Mad Men
I’ve finally gotten around to watching the first few episodes of the TV series “Mad Men.” I’d heard it was set in the early 60s—an era I remember well, although from a child’s eye view—and so I was predisposed to like it.
I gave it a good try and watched about three episodes. But it seemed soulless and empty, a stylized and shiny surface with nothing underneath. The writers were focused mainly on conveying the thought, “we’re so smart and good and aware nowadays; and they were so dumb and bad, but so much fun to look at!”
I wasn’t in a Manhattan ad agency in the early to mid 1960’s, it’s true. But I remember the times in general, and people had a lot more emotion and variety than that. They were not just smooth (and often reptilian) facades, and men didn’t automatically hit on their secretaries the moment they were introduced.
In short, people were as varied and complex as now, and not the unaware and power-hungry idiots depicted in the film, although of course some were. The heart of things has been taken out. Maybe more is put back in as the series goes on, but I don’t feel like sticking around to find out. And I know it’s a show, and not meant to be reality. But for me to continue to watch it, there has to be some emotional hook other than emptiness and the opportunity to congratulate myself on my own illusory superiority.
Ah, but the clothes! Now, that’s the interesting part—and, for you guys, Christina Hendricks’s formidable ta-tas. However, her character Joan’s girdled underpinnings (necessary in order to wear those sheaths effectively) bring back very unpleasant memories for me. Even thin women word girdles back then so as not to jiggle and look trashy, and one of the rites of passage for a young girl was to wear a panty girdle to hold up her stockings and appear generally refined.
But those things hurt. They were constructed of an iron-like material that not only harnessed the gut, but effectively stopped digestion. I’ve got no nostalgia for those suckers.
Nor do I. That’s one aspect of women’s lib that was an unqualified success.
Totally agree on the show. I have never liked it, for just the reasons you stated.
I suppose every generation tends to think they are at some pinnacle in societal evolution. But this current one has to be more full of itself than most by a long shot.
It’s as though people can’t comprehend they too are in a trendy and becoming stage that too shall pass. And not soon enough if you ask me.
I vote we move from jello to foundation garments as the new major theme of this blog.
All in favor say, “garter Belt!”
I recall the bra commercial that said..Lifts and Seperates! And now i guess it would be Lifts and bunches together?
I watched fifteen minutes of it a couple years ago and felt the whole thing had been art directed out of early 1960s Canadian Club or Chesterfield print ads. Those ads weren’t realistic then and they aren’t realistic now recycled as TV set and costume designs. For a look at that time and that milieu NetFlix the DVD of Billy Wilder’s “The Apartment”.
I watched the first season. I was born in the late 60s, so I haven’t even any memories of the time period.
The parts of the show that focused on the ad agency employees doing their jobs was the most interesting part, I thought.
The parts where the writers were trying to show how different things were, socially, were kind of a drag. Our culture is already infused with the contrasts between the 60s and today. You don’t need to show me that everyone used to smoke, or that no one gave any thought to drunk driving, or that the roles of men and women in the workplace used to be very different from today.
And oh my lord, the scenes depicting Don Draper’s home life were just snooze fests. His wife and children were incredibly drab.
I enjoy the show, but obviously this is a matter of taste, and I will not try to convince you to change your mind (even though that is your specialty). I do think that in the first half of the first season, they were going out of their way to put in those “Look at what stupid things people did back then!” moments, like one of the kids walking around with the dry cleaning bag over his head or jumping around in the car, with not a seat belt in sight. But they stopped doing that after a while. My favorite of these moments was when the Drapers had a picnic in a local park, and when they were done, Don simply heaved his empty beer can into the distance, and Betty picked up the picnic blanket, shook off all the garbage onto the grass, and walked away. That had me laughing out loud.
Well I’ve never seen the show, don’t watch TV series shows in general anyway. But oh yes I remember those awful girdles. They did what they did for digestion and shape, but the worst of it all was–looking for a delicate way to say this, now–there was no subtle way for a lady to pass gas in time of need. I mean, the rear-end squeezage was considerable, and there WAS going to be a toot. No matter what.
My wife’s a big fan, and accordingly I’ve watched it too, and found it entertaining, particularly for limning out the origins of some long-lived cultural memes. (E.g., the three martini lunch, keeping shirts and Scotch in one’s desk, hitting on one’s secretary; in short, a bunch of things I’ve never done!).
