culture dedicated entirely to the pursuit of self-gratification and pleasure above all else in its dying days, dedicated to performance and self-deception as a way of life (or so the book would have it). Weiner and his writers all but dare you to insert your thoughts both on where the U.S. is heading in the years immediately following Mad Men and the decades to come right after that scene. The episode similarly ends on a note of performance, two people kissing romantically under a moonlit sky, their marriage at some level an act that they both agree to, but a very real and bruised connection underneath all of that that they both are working hard to preserve.

“Kentucky Home” spends most of its time at three gatherings: Roger and Jane’s (Peyton List) party to celebrate their marriage, a brainstorming session for an advertising campaign at the Sterling-Cooper offices and a dinner party thrown by Joan and her doctor husband, Greg (Sam Page). Parties and social outings are places where we put our performance skills to good use, avoiding, say, conflict in our marriages or our concerns about what our friends are doing, the better to have a fun evening that’s not filled with stress or conflict. So it’s an apt series of settings for this episode, with its interest in how we present ourselves to the world at large. I think the central scene here is supposed to be the meeting between Don and Connie (Chelcie Ross), who is likely meant to be Conrad Hilton, if the Internet hive-mind is to be believed. The two retreat to the bar to avoid the gatherings they’re both at the country club to attend, Don avoiding the distasteful scene where Roger performs in blackface. (I should mention that this scene is shockingly funny in a way that Mad Men’s “Hey, the ‘60s were crazy!” references often aren’t. The humor doesn’t feel cheap, precisely because the episode pairs this with a rather sympathetic portrayal of the Drapers’ maid, Carla, but also because Roger has no idea how offensive this will seem in even six months, much less six years. Don, though driven by his sense of how out of his depth he is at this level of class, also seems to intuit this somehow. Probably because he’s Don, and that’s what he does.)

Connie and Don are both moving up the class ladder, climbing outside of the established social strata they were born in. Because people like Roger or Betty (January Jones) or Pete (Vincent Kartheiser) were born going to events like the country club party, they don’t quite realize the level of artificiality they’re dealing with, how class constructs pile on top of other class constructs to create something completely false. The level of unease that this causes both Don and Connie is something neither can articulate, most likely, but they feel it acutely, feel in their bones how they’ll never be LIKE someone like Roger. Even if Don couldn’t share the story about how he used to park cars with most people in his life because they would then have the ability to pick at the scab of his horrible secret, he REALLY can’t because they just won’t understand how those feelings, how that old self lying beneath the confident air he gives off, the perfected lie he performs at every moment of his life, lie beneath every inch of his skin. He’s a walking performance, and the incongruity between who he appears to be and who he is only makes itself felt in a queasiness that only someone like Connie could understand.

It’s interesting to note that this sequence features a number of smaller performance scenes within it (outside of the Roger in blackface scene). Take, for instance, Pete and Trudy (Allison Brie) dancing the Charleston to show off for the other guests, in a way that seemed both somehow hilariously desperate and deeply impressive. Pete, to some degree, longs for the way that things were, when his family name was enough to open any door in the city, to get him posh positions. Now, of course, there’s a wave coming that could carry Pete along with it – the youthful wave that will come to dominate the decade – but Pete’s simply unable to see what’s coming. He’s hung up on a world that’s rapidly disappearing, to the point where he dances a step that hasn’t been terribly popular since the 1920s. And yet, something about the joy on the faces of the two makes the whole thing seem worth it. These are two people who can’t have children, who have to listen as Harry and his wife and Don and Betty explain about their own pregnancy processes, two people who have to throw themselves into something to avoid paying attention to the way that they’ve come up short in the eyes of their current society. And the weird joy they bring to it is enough to make Harry’s wife angry at her husband when he drags her off the dance floor, thoroughly upstaged by Pete and Trudy.

The unease over class mobility and the acts of performance that go along with it isn’t confined to Roger and Jane’s party by any means. Indeed, it’s even present in the Sterling-Cooper offices, where Paul Kinsey (Michael Gladis) calls in his old college pal to deliver some weed, and we learn that Paul, back before all of the pretensions he wears now as a suit of armor, was just another scholarship kid with a thick accent who ended up in the New York area and saw an opportunity to move up in the world. These revelations cause him to become sulky and sullen, even as Peggy finds something in being high that allows her to come up with something approaching an ad campaign. We think of being drunk or high as a way to get past the disguises we wear every day, as something that cuts down to our true core and allows us to express our true selves. What Mad Men is showing here is just how miserable that can make so many of us. We’re not terribly happy with who we really are, and that’s why we put on these elaborate guises of being someone other than that. Anything that unburdens us of those costumes can cause just as much resentment as it does relief.

One of our final acts of performance comes from Joan, who’s steadily realizing that Greg is just as bad as his rape of her might have suggested. Even as she’s able to hold off his temper more and more (her ability to stop it dead in its tracks when he starts to grow angered by her insistence on following the rules of Emily Post by suggesting a compromise shows how quickly she’s learned to live within this marriage), she’s trapped further and further into a role that she feels increasingly uncomfortable with. At Sterling-Cooper, she’s the queen of the office, even if no one can see past her looks to what she could actually contribute (as they have with Peggy), but at home, she’s soon going to be simply a prop in Greg’s ascension to chief of medicine, though a necessary prop (if he’s ever going to overcome the stories of a death that occurred under his knife). What’s interesting about Mad Men’s portrayal of women in the early ‘60s is that it doesn’t sink so low as to portray all of them fighting against their invisible cages, all budding, early feminists. They’re simply people who know what they want because they’ve been told that’s what they should want. But everyone on Mad Men is rapidly learning that there’s a vast gulf between what they expect they should want and what they actually do want.

The story where Betty’s dad tried to find the $5 that Sally stole from him and danced around the edges of blaming Carla felt almost like a network-mandated way to offset the Roger in blackface gag with a sympathetic portrayal of a black character, though I find it fascinating that Carla’s prominence has almost exactly conformed to how black people in the U.S. came steadily to prominence in the early ‘60s before the mid-decade civil rights battles. Mostly, though, this was just a chance for the show to hit some of the notes it likes to hit – like showing how Don’s sins are reflected in his daughter or having her reading from Gibbon’s work on the Roman Empire as a metaphor for everything that is coming. It was less of a substantive comment on things than a grace note, and as a grace note, it mostly worked.

I’ve read a lot of criticism of this episode around the Internet, irritated that nothing substantive happens in it, that it’s more an expression of character and theme than a straightforward plot. To some degree, I wonder if these people have ever seen Mad Men or if this irritation stems from people who’ve seen the show on DVD and don’t realize how slow-moving it can seem when watched on a broadcast schedule. To me, “My Old Kentucky Home” is a sterling example of nearly everything Mad Men does well. You could, perhaps, complain that nothing happens in it, but Mad Men is less about substantive plot momentum than nearly any great drama in the history of the medium. Every season of Mad Men is a long drum roll that sustains, never quite reaching the point where it would burst forth in cacophony, but, instead, burying our heads in the noise, until all we can feel is the slow, mounting sense that Something Is Coming, and we, like the characters in Mad Men, will be swept aside by it.

Some other thoughts:

  • Sorry for the lateness of this write-up. Things have gotten out of hand as I work on various fall TV preview articles for various outlets, but next week (with Labor Day breaking things up) should go better.


  • I love Don’s takedown of Roger at the end of the night. “No one thinks you're happy. They think you're foolish.” I’m going to have to break that out at parties.


  • That whole scene where Peggy and the others get high hits most of the stereotypical marijuana beats, but the fact that it’s these characters saying and doing these things makes them somehow newly hilarious and endearing. All of Paul’s angst about the Tiger Tones is also pretty great.


  • I try not to be all prurient in these write-ups, but man, all of the female cast members looked like a million bucks in this episode.


  • Looks like Sal (Bryan Batt) will have a storyline again in the next episode, which will be nice.


  • Trying to get a sense of what people thought of this episode reminded me of why I try to read so little Mad Men commentary on the Internet. It’s not that I don’t think all criticism should begin from a point of healthy skepticism, but every season of this show has been structured roughly similarly. At this point, we should be used to it, yes?


  • In the same week as Mad Men used blackface, Weeds did as well (though in a far less interesting fashion). Was there a third out there? Was this a part of some trend I just missed?

______________________________________________

House contributor Todd VanDerWerff is the publisher of the pop culture blog South Dakota Dark and co-host of the podcast TV on the Internet. His writing also appears at The AV Club.

Read more!

Wednesday, August 26, 2009

Mad Men Mondays (on Tuesday): Season 3, Episode 2, "Love Among the Ruins"

By Todd VanDerWerff



In its own way, Bye, Bye Birdie, both the Charles Strouse and Lee Adams stage musical and the George Sidney film of the material, is an uneasy attempt to bridge a divide that was already becoming apparent in the late ‘50s and early ‘60s. It’s simultaneously an attempt to understand a coming eruption. Also, it’s a goofy comedy musical that seems like it’s trying to understand what the matter is with kids today but ultimately ends up siding with their parents. It’s like someone made a musical of the comic strip Zits. There’s nothing as mean-spirited about the work as I’m making it sound, since it’s basically just a lighthearted, gentle look at the sorts of teen frenzies over rock stars that were becoming well-known in the late ‘50s, but there is at least an undercurrent of uncertainty to it. When Paul Lynde sings “What’s the Matter with Kids Today?” in the movie version, it’s a joke, yes, but there’s also a vague sense of unease, a sense that things may never again be the same. Kennedy’s in the White House, rock ‘n’ roll is here to stay, and there’s a growing sense that youth is driving the conversation now instead of following it. Plus, you’ve got Ann Margaret, sensual and seductive but also somehow innocent (at least in this film). Maybe to our modern eyes, it’s possible to see how corny it all is, but at the time of its release, she must have seemed intoxicating.

“Love Among the Ruins,” written by Carolyn Humphris and Matthew Weiner and directed by Lesli Linka Glatter, similarly places itself in the midst of people trying to cope with the fact that everything is changing, both in the world at large and in their personal lives. Penn Station is being closed down to make way for Madison Square Garden. Betty’s (January Jones) dad is unable to care for himself anymore. Don (Jon Hamm) is doing his best to be the devoted husband and father he wasn’t before. Even Peggy (Elisabeth Moss) is facing the fact that she’s had to sacrifice things to become the person she is today. When she has a tryst with a boy she meets at a bar, who’s probably her rough age, she seems decades and decades older next to him.