‘The writers were focused mainly on conveying the thought, “we’re so smart and good and aware nowadays; and they were so dumb and bad, but so much fun to look at!”’
I’ve never watched the show, but everything I read about it in the beginning seemed to say something like that, although mostly it was meant favorably. I was born in the late ’40s and so have clear memories of the late ’50s and early ’60s. And I really can’t stand this “the ’50s were so awful” stuff. Some things were awful then, some were better. How very sick I am of people my age and younger congratulating themselves on their superiority.
And so, although I’ve heard a number of people say, like Steven above, that the show does less of that as it goes on, and is really quite good, I don’t care to wade through the annoying part to get to the good stuff.
Since you want “people as varied and complex as now” I take it you prefer reality programming??
I’ve never watched the show. I’m sure I would recognize it. Did my time working in an oil company office in Denver. When I was in the office (about once a month – most of the time in the boonies doing field work) there was the lunch with martinis, most everybody smoked, the offcie manager hired the secretaries mostly for their looks, there was plenty of office politics, back stabbing and intrigue. My reaction was: “Is this what it’s all about?”
When I was recalled to active duty my fellow workers thought it a tragedy. I was secretly pleased. The military had a sense of mission, understandable organization, and ethical standards that I found lacking in the world of corporate work.
Director Mitch: well, I rather like reality programming. But I also like fiction and creativity, if it has something to say about people, rather than being an empty exercise in style.
Well, one of life’s many mysteries is now solved. The girdle obviously inspired spandex biker shorts.
They were not just smooth (and often reptilian) facades, and men didn’t automatically hit on their secretaries the moment they were introduced.
Haven’t watched the show, but isn’t the secretary that gorgeous lady with the awe inspiring curves?
Heck, I might hit on her after being introduced!
I’ll join Occam’s Beard in saying “oh, so that is what they’re on about”. Suddenly, the memetic talk of “jiggle” makes sense. (One grandmother was an immigrant’s daughter, and the other was FAR too much a lady to talk about such things, so my main source of information was greatly restricted.)
Random thought:
Ah-HA! That’s Cain’s target demographic– folks who like Mad Men! (One thing James Lileks mentions when he talks about the show is how everyone smokes, all the time.)
Wow, I’m surprised to hear that Neo and so many others here are not fans of Mad Men. It is my favorite current series on television by far. I’m interested in it partly for the glimpse into the life and culture of that time period, but what hooked me on the show were some of the plot twists in the first season, as well as the skillful writing, acting and directing, where a glance or a carefully chosen word or gesture conveys all sorts of meaning. Unlike much of today’s television, Mad Men really does reward close viewing.
Whenever I talk about the show, though, I usually point out that most of the characters are not very likeable in one way or another–most of them have flaws that make them rather unappealing, in fact–and yet I find most of them interesting, partly (but not simply) because of the arc of their individual narratives.
I didn’t expect to like the show as much as I did. But after I watched the first season (on DVD a little over a year ago), I had to watch the second and the third (also on DVD). I think all three first seasons are very impressive and well-crafted. I was less enamored of the fourth season, which seemed uneven and not up to the same standard of excellence I had come to expect. I liked the show so much that I recommended it to my mother (who is in her early 80s). I wasn’t sure that she’d like a show with so much sex in it, but sure enough, she did, and after watching the first few seasons on DVD, she recommended it to another friend of hers (who is in her 70s).
I have never seen the show but it sounds a lot like what Elia Kazan depicted in his book The Arrangement which focused on a NY ad exec.
I fully agree with you, Neo, as to Mad Men (and girdles too for that matter.) Mr Whatsit and I watched the whole first season and part of the second on DVD, looking for the reason for all the buzz, but couldn’t get ourselves to care enough about any of the characters to bother with any more. The show is an empty shiny surface with nothing underneath. I was born a little too late to evaluate the accuracy of the culture commentary — but really, does anybody turn to a story for culture commentary? Stories are about characters, and if the characters are just a bunch of unconvincing props seen only from the outside — gorgeous props looking great in their clothes, but props nonetheless –well then, why bother.
It was beautifully staged and photographed though, and I did enjoy simply looking at it: the clothes, especially, but also the interiors, and the cars, the cityscapes, the use of light, and the set pieces that often closed out the scenes.