What’s fascinating about this is that Mad Men is very carefully positioning its characters on either sides of the generational divide that’s coming down the pike regardless of their actual ages. Peggy is exactly the right age to be a part of the so-called “youthquake” that will shake the American foundations, and with her position as a young woman working a professional job, she seems like she’d be in a position to be uniquely affected by that. Instead, we see that, proto-feminist that she is, she’s got a bit of conservatism to her. As much as her dislike of the idea to sell a diet cola to women using an Ann Margaret lookalike is based on some perhaps well-founded ideas of what women want to see, it’s also based in a deep-seated insecurity about who she forced herself to become to get what she wanted. On the other hand, she’s also Don’s most avid pupil, and Don seems likely to ride out the turmoil of the ‘60s fairly well. He may have that side of conservatism to him, but he’s also eminently adaptable, willing to greet change and roll up his sleeves in the face of it.

As another example, look at Paul Kinsey (Michael Gladis) and Harry Crane (Rich Sommer), two rough contemporaries who are already lining up on opposite sides of the divide to come. Paul often seems to be trying far too hard to be hipper than he actually is, but some of the more liberal tendencies of his generation seem to be rubbing off on him. A lot of this is probably an act – he was in no hurry to rush off to Alabama to help register blacks to vote last season – but his anger about the thought of Penn Station being destroyed (something that marks him as a radical and a Communist, apparently) places him squarely on the side of the hippies to come. Harry, on the other hand, has frequently expressed his retrograde opinions (though not in this episode), and it seems like he and Paul will likely become intellectual adversaries as the show goes along, despite the fact that the two started out the series as close friends.

Similarly, the show has placed Ken Cosgrove (Aaron Staton) and Pete Campbell (Vincent Kartheiser) directly at odds but also subtly shown how their different approaches to landing accounts place them on opposite sides of the conflicts we know are coming. Some of this is probably by virtue of the accounts they’ve been handed, but Ken is embracing that new, youthful world, of Ann Margaret dancing before a giant, blue screen, while Pete is forced to play up his ties to the old New York, the America that is rapidly trying to forget itself. My friend Steve Heisler said on his Twitter recently that the opening scenes of Mad Men’s second season neatly encapsulated everything that was to come in the season. He thought that this did not bode well for season three, which opened with those oft-criticized scenes of Don imagining his conception and birth as he heated milk for Betty. I liked those scenes, so I’m not as worried, but I also think that Steve may be on to something. This season seems to be shaping up to be a season all about how these characters and the country as a whole rushed headlong into forgetting both what it was and the things that had made it that way. Mad Men is not naïve enough to think that the youth-driven cultural revolution of the ‘60s is wholly good or bad, but it does seem intent, this season, on figuring out just what is lost when we dive pell-mell into an uncertain future.

No one stands more for the old ways than Roger Sterling (John Slattery), but, interestingly, Roger is also the person who is positioning himself most firmly as someone who’s trying to forget an old self, having taken Don’s advice about moving forward and reinvention and completely misread it (in a way that Peggy, seemingly the one kindred spirit Don has on the show, never would). Roger has divorced his first wife, Mona (Talia Balsam), to wed secretary Jane (Peyton List). Jane has yet to appear this season, but the fallout from Roger’s decision has affected his relationship with everyone else on the show, including Don, his onetime friend, who now seems awfully cool to him. Mona returns this week to reveal that she’s moving on, bringing a friend as a date to she and Roger’s daughter’s wedding, and that daughter, Margaret (Elizabeth Rice), is intent on Jane not attending the wedding either. Roger, of course, can’t understand why this reinvention isn’t working in the same way Don’s reinventions would seem to work, but he also doesn’t grasp something everyone in America is going to understand intuitively in just a few years: If you want to make some changes, you have to act like that’s how things were going to be in the first place. Otherwise, you risk upsetting both the fruit basket and a whole bunch of people. Don is smooth enough to pull off a reinvention because he understands that you have to lose something to do it. Roger doesn’t quite grasp that. The fact that his daughter’s wedding is scheduled for Nov. 23, 1963, is interesting on the one hand because JFK is assassinated the day before that, but it’s equally interesting because Roger fundamentally misunderstands the nature of change.

Don, whose whole being is predicated on change, can never misunderstand that. In fact, when he’s trying to deal with the people from Madison Square Garden, he points out that they should embrace the fact that they’re building something new in a city that is so old, comparing it favorably to his visit to California last season (a pivotal point in his life), where everything is new and gleaming and white. This, he said, could be the start of New York’s reinvention as the city on the hill. “Let’s also say that change is neither good or bad. It simply is. It can be greeted with terror or joy. A tantrum that says, ‘I want it the way it was’ or a dance that says, ‘Look, it’s something new,” he says in the sales pitch (in a quote that seemingly everyone who reviewed this episode wrote down for later), and while the destruction of Penn Station will turn out to be a black mark on the city historically speaking, Don’s getting at something very primal, something he himself has dealt with time and again.

If season two of Mad Men spent a lot of time expanding the various characters around Don, especially Pete and the women of the show, season three seems focused, at least early on, on re-establishing Don’s primacy. Last season was all about Don going through a crisis of the self, watching his lies come crumbling in on top of him and yet somehow not able to fight back against them because at some level, he didn’t realize they were lies. During his California trip, Don seemingly embraced all of the contradictions of just being Don and came back to New York determined to do better at the elaborate disguise that is his life. A disguise only works, to some degree, if you believe it to be true on some level, and Don is believing in his disguise awfully hard this season. Look, for example, at how he watches his daughter’s teacher dance around the Maypole and yet sublimates the desire he obviously feels for her into stroking the grass that her bare feet are touching, a much tinier and perhaps less fulfilling connection than having sex with her but a connection nonetheless.

Don’s also stepping up as Betty’s father finds himself unable to take care of himself and his children squabbling over who’s going to take care of the old man, his son trying to get while the getting is good, more or less. It’s just another example of the old giving way to the new, but it’s such a personal one, conducted on such an intimate, familial level, that it almost doesn’t seem like it. Don sees it as an opportunity to assert his primacy yet again, but when all is said and done and Betty’s brother has been sent packing (on a train via Penn Station no less), the Drapers still have to deal with the fact that her father hears police sirens in the dead of night and thinks that it’s still the time of Prohibition. Don’s never seemed to have especially strong feelings about Gene one way or the other, but taking him in is going to upset his new order more than anything else, it would seem.

But this is an episode filled with people trying to deal with the fact that the times, they are a-changin’, and not just on the sort of national level we think of when we hear the words “the ‘60s.” Joan (Christina Hendricks) can still drive guys wild even with pretty terrible jokes, but she’s still going to lose her perch as the top girl at Sterling-Cooper when her husband insists that she come home and start popping out kids. There’s something weirdly poignant about the scene where Roger and Joan, both realizing how much things have changed from the time when they were an item, edge around the prospect of having a conversation with each other and then just decide not to, Roger leaving by addressing her as “Mrs. Harris.”

So if season three is going to be about change, both on a societal and personal level, then “Love Among the Ruins” hits that theme in a myriad of ways for nearly every character (except for the one character who seems resistant to change because he’s just who he always is – Bert Cooper). But, more significantly, it hits that theme in the season’s overarching plot: the story of how Sterling-Cooper deals with its new British owners. The British are slowly learning that their empire is not what it was, and as it crumbles, they’re taking down Sterling-Cooper with them, with a new focus on a bottom line designed seemingly to keep the parent company in business, not shift with the times. And that’s ominous indeed.

Some other thoughts:

  • It was a Peggy-heavy episode. I always love a Peggy-heavy episode, precisely because of how inscrutable the character can be. I mean, every character on this show is pretty inscrutable, but Peggy takes the cake as the most inscrutable, I think. I love a girl with some mystery to her, and when Peggy seemingly couldn’t speak in this episode or danced in front of her mirror in imitation of Ann Margaret, it was great to wonder just what the hell was going through her head.


  • Keeping on the Peggy theme, perhaps my favorite moment of the episode was her trying to be Joan in the bar. And, also, I liked it when she used that college kid. She really is turning into Don!


  • I wonder why, exactly, the show is keeping both Joan’s husband and Roger’s new wife off screen, just when we might be most interested in seeing how they’re adjusting. I admire the show’s desire to withhold things from its audience, but it’s sometimes fun to try and guess why they’re withholding exactly what they’re withholding.


  • The push-pull over the Patio ad campaign is a reminder that this show could very easily be the best workplace drama on TV if it really wanted to. It’s just interested in different things.


  • There were times in season two when characters would disappear for episodes at a time, but it doesn’t really seem like that’s happening this season, perhaps because of the expanded budget for this season. Then again, Sal (Bryan Batt) didn’t appear at all after his big breakthrough last week.


  • Most men who watch this show really want to be Don Draper, but I increasingly think it would be fun to be Bert Cooper. My wife begs to differ.


  • Finally, it seems like Tuesdays are going to be the days when I can write these things up. Sorry if that’s too late for you folks, but it’s just going to work out that way.




______________________________________________

House contributor Todd VanDerWerff is the publisher of the pop culture blog South Dakota Dark and co-host of the podcast TV on the Internet. His writing also appears at The AV Club.

Read more!

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

Mad Men Mondays: Season 3, Episode 1, "Out of Town"

By Todd VanDerWerff



On Mad Men, the drama proceeds directly from the characters. That there are so few external circumstances weighing on them takes some getting used to, especially if you’re more used to shows where the plot twists and turns, zigs and zags. Mad Men does some of that, for sure, but it mostly moves forward, head down, faithful to its vision of these people and the times they live in. To that end, it can be hard to surmise just what the interest in the show should be until you realize that all of these people are headed directly for a big, brick wall.

Mad Men is, to some degree, a show about the disguises we hide behind when we’re trying to better ourselves or make more of our lives. Everyone has to do this to some degree – I hate cleaning, but I know that if I don’t want to live in a sty, I’m going to have to, and thus, I alter my key being just a bit to tolerate cleaning – but the characters on Mad Men are endlessly inventive. Peggy (Elisabeth Moss) finds a way to blend her traditional femininity with the harder edge she needs to survive in the office. Pete (Vincent Kartheister) keeps his sniveling contempt for everyone around him buried as deeply as he can (which isn’t very deep some weeks). And Don (Jon Hamm), of course, used to be an entirely different person. Creating and maintaining these disguises has made all of these people slightly more resistant to change than they might usually be. Even Don, who seemed on the brink of ditching it all to become a wholly different person again during his interlude in California last season, came back to New York, retook his old job, recommitted himself to his wife. He’s spent so much time as Don Draper that he would have trouble becoming Dick Whitman again. And that may be Mad Men’s true message: To wear a disguise is to eventually be forced to become it.

At the same time, Mad Men draws its dramatic strength from what we know is coming. Set in the early ‘60s as it is, the series is counting on us filling in the blanks to create its central conflicts. The interpersonal conflicts are done very well, and the stories in the office have the usual business intrigue, but because so much of the drama in Mad Men stems from stories of people trying to define who they are and forcing themselves to hide bits and pieces of their souls, the series’ potency comes from wondering just how prepared these people are to face the changes of the ‘60s. Creator Matthew Weiner and his writers haven’t had to do big, twisty-turny masterplots in the series because we know that the big twists and turns are coming and will be forced on the characters we’ve come to know and love. Furthermore, Sterling-Cooper, the advertising agency at the show’s center, is an old-guard advertising agency (though Don’s pitch for a London Fog ad in the premiere seems slightly influenced by the new kinds of ads starting to filter through the popular consciousness in 1963). They’re too entrenched in their old ways and their small-time milieu to really change with the times when they need to. Much of the series’ tension is derived from that simple fact: These are people ill-prepared to deal with what’s coming, but they have no idea. We are the only ones who do.

It’s probably significant, then, that the series’ third season premiere situates the season in the early months of 1963, the final year of the good old ‘60s, the time that looked more like the ‘50s of nostalgic memory than even the ‘50s did. Weiner has made much out of his desire to stay away from the Kennedy assassination, since it’s a story that’s been told time and time again, but in the opening months of 1963, there’s no real way to avoid it, even if the series significantly slows down its standard time jumps between episodes. It’s also the year of Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech, another galvanizing event of the decade. But despite being set in a year that the audience knows is momentous, the show doesn’t bother to act as though it is, which is one of its strengths. After the first season’s occasionally labored moments when it reminded us over and over that it was set in the ‘60s and things were different then, the series has mostly labored to make its seemingly otherworldly milieu seem completely normal, and it’s been the stronger for it.

“Out of Town,” written by Matthew Weiner and directed by Phil Abraham, features nearly everyone in the cast getting what they think they want and then realizing that it wasn’t quite what they wanted in the first place at all. "His name is Dick … after a wish his mother should have lived to see,” says the midwife to the young woman who would become Dick Whitman’s mother, and it seems like a key to unlocking the episode. There’s been some criticism of these half-imagined vignettes from the episode’s beginning, as Don considers the circumstances of his birth as he approaches the birthday only he knows about, but the ways the early ones are framed play up an important thematic point of the series as a whole.

These early vignettes are framed in such a way that the Depression-era dominate the major portion of the screen, but in the lower right quadrant, the milk that Don is making for his pregnant wife to help her sleep sits in the foreground of the frame, surrounded by the trappings of suburban domestic bliss. The era of the late ‘50s and very early ‘60s was the time when the dream of the American suburb was essentially born, sold as much by the ad men Don counts himself a member of as by the actual reality of the suburbs. But the American impulse toward this domestic bliss has always been built upon our more fiery past, on a land of traveling hobos and vagabonds, a place where small town gossips sent news of illegitimate births dashing through the grapevine, a place of somewhat raw and elemental passions.

Try though Don might, his suburban wonderland can never wholly blot out his past, just as America can never wholly blot out that past, try though it does. At all times, it threatens to rise up and consume, and the trappings we’re holding it off with – bottles of milk and the accoutrements of a quiet, domestic life – don’t seem adequate. The central conflict of Mad Men is predicated on the idea that the raw passions of the past are always waiting there to devour us. (Notice how one of the scenes almost immediately following this suggests an over-romanticizing of a past that didn’t actually exist. Surely this is a bit of meta self-parody to a degree, but it also plays in to the ideas of a young country, formed by criminals and religious outcasts and merchants, playing at dress-up.)

Compared to the prior two season premieres, “Out of Town” fairly rockets along, as though the show took the harsh criticisms of the slow-burning season two opener, “For Those Who Think Young,” to heart. The second season of Mad Men is one of my favorite television seasons ever, and I thought the slow ease into the season’s storylines and the almost pathological refusal to deliver straight answers on the questions left over from season one was one of the season’s strengths, so I actually find the amped-up pacing of the premiere a bit discombobulating, though not to the point where I found the episode actively off-putting. Still, at times, the desire to just toss the audience into the deep end and expect it to swim feels a bit like over-confidence, as though the show brashly thinks it can get away with pretty much anything at this point. Furthermore, it’s slightly disconcerting to realize how funny the premiere is. The series has always had a wicked and sly sense of humor when it wants to, but season two was so brooding in so many places that to see the series embrace that sense of humor like this suggests that season three might be very tonally different, at least until Camelot falls apart.

Or maybe not. As mentioned, the episode is all about getting what you want. Advertising is based on both creating and satiating desires, but the desires that seem to be satiated in “Out of Town” are more primal than simply getting a raincoat that keeps out the damp. They’re about questions of whether you’re going to give in to your sexual desire or hang on more fully to the family life you keep falling off the wagon of. Or maybe they’re about questions of whether you can open yourself up to a part of your own desires you’ve kept walled off for a long, long time. Or maybe they’re about whether you finally get the promotion that makes you feel like you have some amount of self worth. It’s not wrong to want things, not even in the world of false desires, but the wants created by advertising don’t cut as deeply as the wants that push past the disguises you erect and cut to the bone.

The best example of this is probably in the surprisingly visceral sequence where Sal (Bryan Batt), on a business trip in Baltimore with Don, finds himself engaged in a steamy makeout session with a bellboy, who’s soon pulling off his pants, reaching into his boxers. The shot of Sal that closes out the first act – a man, finally alone, finally able to let down his guard and just flop down on his bed uninhibited – is a very good one, but so is the whole sequence with the bellboy, especially that opening shot where Sal is counting out the money to tip the guy and then his feet come very, dangerously close. But the capper is when Don sees the two from the fire escape, a fire alarm having interrupted their session (as well as Don’s night with flight attendant Shelly, and the somewhat haunted expression on Hamm’s face as he realizes the secret Sal hides just goes to show how much this guy could carry the show all by himself if he resolved to). As Sal spends the rest of the trip stewing about what Don might say to him, Don, in Don fashion, leans over on the airplane and pitches to him a campaign for London Fog that’s all about limiting exposure. Who you are when you’re alone is one thing, but keeping the disguise up at all times is paramount. Strangely, this advice seems to liberate Sal, who’s able to stride back into the office and proclaim that he wants a “handsome” man for the ad campaign the company is working on.

In the end, in spite of all of the period trappings and terrific production design and office politics and snappy dialogue, these are the things I most love about Mad Men. I love the way the show never quite goes where you think it’s going to and yet heads in that direction all the same. Once Don sees Sal, he’s naturally going to have to say something about what’s going on. A lesser show would have Don lean over on that plane and have a lengthy conversation with his coworker about how important it is to keep certain things close to the vest. Instead, the series has Don say much the same thing via an ad pitch that simultaneously advances the plotline in a completely separate storyline. This is delicate, impressive writing, which always keeps its characters humming forward but also makes them play things close to their vests.

Mad Men saves its revelatory moments for the occasional scene or moment – Don with the carousel in season one or Peggy telling Pete how she could have had him in season two. It’s a series about how increments add up to sweeping change, how certain things feel inevitable in retrospect but don’t seem that way when you’re in the midst of them. And then, you wake up one day, and you’re far, far away from where you started, just like a country that started out a loose conglomeration of states and ended up a world superpower. Everyone in Mad Men is lost in the midst of a world they don’t completely understand, but they plunge forward as best they can. Or, as Don says, when he meets with the London Fog people, “There will be fat years and there will be lean years. But it is going to rain.”

Some other thoughts.

  • I haven’t seen the next two episodes, as some critics have, but many are describing the British owners of Sterling Cooper as villains for the season, and I can see where that would be the case. Already, Pryce (Jared Harris) seems to be relishing the ability to rather toy with the people in his office, like how he sets up Ken Cosgrove (Aaron Staton) and Pete to compete for the Head of Accounts job. I also like the quick contrasts drawn between the Americans and the Britons in the office.


  • We don’t get a lot from the women of the cast in the episode, which may seem sort of odd considering just how much of season two was turned over to their storylines. But Peggy seems to be moving up in the world, while Joan (Christina Hendricks) is looking for her exit and Betty (January Jones) is very, very pregnant.


  • Looks like Robert Morse has been promoted to a series regular as Bert Cooper, which is great. Any time the old guy can hang around to talk with his employees about how he’s buying art where tentacle beasts have sex with Japanese women is a good time in my book.


  • Roger (John Slattery) also doesn’t get a lot to do in the episode, but I did like him walking into the meeting with Burt and realizing what was going on, followed by saying, “Oh. Sad meeting.”


  • Favorite lines: Betty, on Sally’s attempts to break into Don’s luggage: "She's taken to your tools like a little lesbian." Don, to Shelly when she bemoans her impending nuptials: "I've been married a long time. You get plenty of chances." Bert Cooper: “I don’t care what they say. London Fog is a great name.”


  • An observation I cannot take credit for but, rather, which I steal from Keith Phipps: Don and Sal spend most of the episode dealing with people in rigid, intractable uniform while their identities shift and change. Thoughts?


  • Much as the big jump between seasons one and two managed to drive a lot of the season’s conflict, I rather like that the series stayed unpredictable by only jumping about six months between seasons two and three.


  • Finally, this will hopefully be up in a timely fashion from week to week, though I may end up having to split duties with another House contributor in the weeks to come. Paying work is keeping me occupied most Sundays, though Lord knows I love you guys. We’ll work something out. And while we’re on the subject, I’d like to dedicate coverage of this season to Andrew Johnston, whose writing on the show is something I have to live in the more than estimable shadow of. Furthermore, his knowledge of the cultural details of the show’s period work is something I can never hope to match. His writing on this show (and so many shows) was consistently terrific, and I hope I can be one quarter as good as he was.


______________________________________________

House contributor Todd VanDerWerff is the publisher of the pop culture blog South Dakota Dark and co-host of the podcast TV on the Internet. His writing also appears at The AV Club.

Read more!

Wednesday, August 12, 2009

Mad Men and Y&D

By Keith Uhlich

We're a little slow on content upload this week (new entries coming tomorrow), so I wanted to share two recent web postings that have stoked my interest:

First, Glenn Kenny of Some Came Running has written a terrific response to several end-of-summer, state-of-the-art doomsaying articles. It's titled "Young and dumb versus old and in the way", and as befits Glenn it's an illuminating mix of autobiography and critical observation.

Second, a hearty welcome to video essay land for the Film Freak Central crew. Contributor Jefferson Robbins has just posted a tribute to Mad Men in anticipation of its premiere this Sunday. I've embedded the video below the jump, but be sure to head on over to the Film Freak blog itself and let Jefferson know your thoughts.