One other thing: every show opened with those deeply disturbing credits, the silhouetted man falling across the buildings. I could not watch that without shuddering at the evoked memory of all the real falling men and women from September 2011, and wondering why on earth the show’s creators chose to do that: they had to know what they were evoking, it had to be intentional, and why use those people’s deaths and the viewers’ sore memories that way? What was the point? It made me angry every time.
argh, I meant September 2001 of course.
A couple years later, just before pantyhose made the scene, we had girdles and garters with miniskirts. It was not a felicitous combination.
It’s a shame that’s all you took away from the show. Mad Men is several things: a beautifully shot and acted show, a study of the transition from the world of the 1950s to the world of today, a window into the world of advertising during its Golden Age, and so on.
But, at its heart, Mad Men is a profoundly and movingly about the gap between who we want to be and who (we think the) world expects us to be, and the toll that takes on us. The 60s are, from this perspective, just a convenient setting for looking at what it means to be human. From talented and intelligent women who will never be more than secretaries, to gay men and women who can never be honest about who they are, to sensitive and artistic men who believe they must be ruthlessly successful womanizers, this show is about the characters we play because we believe we must play those roles.
Don Draper, the man who sells aspiration for a living and lives a thousand lies every day, is just the best looking of all the people this show explores. Don’t give up on it!
mad men fan,
Now that’s a well written critique of the show. Not sure I would see the same way, but based on your words, I’m going to give it a shot.
I found the show compulsively watchable for the reasons Mad Men Fan mentioned, and I would mention these:
The show depicted people working in the real world, if you will. They’re not vampires, doctors, forensic investigators, superheros, lawyers, gumshoes, time-wasting slackers or smart-mouthed students. They’re people who get up in the morning, get on the train and go up the elevator to work. Mad Men shows the down and dirty side of capitalism — getting and keeping clients, losing business, the impact of losing said business, teamwork, backstabbing, career building and using the business system to support a life and family. Creativity plays a role in it, but you see all the tough work that goes into getting and executing the big ideas.
In this sense, Mad Men shows a world different in some behaviors but very familiar to many of its viewers.
Maybe you should try watching anime, Neo, if you are looking for family values, true human drama and depiction of complex human interactions, and interesting settings filled with various characters.
I have plenty of recommendations for people who love various genres, from romance, to scifi, drama, psychological thrillers, and so on.
I think in general, even if the show has a good premise, the Screen Actor’s Guild Union (or whatever it is called) does their best to somehow sabotage the issue along with high powered Hollywood movie production companies and networks that own the broadcast rights/waves.
That’s because creativity is not allowed in terms of individual creative control. That smells of too much capitalism for Hollywood and general American tv to tolerate. I mean Hollywood and American TV is BUILT on capitalism, yet the general philosophical their writers, scenario creators, and character designers is socialistic and trashy in terms of values. That’s just how it has ended up one way or another. Maybe the Left marched through more than just Harvard and higher education institutions with their unions in the end. And not just Hollywood movies either.
this show is about the characters we play because we believe we must play those roles.
That basically means it lacks all aesthetics: a sense of beauty to strive towards. Humans need goals to succeed because humans don’t do anything well without strong motivations. Lacking a worthy goal, it doesn’t matter of the actors on screen succeeds. That is what the writers and producers paid them to do: mimic whatever success they are told to do.
Real humans require an ideal to strive towards, irregardless of whether it is real or not. They will make the impossible, possible with hard work, duty, and nerve.
The idea of attempting to create heroes for people to emulate and work towards, or a magnificent goal too idealistic to exist in this fallen world, is relegated (in this modern world) to the trash bin. So they work from the bottom up, trying to somehow create art and beauty from trash and the droppings of human scum. It’s a bit counter-intuitive and it’s why people are not attracted to it. Because it starts from the vision of human ugliness, rather than the vision of human beauty.
Thanks, mad men fan and Zev, for breaking with the crowd of Mad Men haters! Now, in October 2014, I’m reading Neo’s piece and these comments for the first time. I have to say, I’m amazed! The tone of superiority adopted by so many commenting on this show — oh my! I was late to the Mad Men party, but grateful for excellent TV viewing when I finally caught on. The total package — writing, acting, directing, costumes, sets — is worth more than a single viewing. I have watched some episodes several times and am rewarded each time with bits that simply did not sink in first time around. If you’re expecting and wanting conventional TV viewing, you’re bound to be disappointed.
I won’t try to convince anyone that Mad Men is flawless. It’s not. It’s simply the most rewarding TV drama I’ve ever watched.
And, I’m over 80 and remember the 60s very clearly.