Read more!

Sunday, October 26, 2008

Mad Men Mondays: Season Two, Ep. 11, "The Jet Set"; Ep. 12, "The Mountain King"; Ep. 13, "Meditations in an Emergency"

By Matt Zoller Seitz

[Editor's note: This column is dedicated to the memory of House contributor, Time Out New York editor and regular Mad Men recapper Andrew Johnston, who passed away Sunday, Oct. 26 at age 40, following a long battle with cancer. Andrew's burial will take place Saturday, Nov. 1 at 2 p.m. at the Monticello Memory Gardens in Charlottesville, Virginia. There will also be a memorial Wednesday, October 29 at 5:30 p.m.; if you were a friend of Andrew's and would like to attend, email Matt at reeling@aol.com for details.]

During the first season of Mad Men and throughout the second, much critical discussion centered on the the show's depiction of advertising, domestic life and gender relations in the late '50s and early '60s, the immense cultural changes America was about to undergo, and what opinion series creator Matthew Weiner might have on it all. After watching the last three episodes, I believe those aspects are mere means to an end. Like the mob storylines on The Sopranos—a series on which Weiner served as a writer and producer—they exist to inform and amplify Mad Men's real interest: the continual struggle between what Sigmund Freud called the id and the superego, between the deep, authentic self inside us—the sum total of our desires, appetites, urges and fantasies—and what we might call the constructed self, a superstructure of social conditioning that cages the beast within and lashes it with guilt and shame when it gets too rowdy. The third major component of the personality, the ego, referees between the id, the superego and the external world; in a sense, the ego is the locus of drama, because it's the place where decisions happen. The struggle is apparent in any story worth watching, but it's foregrounded in Mad Men, a series in which—like The Sopranos—dramatic decisions often come down to a blunt cost-benefit analysis. A character in moral quandary tries to choose between what he or she wants, and what his or her conditioning—and the expectations of family, friends or society at large—will allow.

Don Draper/Dick Whitman is the most obvious example of this phenomenon because he's the main character, the guy whose problems and actions drive a lot of the drama—and he happens to be an impostor, somebody who took the identity of a dead soldier and, if the flashback material and California scenes are meant to be taken literally, stepped into the shoes of the soldier whose identity he stole and served as a sort of husband stand-in for the "real" Mrs. Draper (by which I mean the first Mrs. Draper, Anna). The Don-Anna relationship is fascinating because it seems, to quote Shakespeare, a marriage of true minds. Neither Don nor Anna seems beholden to traditional concepts of morality and decency. Anna calls Don out as a fake at the car lot, but rather than rat him out and have him punished, she engineers an arrangement whereby he'll serve as a stand-in for her late (missing) husband. And judging from that revealing flashback in the second-to-late episode, "The Mountain King," they both seem quite content with the arrangement. When Don is with Anna Draper, he seems more relaxed and open, more vulnerable—even somehow younger, smaller and thinner!—than he's seemed in the rest of the series. He seems—yes, indeed—like a different person: maybe the person he was meant to be.

Our mutual friend Alan Sepinwall wrote in his recap of "The Mountain King" that this material demonstrates the debt that Weiner's show owes to The Sopranos. Alan's recap begins by quoting a key passage of dialogue: "It means the only thing keeping you from being happy is the belief that you are alone," Anna Draper tells Don. "What if that's true?" Don asks. "Then you can change," Anna replies. "People don't change," Don counters. Alan goes on to write,

""People don't change" may as well have been the motto of Matthew Weiner's previous series. The Sopranos was an 86-hour argument against human beings' capacity for real personal growth. As Mad Men borrows so many other visual and thematic elements from its mobbed-up predecessor, it would be easy to assume that Weiner, like David Chase, doesn't believe change is possible. But "The Mountain King" makes it clear that, in the world of Mad Men, people can change—provided they have a partner to aid their transformation. If you think you're alone, then you're stuck ... The episode is filled with partnerships both old and new that enable major changes, some more welcome than others. Anna Draper, widow of the woman whose identity Dick Whitman stole, helped our Don step more concretely into his new identity. Betty, fearing that Don may never come home (or that she may never want him to), enlists her daughter as an ally for her potential new life as a divorcee. Pete breaks off his business relationship with his father-in-law rather than be forced to lose his role as dictator in his marriage. Roger wants to use the possible merger with Putnam, Powell & Lowe to pay for the transition into his new marriage, while Bert Cooper fears it will render him an irrelevant old man. And, in the episode's most horrifying moment, Joan discovers what her fiance really thinks of her and her career when he rapes her on the floor of Don's office."
In his notes at the end of the column, Alan adds:
"The scene where Don happens by the hot rod mechanics at first seemed out of place in the rest of the episode, but on watching it a second time, it became clear: just as Don succeeds through his partnership with Anna, the mechanics take parts of two different cars and meld them together into something that's greater as a new whole."
I think he's right on all of the particulars, but at the same time, and at the risk of seeming cynical, I think Alan's reading is too hopeful, and that the message of Mad Men in re: personal growth is, "People change their lives, but they can't change their essence," or maybe, "People change their lives, but maybe they shouldn't, because the change only hides the real problem, disguises it or delays the necessity of confronting it." Or maybe it's even simpler than that, and phrased as a question: "Would most personal unhappiness disappear if people were allowed to be true to their natures?"

When I watched the car scene, I had a thought similar to Alan's but came to a different conclusion: that the mechanic's strategy works on automobiles but can't work with couples. People aren't machines; you can't change their essence with a new coat of paint or even a meticulously rebuilt engine; the essence of the person—particularly that insatiable id, always seeking visceral satisfaction and comfort—stays the same. The conflicts within the couple are the conflicts of the individual squared: unless the two participants in a relationship want similar things—unless they're on the same page, so to speak—the relationship is doomed. Whether the conflict within the marriage is between an id and a superego (as seems to be the case with Don and Betty, the husband continually straying in one form or another and then slinking back home to his wife and presenting his bare back for a lashing), whether they stay together "for the sake of the kids" or pull the plug on the partnership, it's a no-win situation, a car that barely runs and that probably never should have been taken from the showroom.

Thinking about the probable messages of Mad Men and The Sopranos, I suspect that The Sopranos, as hard-edged and pessimistic about human nature as it was, ultimately seemed moralistic in a backhanded way. It presented the hypocrisies of its characters (and the various emotional and physical savageries they justified) as a blight on happiness, actions that departed from the accepted norms of daily life and that brought grief and pain to those who abide by the rules, the norms. (Think of all the subplots and individual scenes depicting the misery inflicted by the mob characters on "civilians.") The tone of Mad Men is different, I think—more of a lament.

The show presents social compacts (marriage, family, full-time employment in an office—all institutions that Don neglects or abandons when it suits him) as shackles on the freedom of those who are predisposed to do without them. It's a subtle critique of traditional bourgeois morality of the Father Knows Best, two kids-and-a-mortgage variety. It treats the very concept as an illusion, a useful fiction built atop the reality of human need—a superego-style overlay, a construct, a set of goals that we're conditioned by family, society and other forces to want, to need, regardless of whether it matches up with our own deep-seated, possibly unrecognized, maybe repressed true desires. (Peggy, for personal and self-interested reasons, is the least judgmental of the show's major characters, responding to Pete's irritation over Don's little L.A. holiday by saying she's sure he had his reasons for going AWOL. Is it just me or, at that moment, does Peggy seem to speak for the show?)

It's here, I think, that advertising's significance to Mad Men becomes clear. What's the purpose of advertising? As articulated by Don—the show's emblem and sometime philosophical mouthpiece—it's to stoke desires that were repressed; or (more daringly—the Holy Grail for any ambitious ad man) to create or instill a desire that wasn't there before -- maybe even a desire that's of no use, perhaps antithetical, to the consumer who's suddenly feeling it. Don's Season One "carousel" speech crystallizes this objective and ironically applies it to Don himself (in ways that remain largely invisible to the other characters). It's half auto-critique, half confession, and a brilliant illustration of Don's (and Peggy's) belief that the most effective advertising is that which connects on a personal, emotional, very deep level, and that necessarily draws on autobiographical sources, on the ad man (or woman's) own sense of reality, of human nature. Peggy manages the same feat, more humorously, when she draws on her Christian (Catholic) upbringing to devise the "sharing" campaign for Popsicles; Don wishes he could feel the nostalgic feelings he outlines in the carousel speech, but (to his shame) he can't. So he uses those feelings in his work, to land a client, effectively finding a new way to pass on the desires that have ensnared him, desires that don't really match up with who Don is.

In the final episode of Season Two, Mad Men juxtaposes individual fealty to the mid-century social norm against the looming threat of nuclear Armageddon (represented by the Cuban Missile Crisis the characters follow in news reports throughout the finale); the possibility of mass extinction is just an amped-up version of the anxiety each person faces when contemplating the certainty of his or her own death and wondering, "What's the point of playing by the rules, of doing what society expects, when I'm just going to end up as worm food anyway?" (Don, predictably, is the character least threatened by this eventuality, responding to Joan's request to brief the staff on emergency preparedness by indicating that if the missiles start flying, such knowledge will be useless and pointless.)

Don Draper/Dick Whitman is clearly a man uncomfortable with the responsibilities he's saddled with. He's ill-suited to marriage (and perhaps somewhat suited to fatherhood, though his track record there is spotty, too). He's the sort of man who gets drunk while building a child's playhouse—self-medicating his depression and alienation from the person he's pretending to be. A shot late in the Season Two finale dollies slowly away from the Draper family reunited, reassembled, in their living room, a Saturday Evening Post cover image of domestic perfection, Eisenhower-standard. But we've seen the turmoil roiling beneath that placid image, so the effect is ironic and unsettling rather than reassuring.

To me, the scenes between Don and Anna—and the scenes in the preceding episode where Don hooks up with the Europeans in what seems like a jet-set predecessor to a hippie commune where traditional social roles are downplayed or obliterated, and a father can have a perfectly ordinary conversation with his daughter while she's lying in bed post-coitus with her much older lover—were designed to show Don in his true element, living in a world where he doesn't have to be burdened by the expectations he's shouldering for propriety's sake.

Both the Anna scenes and the LA commune scenes give us glimpses of a secret world where selfish people—meaning people who put their own happiness first and don't lose sleep over what society expects of them—can live without anxiety, without guilt. The last three episodes of Season Two often showcased Don in situations that amounted to a holiday from the usual pressures afflicting a man of his social stature; I was reminded of the plot of Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged (referenced in Season One), an uber-libertarian tract in which the truly exceptional people get tired of having to suck up to the "mealy-mouthed" commies and hypocritical, guilt-dealing parasites and go on strike, watching society collapse from the safety and comfort of a secret hideout that's essentially Shangri-La for intellectual supermen.

Don's soujourn with the jet set and the scenes between him and Anna had a Shangri-La feel. They were visions of homegrown paradise, of places where a man uncomfortable with his constructed self could reestablish contact with his deep self, his true self. There's nothing condemnatory in any of this material save a closeup of a young boy in the swinger's compound regarding Don and his young lover in the pool; in retrospect that shot might be the image that starts Don back down the road toward his day job and family, toward embracing his constructed self. He has to start being that other guy again for the sake of his kids. In a sense, that's why we obey all sorts of rules—for the sake of the kids. Not literally our kids (some of us don't have any and don't want any) but for the sake of future generations. Middle-class morality exists (so we're told) to perpetuate society, to keep the machine humming along. Damage it or even question it (as the social revolutions of the '60s did in real life, and as they'll do on Mad Men if it keeps getting renewed by AMC) and you risk tearing down the status quo and replacing a somewhat restrictive but functioning paradigm with pure chaos, pure selfishness. (It occurs to me that one of Ayn Rand's key philosophical tomes was titled The Virtue of Selfishness.)
_____________________________

There's a marvelous moment in the jet set compound when a relaxed Don slumps on a couch. The shot is framed from behind: Don's arm is draped along the top of the couch. It's a mirror image of the shot that closes the show's credits—the period at the end of a sequence that shows the ad man entering his workspace, dropping his briefcase, leaping out of a window and plummeting through concrete canyons as, all around him, manufactured images of bliss fall apart.

That image of Don seen from behind communicates a sense of stillness and utter mystery (we can't see his face), but the intent is different. In the credits, the shot represents the falsely calm and centered Don, a man who, on the inside, is moments away from leaping through a window and exposing the illusory nature of what passes for happiness in his world. But when we see the same shot in the European compound, I think we're seeing an image of, not true contentment, exactly, but something closer to it than what Don experiences back home.

The jet set compound scenes and the Don Draper-Anna Draper scenes also reminded me oddly of the bits in Season Six of The Sopranos dealing with Tony's alienation from the man he had to be—the scenes where he escaped temporarily into Coma World, or to Las Vegas, and got a chance to meditate on the basic material of which he's built, to sort of peer into his own soul. After that, the question for Tony became, "Now what do I do about it?," and we know the answer was, "Nothing, really." I think Weiner believes on some level that, as Alan puts it, "People don't change" -- or that they can only change with unstinting support from like-minded people. But I think Weiner is paying even more nuanced (and empathetic) attention than Chase did to the stuff outside the self that makes it so hard to change—the expectations that we be a certain way, live a certain way. And he's mourning the loss, or burial, of the authentic self, the id, the little death that comes with accepting a restricted life, a life of fewer freedoms, less autonomy; and he's perhaps conceding, and being saddened by, the inevitability of such compromise.

It seems not at all coincidental that Don is visually defined by that broad-shouldered suit and the hat that shades his eyes. That's not who he is; it's his uniform, the armor he dons, the disguise in which he drapes himself before entering a world hostile to his essence.

_____________________

A Brooklyn-based filmmaker and a former critic for The New York Times, The Star-Ledger and New York Press, Matt Zoller Seitz is the editor emeritus of The House Next Door. He posts videos on YouTube under the name InsomniacDad.

Read more!

Monday, October 06, 2008

Mad Men Mondays: Season Two, Episode 10, "The Inheritance"

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.

Read more!

Sunday, September 28, 2008

Mad Men Mondays: Season Two, Episode 8, "A Night to Remember" and Episode 9, "Six Months' Leave"

By Andrew Johnston

For a variety of reasons, not the least of which was my shock and grief over the suicide of David Foster Wallace, Mad Men Mondays just didn’t happen two weeks ago. When Matt Seitz suggested recapping “A Night to Remember” and “Six Months’ Leave” together in one column, I realized that the two flow together relatively seamlessly in a way very few Mad Men episodes do: Betty’s depression in “Six Months' Leave” follows her long-simmering anger over Don’s affair, which erupted earlier and further crystallized when she threw out Don after seeing one of Jimmy Barrett’s Utz commercials during a rerun of Make Room For Daddy. On top of all this, the hour contrasts Betty, who is depressed about something immediate and personal, against the Sterling Cooper women mourning the death of Marilyn Monroe. The episodes' presentation of the challenges faced by American women in 1962 invites a tandem consideration.

Ironically, I watched “Six Months' Leave” for the second time the night before I learned of Wallace's death. The contrast between the fictional reactions to Monroe’s demise and the fresh reactions to Wallace’s passing was fascinating. I’ve always been one of those who think that people who say American pop culture is more fragmented than ever are just exaggerating--but while almost everyone in my circle of friends was affected by Wallace’s death to some degree, upon hard reflection I realized that his passing really probably had an impact on only a few hundred thousand people in the U.S., while Monroe’s death united millions, perhaps more, in grief. Although women were more deeply affected by it, her passing was a blow to men, too, Roger and Don’s hard-shell reactions nothwithstanding. (It would have been nice to get a glimpse of Sal’s response.) And it’s not every day that a news story would lead to Don, Peggy and the elevator operator speaking freely with each other. If Mad Men sticks to schedule, the timeline will sail right by the Kennedy assassination; lacking an opportunity to present one of the few 20th century events shocking enough to unite the whole country, the creative staff may have settled on Monroe’s death as the next best thing (and it also creates the intriguing historical argument that Monroe’s death, even as a simple suicide, was the herald of all that would follow in the ‘60s, as each successive death of a politician or rock star was seen as evidence of a giant conspiracy whose motives were too complex for mere mortals to understand).

Fancy sociological BS aside, though, in many respects the divergent responses to Monroe’s death are a perfect metaphor for the gulf between men and women on Mad Men. When Betty makes it to the riding club halfway through the episode, it starts to seem as if she’s escaped her squalor (Betty doesn’t need Carla or even Don to keep the house clean, but when she decides to let go, she doesn’t fuck around). It’s soon apparent that her true motive was to let Sarah Beth have lunch alone with Arthur. Consciously or not, Betty just closed off her safest avenue for a revenge-affair with which to torture Don. Still, as we learned in the season-opening “For Those Who Think Young,” Betty has other avenues for expressing her sexuality.

“Night”’s title, of course, evokes that of Walter Lord’s 1955 nonfiction book about the sinking of the R.M.S. Titanic, which leads one to expect a much bigger crisis than Betty’s embarrassment at the dinner party (I’m inclined to think that, per Don, it’s the drunken antics of Mrs. Colson that the guests are more likely to remember than anything). The title might have been a better fit for “Leave,” where it could have applied to either the death of Marilyn Monroe or Don and Roger’s night out with Freddie, which ends disastrously for two of the three of them.

We never got to see how Don and Betty patched things up after “The Wheel” (or how long it took them to do so), but the opening scene of “Night”, in which Betty exerts herself riding like never before, makes it clear that she’s building up a strong head of steam and is ready to blow. She returns from the ride before Don has even woken, and we’re soon treated to another example of the domestic laziness that always drives Betty bananas. (Don doesn’t seem to mind breaking out the tools on Sally’s behalf, as in “Marriage of Figaro”, but whenever Betty asks him to do something, his first response is always, “Why can’t we call a repairman?”) This time, however, Betty’s frustrated response is further evidence that her knowledge of Don’s affair has turned her into a ticking bomb.

Betty’s passive-aggressive insistence on perfection--we get a doozy of an example when she destroys that chair--comes to an end after she searches Don’s desk for evidence to prove Jimmy’s allegations of the Don-Bobbie affair (at first, I thought she’d find something Dick Whitman-related instead) and then completely falls apart after she gets her annoyance about the Heineken gambit off her chest and throws Don out, creating the circumstances necessary for the house to slide into chaos. Neatness, as we’ve always seen, is a point of pride for Betty, but all of us, at some point, arrive at a place where we just don’t have the strength.

If I had written this recap on schedule, I wouldn’t have had the opportunity to look at Paramount’s amazing new Blu-ray discs of the Godfather films (using the same restoration being shown at Film Forum as its source material), and thereby wouldn’t be in a position to compare Don and Betty’s final conversations to some of the great (if somewhat overly hysterical, thanks to Diane Keaton’s acting) shouting matches between Michael Corleone and Kay Adams. Because we know Don and Betty will presumably get back together (it’s too early for a permanent split if the series is aiming for a long run), nothing in the scene at the end of “Night” has the chilling force of the door being shut in Kay’s face after she sees a parade of soldiers kissing his hand, proving the falsehood of his answer a moment earlier when he let her ask one question--only one--about the family business, which he pledges to answer honestly.

Using similar terms and language, Don baits Betty into asking him about the affair with Bobbie, which he promptly denies. He’s as convincing a liar as ever, but Betty doesn’t buy it for a second. After this, the terms of the confrontation change--now, Betty is Kay at the end of Godfather II, telling Michael that if he doesn’t really put his money where mouth as far as Corleone legitimacy goes, he’ll be looking at a lonely life indeed. Despite having strayed, the Don Draper of Season Two really does seem intent on being a better man, but he’s still screwed up enough to think he can achieve this by hiding information from Betty. As rough a spot as their relationship is in at the end of “Leave”, you can’t deny that his relationships with Sally and Bobby have strengthened significantly this season -- a fact that should have some interesting effects on the separation-in-progress.

Once Don’s Betty-targeting marketing technique was in play, he was thereafter a victim of bad luck: The dinner party seems coincidental--I don’t think Don needed Duck as a witness to prove the trick worked, and he never seemed completely comfortable having Duck there. Duck’s presence was pretty clearly requested by Roger, who, within the context of the business world, is star-struck by Crab’s gig with Rogers & Cowan and eager to form an alliance between SC and the public relations giant. The gambit may have succeeded because of how well Don knows Betty; the flipside of that--even though she’s forever complaining about his inscrutability and refusal to discuss his past--is that she knows Don pretty darn well, too. Under the circumstances, the poor guy didn’t stand a chance

Peggy’s continued rise at Sterling Cooper may seem like no more than fallout from the heart-rending story of Freddie Rumsen’s departure from the agency that drives “Six Months' Leave," but in fact it’s the reverse of Joan’s plot line in “A Night to Remember." Peggy ascends into Freddie Rumsen’s job because, despite his drinking, he was a clear-eyed judge of talent who saw the wisdom of giving her a break long ago. In "Night," Joan proves ideally suited to the requirements of Harry’s new TV department via her skill as a pitchwoman and her knack for insight into soap opera-caliber TV; third on the list of assets are her looks, to which clients are as vulnerable as anyone else. Yet it's important to note that the clients, having no prior impression of Joan, soak in her skills alongside the va-va-voom factor; for the lads at SC who are used to seeing Joan flaunt her body daily, her looks would seem to cancel out any possibility of talent.

Because Peggy has always had a touch of the librarian to her, clients have generally been inclined to look at her work first and pay attention to her sex appeal second. In the case of Father Gill, even if he was attracted to Peggy (an issue that’s open for debate), he couldn’t do anything about it (at least not with having to, oh, throw his entire life down the toilet for a woman who clearly has no interest in him). Because of this, Peggy is pretty offended--and rightly so--when the little old ladies running the CYO dance don’t realize that they’re in the clients’ role here, and fail to show due respect for her job. Petty takes a shot at reminding Father Gill of her authority by bringing the padre to the office so he can see her in action. Unbeknownst to her, Gill has a second agenda--getting Peggy to come clean about secretly being a single mother. He brings with him enough bait to catch half the fish in the North Atlantic, but she doesn’t take any of it.

Peggy’s rise from the steno pool to senior writer in just over two years is the kind of feat that would earn a male ad man the label "prodigy." But as far as the men of SC are concerned, poor Peggy’s accomplishments will (for the time being, anyway) come with an asterisk attached. To Pete, she only made it so far because of the patronage of Freddie. To Don, her success is entirely his responsibility, a means of saying “Fuck you!” to Pete and Duck after they “ambushed” Don in Roger’s office, making it impossible for him to mount a coordinated defense of Freddie.

Freddie Rumsen’s story line is, to my mind, one of the most tragic and heart-rending the series has given us. Part of is is because I really love Freddie as a character--until Duck came along, he was the only guy at SC who really seemed like an “old advertising hand.” Roger has never looked at the industry from anything but an ivy-tower perspective, and most of his gnomic insights into the field sound like they were cribbed from a book, and while Bert Cooper’s knowledge of the field is deep and nuanced, he plays the game at an Olympian level nobody else at SC can access. Freddie is the only one who seemed like an industry lifer -- a trench veteran who entered the field with natural instincts that sharpened over the years; a man inclined to party with junior execs half his age not because everyone his cohort has cleaned up or died, but because he has a true zeal for the business that other old-timers lost long ago.

Freddie’s story is long overdue vis-à-vis the depiction of alcoholism on Mad Men: It’s the first time the show has argued that there are alcoholics and there are alcoholics. There are those who can keep a bottle in their office and celebrate a win the way, say, Don or Ken might, and there are those incapable of getting out of bed without taking a drink, and who use alcohol as a means of pushing the rest of the world away from them. If you’re unfortunate enough to have had much experience with that kind of alcoholic, Freddie’s last night on the town is truly painful to watch: At one level, like Peggy, you might think that in light of all the forgiveness that gets thrown around SC, Freddie deserves another chance. On the other hand, though, it’s fairly indisputable that it’s just a matter of time until the Freddie-style alcoholic pisses himself again (or does something worse) as part of a long, slow slide into self-destruction.

Clearly, Freddie’s final scene with Don and Roger faintly hints that, lacking any direction in life without his job, he might take his own life. I’d much rather see him dry out and land at another agency, but one of the problems when one develops an affection for this kind of alcoholic is that one tends to root for unlikely or improbable outcomes when the dry facts make the likeliest outcome all too evident. I’m told that there’s an AA saying to the effect of “the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results.” The statement is equally relevant to alcoholics and to people who care for them.

It's fascinating how easily the drinkers jumped to the conclusion that it only made sense for Duck, as a (supposed) teetotaler, to bear a serious animus toward Freddie. People today don’t often jump to the automatic conclusion that everybody who doesn’t smoke weed has an ipso facto hatred of stoners or that all vegans have it in for carnivores. Mad Men takes place just three decades after the end of prohibition, meaning Roger, Duck and Freddie were all adults (perhaps albeit just barely) when the 21st amendment was ratified, making it possible for them to drink (legally) for the first time in their lives). Is it possible that kneejerk anti-alcoholism, or anti-teetotalerism among social drinkers as well as addicts, were more common when America’s greatest failed social experiment was still part of living memory?

Equally interesting (in a way much more specific to how the season is playing out) was the revelation of Pete’s particular contempt for alcoholics like Freddie, who he sneeringly refers to as “those people." We haven’t gotten many details about the late Andrew Campbell’s drinking habits (other than the mere fact that he was a WASP, which brings with it baggage and preconceptions galore), but it’s obvious that at some point Pete was severely traumatized by a full-on, binge-drinking, pants-pissing, can’t-stand-up-for-falling-down alcoholic, and that had a huge negative influence on the development of his personality and worldview. We’ve only seen Duck slide off the wagon once thus far, but if he continues to drink, and if his drinking gains momentum, whatever respect and regard Pete might have for him would turn to ash the moment Pete caught wind of it.

After Don and Roger bid Freddie adieu, they go out for a nightcap, and Don gives Roger a pep talk which doubles as an explanation of his desire to improve himself. Roger, unfortunately, misunderstands Don, and, in a bombshell move, he tells his wife Mona that he wants a divorce. Roger suggested the possibility of running off together to Joan more than once in Season One, but he never seemed too serious about it. His general attitude--extending to his wife and daughter as well as his mistresses--is that if you pay another man to handle your women problems, everything will take care of itself. After slowly backsliding toward his S1 level of decadence, Roger has reached escape velocity from his own life and making a mistake he’s sure to regret (and for which Bert Cooper is sure to crucify him) given the importance his profession places on appearances.

The episode ends on a note of slight unclarity: Whom, exactly, is Roger dumping Mona for? If it’s Jane, then things between them must have gotten much more serious off-camera than we realized; having the relationship reach that level without much to tip the audience off feels like a bit of a cheat, given the way Mad Men has tended to dole out info to the audience. If it’s Joan for whom he’s getting a divorce, the move is clearly intended to take her by surprise as much as Mona or anyone else. If Joan won’t accept his flirtatious entreaties to get back together, Roger thinks, I may as well break out my nuclear option while I still have the time. The facts will be revealed (or cleared up) soon enough; in the meantime, I expect a lot of interesting discussion from fans arguing both sides.

____________________________________

Miscellaneous Notes: TV shows set in New York have a long history of giving out bogus addresses for the buildings characters live in, but that’s been happening less and less of late, probably because HDTV makes it a lot easier to toss in “easter eggs” that viewers can actually pick up on (and because obsessive TV nerds just love looking that stuff up on the Internet). 30 Rock in particular has been jammed full of actual NYC addresses used in contexts where writers would once break out the geographical equivalent of a “555” phone number. The point? Any serious 30 Rock fan knows that Liz Lemon’s address is 160 Riverside Dr., a very nice-looking building which has its entrance on W. 88th St. Freddie Rumsen, we learn tonight, lives at 152 Riverside, which is just around the corner, between 87th and 88th. Freddie’s building doesn’t look quite as nice as Liz’s -- at least not today -- but being on the avenue itself gives him a better shot at a nice view. I bet Liz’s building is already part of one Upper West Side walking tour or another; the inclusion (or not) of Freddie’s will make for a pretty interesting index to the “market penetration” (as it were) of Mad Men.

Since my footnotes have come to seem a little repetitive of late when discussing historical facts (“Weiner and the researchers got this right...”, “Weiner & co. got that right...”), I’m going to take a different tack and remind them that historical accuracy shouldn’t come at the expense of continuity, as “Six Months' Leave” takes what seemed like a timeline that was pretty meticulously developed over the course of S1 and then smashes it it pieces.

I’m referring, of course, to the reference to Freddie having known Roger’s father. It was fairly definitively established in the first season that Sterling Sr. perished in World War I, after he’d co-founded the agency and sired Roger but before the agency had become much of a success. For Freddie to have realistically worked at SC while Sterling Sr. was there, he’d need to have been born circa 1897 (making him a 20-year-old newbie in 1917, just before Sterling’s enlistment) and 65 years old in “Six Months’ Leave”. Joel Murray is 45 in real life, and I doubt I could accept Freddie as being any older than 52 or so without major cosmetic makeup being brought into play. The Signal Corps position that Roger says Freddie held would be believable for someone in their mid-late 30s, the age Freddie would have been during WWII if born in 1897, but it leaves unanswered the question of why Freddie wouldn’t have enlisted (or been drafted) for WWI at an age when he was a much more appropriate candidate for military service. The issue of how Roger, who was in the Navy in the Pacific, would have known Freddie in the war if the latter was in the Army and in Europe may seem like another bumble, but it can be easily fanwanked by Freddie being a prewar employee of SC. Some people may not have a problem with any of this, but having Freddie be 60+ is something I can’t easily swallow.

On a lighter note, via a New York Times blog which in turn linked to a blog run by one of my best friend’s closest college pals which in turn linked to a Flickr collection, I found this incredible collection of Mad Men-themed illustrations on Flickr by a woman who uses the alias “Dyna Moe”. Apparently Rich Somer came across Dyna’s unrelated art last year and commissioned her to do the Christmas card he planned to give other cast members. The experience turned her into a Mad Man fanatic, and she now illustrates each episode with an image conveniently sized to serve as computer desktop wallpaper (some have also been resized for use as iPhone wallpapers). The illustrations (another of which opens this week's notes section, above) are just cooler than hell, and I can’t urge you strongly enough to check them out.

Finally, allow me to extend my congratulations to Matthew Weiner and his crackerjack cast and crew for their stunning success at the Emmys last week. Sure, it sucks that none of the acting nominees won, but as John Slattery’s knowing and gracious nod to richly deserving winner Zeljko Ivanek--both of whom have spent years in the trenches--reminds us, individual recognition often tastes sweeter the longer one has been working for it. The basic cable drama explosion has been a godsend for actors like Slattery and Ivanek, brilliant guys who work mostly on the stage or on East Coast-based TV shows and have been semi-anonymously racking up Tony nominations, Ben Brantley raves and Drama Desk awards over the years. This year, it was just Ivanek’s turn (his terrific work in John Adams and In Bruges didn’t hurt things either). Slattery and Hamm are sure to be recognized by the academy in the future; this year, the awards Mad Men received--Outstanding Writing for a Drama Series and the big magilla itself, Outstanding Drama Series,are the ones the show needed to win to establish itself. As one of the few first-year shows in history to successfully grab the brass ring, it seems almost certain now that Matthew Weiner will have the freedom to do what he wants with the show and its overall direction. Based on Aaron Staton’s beard at the ceremony, I assume S2 has officially wrapped; when production begins on the third season, I’m hopeful that it’ll do so with a new sense of confidence that takes this brilliant series even further into the stratosphere than ever.
______________________________________

Andrew Johnston is the television critic for Time Out New York.

Read more!

Sunday, September 07, 2008

Mad Men Mondays: Season Two, Episode 7, "The Gold Violin"

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.

Read more!

Tuesday, September 02, 2008

Mad Men Mondays: Season Two, Episode 6, "Maidenform"

By Andrew Johnston

I feel awkward whenever I cop to it, but it’s true, and it probably always will be: I just don’t like Peggy Olson. I like her story lines, which have offered intriguing insight into the workings of Sterling Cooper and (via this season’s representation of family) the period at large. But I also find Peggy to be a dull and unaccountably naïve character whose crises at home just don’t have much relevance to the larger issues on the horizon which the PR exec at the country club described in such loving detail.

I’m very much in the minority, though--after the initial airing of each episode, one of the first emails I get is always from my dad, pestering me for spoilers about Peggy’s fate based on what just aired. And between the two seasons, whenever I met a fellow Mad Men viewer and the subject of season two came up, the first thing they’d want to talk about was Peggy’s future at Sterling Cooper and the fate of her baby.

Peggy is a fan favorite for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that her position on the show makes speculating about her future the same thing as speculating about where the whole series is going as the timeline progresses further into the ‘60s. The ultimate proof of her popularity is the way even the loftiest discussion of the character (such as the commenteering here at THND) can quickly devolve into “'shipping” talk about Peggy and Don (or Peggy and Pete’s) prospects as a couple.

The reason I’m saying all of this is that Maidenform is red meat for Mad Men ‘shippers (Pete/Peggy ’shippers in particular), and I think it would be a pity if that eclipsed everything else I like about the episode--or if it eclipsed the single biggest development concerning Peggy, which is her realization that it’s not enough to get Don to treat her as an equal. Getting the other guys to do so--the ones who pitch ideas over cocktails while Don is at home with Betty (or off dealing with Mistress Drama)--is every bit as important, and perhaps more difficult.

Last season, the producers apparently wanted to break period and use The Decemberist’s “The Infanta” over the final scene and end credits of the early version of ”Shoot” that was sent to reviewers. Presumably, they coudldn’t clear the song, since it wasn’t used in the actual episode (I mentioned it based on the screener and came off looking like a putz). This time, it appears they did clear "The Infanta," which works even better than before now that it gives us three warrior women--Betty, Joan and Peggy--suiting up for battle in Playtex to the strains of the song, evoking an equally valid and far more energetic reading of the lyrics.


My own experience in advertising is limited, but in my years in the magazine biz, I’ve seen numerous examples of the phenomenon S-C encounter with Playtex--a “winner” emerges in a category, yet instead of sticking with a successful recipe that the public responds to, the victor opts to emulate its less-popular competition for one reason or another (often because it’s the easiest/laziest/cheapest way possible to make it seem as though you aren’t resting on your laurels). Ken’s wisecrack about both brands opening easily illustrates my problem with the character this year--he’s been reduced to nothing more than Mr. Swinging Bachelor, with no reference made to the nascent literary career that was such a promising and unexpected plot development last season. If we don’t get any forward momentum soon concerning Ken's parallel life as a writer, I’d love some retroactive coverage--say, a revelation that his creative ambitions suffered a crippling setback between seasons, causing his talent to wither and leading him to spend more and more time chasing tail as a means of validation.

From the second the character first appeared, I’ve been longing for an in-depth look at “Duck” Phillips, and “Maidenform” left little doubt that we’re going to learn a lot more about the guy before long. Duck has thus far been played (and written) fairly straight, but here he’s a terrific source of rich comic relief. I absolutely adored all of Mark Moses’s interactions with Duck’s dog Chauncey, and and thanks to Alexander Payne’s Election, I couldn’t help hearing Ennio Morricone’s “Navajo Joe” in my head during Duck’s extended moment of frozen-faced panic after he learns his wife is heading back to the altar.

Although S-C is packed with world class drinkers, Duck is the only one yet who’s ever taken a stab at recovery, and while I’m a little disappointed that he’s fallen off the wagon before we got to hear the story of the breakdown that led to him cleaning up, it’s not worth complaining about under the circumstances: The scene in which his addiction trumps his feelings for Chauncey is, unquestionably, one of Mad Men’s funniest and most cynical scenes ever (if you’ve had much personal experience with alcoholics, it’s also painfully realistic). I think it’s not just his wife’s pending remarriage that drove Duck back to the bottle--he resumed drinking after seemingly revealing much more of himself to Don than he intended to, although Don, with characteristic distraction, didn’t appear to pick up on how vulnerable Duck had made himself.

After abusing Peggy too much for far too long, Joan finally cuts the poor girl loose, admitting that she can’t offer Peggy any advice on how the game is played from the other side. Her final admonition, about not dressing like a girl, is something that people have seemingly been telling Peggy forever and which, by the end of the episode, finally seems to stick. Except for Pete, none of the men at S-C have ever seemed to see Peggy as a sexual being, as Ken’s crass Gertrude Stein crack reminds us, and that might be for the best if she’s at all serious about her career (though Don’s Irene Dunne comment and its implicit defense of her sexuality may yet be seized upon by Don-Peggy ‘shippers--to say nothing of the prospect of it launching, God help us, a wave of Peggy-Freddie ’shippers). Flaunting her sexuality with clients a little bit, though, may be something she has to live with to take part in after-hours pitch sessions. If she can do so while remaining in charge of the situation, she’s got everything to gain--after all, what guy doesn’t love a hard drinking babe who doesn’t see anything wrong with tagging along to the strip club?

The death of Pete’s father gets its first real follow-up via his brother Bud’s visit to the Park Ave apartment for a cookout and discussion of their WASPy summer plans. Andrew Campbell’s passing seems to have brought Pete and Bud closer together, or at least ensured that they get along better. I’d love to find out if there’s more to the inside joke about their mother talking about Pete all the time, but the unfortunate reality is probably simply that she actually never talks about Pete. In any event, his claim that he’s too important to S-C to take a summer vacation is weak sauce, and Bud knows it. Even without taking the fertility situation into account, Pete’s just too proud to summer with Trudy’s parents. If he eschews a vacation and spends the whole summer working, though, at least now he’s not likely to end up as a protégé of Duck’s.

As always, Pete’s faced with the issue of proving his manhood, and like untold millions of men before him, he turns to quick, anonymous sex to get the job done. Pete’s tryst with the model is creepy and disturbing, and possessed of enough psychological realism to avoid blundering into cliché. It also adds an extra layer to his moment of eye contact with Peggy at the burlesque club--he’s obviously experiencing a combination of lust and nostalgia that he doesn’t quite understand, perhaps combined with a sense of “what if...?” brought on by the recent confirmation of Trudy’s infertility. Because so much of the audience so eagerly want Pete to find out the truth, I’m hoping that when he does, Matthew Weiner borrows a page from the David Chase playbook and has the revelation come in a way that leaves the audience questioning their motives for so badly wanting it.

I’d be amazed if there was more to the Bobbie Barrett storyline after tonight, or at least if there was more than a cameo coda along the lines of Rachel Mencken’s recent appearance. The existence of her 18-year-old son and slightly-older daughter is revealed in a way that suggests she’s putting Don to a final test, and it’s one he “passes” by apparently having no problem with the kids. What Bobbie didn’t bargain on was Don’s inherent conservatism, which only makes it natural that he’d wince in response to discovering he’s got a rep as a cocksman instead of taking pride in word getting out. His “punishment” of her--which is thoroughly adolescent and completely unforgivable--is a total cliché, but in light of Don’s characterization this season, it makes sense that he’d get so worked up. Once again, Don is furious about being taken at face value and judged on one quality alone. One might argue he’s in a position to be touchier about it than usual since I get the sense he’s been beating up on himself for taking the news at face value. I’m referring, of course, to the scene at the country club where he encounters the PR man who says his firm was indirectly employed by the CIA during the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion, and whose speech clearly makes Don feel kind of hollow when the veterans in the room are asked to rise during the Memorial Day celebration.

Subsequent to the fashion show, when Don blows his stack over the skimpy bathing suit, I'm convinced that his fit actually has nothing to do with jealousy and his discomfort with the prospect of Betty being leered at. The PR man's revelations rattled Don by reminding him that the world is ultimately beyond his control, which is something that spooks him deeply--and the sight of Betty acting independently just happens to provide a metaphor for the situation. Don is a jaded man who travels in jaded circles, so his encounter with the publicist probably isn’t the first time he’s heard Camelot compared to Versailles. The PR man’s completely serious revelation that he’s building a bomb shelter, however, is clearly a new one for him. “Maidenform” ends just after Memorial Day, 1962, less than five months before the event that history has come to know as the Cuban Missile Crisis.

_____________________________________


Miscellaneous Notes: When I first heard that Matthew Weiner was going to have at least a year pass between seasons, my first reaction was a sigh of relief over realizing that 1963 would be skipped and we’d be spared from a Kennedy-assassination episode--if there’s one historical incident I’ve well and truly OD’d on, that’s it. What I didn’t do was sit down to think about what history we would see during seasons two and three. This week’s scene with the PR man would appear to constitute a very broad hint that one of this year’s last episodes--perhaps the climax of the season, even--will revolve around the standoff between Khrushchev, Castro and the Kennedy brothers that brought the world to the brink of nuclear war in October, 1962. Similarly, Paul’s “Jackie by day/Marilyn by night” pitch likely foreshadows the show dwelling on the August 5, 1962 death of Norma Jeane Mortenson Baker to at least some degree. At the rate time is passing on the show, I doubt that’s more than three episodes away.

The firm where the PR guy at the country club says he worked and left burning behind him, Lem Jones Associates, is the company (now defunct) that was hired by the C.I.A. in real life to represent the Cuban Revolutionary Council (a sample of the propaganda distributed by Lem Jones is available online via the Google Books scan of Jon Elliston’s Psy War On Cuba. It’s kind of odd that the publicist would next land at Rogers and Cowan, a big Hollywood firm which then represented most of the Rat Pack (and which invented the Oscar campaign as we know it), but stranger things have happened.



The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
opened at the tail end of April, 1962, so it would naturally still have been in theaters a month later when Pete and Trudy get around to seeing it. Peggy must have been thinking about cheap outer borough theaters when she said Pete had saved her fifty cents, though, since according to Box Office Mojo, the average price of a ticket in 1962 was seventy cents--and Manhattan, of course, has never been known for average prices.

Attentive viewers of the opening credits may notice the surprising addition (surprising to me, at least, since I'm shamefully behind on my TV gossip) of Marti Noxon as one of Mad Men's producers. Noxon earned a loyab following by writing many of Buffy the Vampire Slayer's most essential episodes (including "What's My Line", Parts I & II, "Surprise", "Consequences" and "The Prom" (she also basically became Buffy's showrunner when Joss Whedon went off to do Firefly and Angel). In recent years, she's become fairly well-traveled, holding writer-producer jobs on "Brothers & Sisters", "Grey's Anatomy" and "Private Practice" that resulted in relatively few produced scripts. Hopefully she'll get more of a chance to properly strut her stuff on Mad Men.

The steaks that the Campbell brothers grill up with their spouses come from yet another hallowed Upper East Side institution, the Ottomanelli Brothers butcher shop at York Ave and 82nd St., which has been in business since 1900. I’ve never gone to check the place out, something for which, as both a devoted carnivore and a Manhattan resident for almost 20 years, I have absolutely no excuse. The Ottomanellis offer free delivery within New York City and ship nationwide by FedEx, and I wouldn’t be at all surprised if they wound up getting a nice little spike in their business during the final weeks of barbecue season thanks to the long-ago patronage of the nonexistent Campbells.
______________________________________

Andrew Johnston is the television critic for Time Out New York.

Read more!

Monday, August 25, 2008

Mad Men Mondays: Season 2, Episode 5, "The New Girl"

By Andrew Johnston


I was almost a little disappointed when a literal new girl showed up halfway through “The New Girl”, as I was having so much fun decoding the ways the title applied to Peggy, Joan, and the visitig Bobbie Barrett (surely one of the sceries’ most fascinating-ever characters). It’s yet another entry in a very strong run of episodes and one which, in tandem with next week’s installment (don’t worry, you’ll find no spoilers for it here) provides more in the way of semiconventional character development than the series has in quite awhile.

The opening scene suggests another “new girl” candidate: A potential daughter from Pete and Trudy, who go to a fertility clinic in the hope of realizing the pregnancy she’s long desired. The whole process turns out to be Pete’s latest emasculating embarrassment, as he’s peppered with awkward questions by the doc (he’s of course completely sincere when he answers “no” to “Have you ever fathered a child?”). The 1962 nudist mags he’s given to stimulate himself into yielding a sperm sample are good for an ironic snicker, but the best joke in that scene is the presence of a copy of U.S. News & World Report with a cover story that even then was completely irrelevant to the day’s headlines. Industry wags have long referred to the mag as Useless News & World Report, and it was fascinating to see that was as true 46 years ago as it is today.

Bobbie plants herself firmly at the center of the action by coaxing Don into meeting for drinks at Sardi’s,where a symbolic passing of the torch from Rachel Mencken to Bobbie occurs (Rachel has gotten since we last saw her, and her husband has one of the greatest polyglot WASP-Jewish names I’ve encountered in either fiction or reality: Tilden Katz). Bobbie isn’t the “new girl” just because she’s the closest thing to a mistress Don has had since Rachel left, but also the first woman he’s encountered since then who could qualify as his female counterpart.

In the great tradition of men who change their minds out of petulance when they see something they don’t like, Don is soon en route to her beach house at Stony Brook, Long Island, a picturesque village in Suffolk County on the North Shore. On the way, Bobbie provides an abbreviated account of how she achieved success as Jimmy’s manager. “This is America,” she says. “Pick a a job and become the person that does it.” Needless to say, that’s exactly what Dick Whitman did when he became Don Draper (it’s also a philosophy Bert Cooper shares, as he reveals at the climax of “Nixon versus Kennedy”.) But being Don’s female counterpart doesn’t make Bobbie his female analogue--there are key differences in their worldview. She’s got a Roger Sterling-esque love of negotiation, an activity Don says “bores” him (he clearly does everything he can to avoid negotiating on the job at SC), and her subsequent conversations with Peggy suggest she’s a lot more cynical than Don.

Peggy’s arrival at the courthouse is staged like a mystery with a big reveal, and indeed, as Bobbie observes, it initially does sort of seem as if she’s gone a little too far above and beyond the call of duty for Don. Cue the flashbacks which shine light on what happened to her between "The Wheel" and "For Those Who Think Young" and reveal that, as Peggy sees it, she’s repaying a debt. In some respects, the insertion of the flashbacks feels clunky, but as discrete scenes they play quite well, in addition to providing us with some useful info. Peggy’s mom’s tendency to fawn over Pegs at Anita’s expense was standard procedure long before Peggy’s kid came along, apparently, and Anita herself seems to be about eight months pregnant at the time of Peggy’s delivery. If Peggy’s kid is being passed off as Anita’s, then they’re presumably being presented to the world as twins (this may have been stated before; if so, I missed it).

As Peggy drives Don and Bobbie back to the city, Peggy alternates between deferring to Don and acting in a way which suggests that she now has leverage over him, and knows it. It’s this side of Peggy’s personality which Bobbie is intent on cultivating. During their day at Peggy’s apartment, she gives Peggy advice that once again reflects her "Anything’s possible when you-go after what you want" worldview. “You’re never going to get that corner office until you start treating Don as an equal,” she tells her. “And don’t try to be a man--it won’t work.” And so it is that another, more abstract idea of “the new girl” enters the mix--the Helen Gurley Brown-influenced proto-feminist, an archetype that, surprisingly, Peggy may turn out to embody more completely than even Joan (who, in her conversation with Roger, displays a somewhat uncharacteristic-seeming shortage of ambition).

The flashback to Don visiting Peggy in the hospital makes it possible to argue that he, more than anyone, is responsible for Peggy’s tendency to aim high. After she tells Don that she doesn’t know what to do to get out of the hospital, he offers instant, decisive advise rooted in his rejection of the Dick Whitman identity, advice that’s sort of the inverse of what Bobbie says about picking a job and becoming the person who does it, yet which ultimately arrives at the same place: “Move forward. This never happened. It will shock you how much it never happened.”

That’s it for the flashbacks, but it’s not hard to infer what happened next. Peggy followed Don’s advice, in the process taking a few months off from SC, during which he covered for her before re-hiring her as a copy writer. Somewhere along the way, she dumps the roommate and gets her own place (I’m sure I’m not the only one who initially mistook the absence of Peggy’s roommate for a continuity error.)

Once again, there’s plenty of ambiguity about Don’s menschiness. His betrayal of Betty as a pouty response to Rachel’s marriage is hardly an example of maturity, but his standing up for Peggy is admirable, and I was reasonably impressed by his resignation to facing the music when it looks like Jimmy is going to call him out over the incident with Bobbie. The most grown-up thing he does, however, is treating Peggy with respect when follows Bobbie’s advice, first asking him to repay her ASAP and then calling him “Don” instead of “Mr. Draper.” (Sure, he has a surprised look on his face, but it says “I didn’t know she had it in her” rather than “How dare she!”). I was fearful that Peggy’s arc this season would be more about the baby than her career, but "The New Girl" (and next week’s "Maidenform") prove that when she’s got some fire in her belly, Peggy’s journey is every bit as interesting as Don’s.


_____________________________


Miscellaneous Notes: Many people will take Don’s $150 fine for drunk driving to be another of Mad Men’s periodic cheap, “Ho ho ho, look how far we’ve come in 40-some-odd-years” jokes. The truth is more complicated: According to the Consumer Price Index Inflation Calculator, that fine comes to $1,092.54 in 2008 dollars. New York DWI law is pretty complicated--it seems that those charged with drunk driving are actually charged with two separate different offenses, “Driving While Impaired by Alcohol” (a noncriminal “traffic infraction” with a minimum fine of $300 and a max of $500 for a first offense; these charges are handled by the DMV rather than the DA, apparently), and “Driving While Intoxicated”, (a criminal violation for which first-timers face a minimum fine of $500 and a max of $1000). Point being, if Don had a clean record, he could theoretically be hit for a fine that’s almost $400 more (in modern dollars) than what he would face in 2008. If the accident led the cop to upgrade the offense to an “aggravated DWI” (which is done at a police officer’s discretion, I think), they’d be more likely to throw the book at him.

The good ol’ inflation calculator also reveals that the $110 or so that Peggy scrapes together to pay Don’s fine would be $801 in 2008 money--no small sum at all, and one I dare say she shouldn’t need Bobbie’s encouragement to pursue its speedy return. In another Peggy note, I really liked how, as the only person on the drive home who was actually born and raised in the city, her knowledge of local freeways put Don’s to shame.

During the first season, a few people complained about a product placement deal with Jack Daniels that got the whiskey shown on camera and/or mentioned verbally in three or four episodes (it was really quite subtle, especially compared to stuff like the appallingly blatant shilling for the Red Robin burger chain on Psych a couple of weeks ago). Well, Don and Bobbie weren’t swilling a bottle of Jack Daniels as they tore it up on the road--the label is blue, not black--but the shape of the bottle sure as hell makes it look like one. Coincidence, or inside reference to last season’s plugs (which I don’t think are being repeated)? You be the judge.

Speaking of color changes, being the hopeless geek that I am, I couldn’t suppress the urge to do a Google images search to find out if the seals of either of the Long Island counties corresponded to the patches on the cop’s shoulders. The patches showed a lion against a red background, and, sure enough, the emblem of Nassau County is a lion, albeit one on a blue field. Would the producers have to get permission to use the Nassau County seal on the show? The blue-to-red switcheroo seems like the kind of thing they’d only really have a reason to do if the county had said no.

Finally, there’s the actual “new girl” of the title, who didn’t make much of an impression as a character (though she certainly is cute). The bit where Ken, Paul and Harry move in like sharks smelling blood was predictable, but still very funny. It also came off as fairly creepy in light of Ken’s even-more-lecherous-than-before portrayal in recent episodes. I therefore enjoyed seeing him crash and burn as a result of Freddie Rumsen’s impromptu performance, which was the most random, Twin Peaks-esque gag that the series has offered since the Chinese family left their rooster behind at the office back at the beginning of season one. My first instinct was that some great advance in zipper technology took place circa 1962 and Freddie was trying out a brand of slacks for which Sterling Cooper was preparing a campaign, but a quick glance at the abundant online articles about the history of the zipper suggests that, from an engineering viewpoint at least, by the 1920s the zipper had been taken about as far as it could go. Rather, to paraphrase one of the most memorable descriptions in (semi)recent sports journalism, this was just Freddie being Freddie.

______________________________________

Andrew Johnston is the television critic for Time Out New York.

Read more!