Sad men
I'm not sure why I haven't written about Mad Men before. I've loved it since the very first pull on a violin in the theme tune of episode one. But as we hit the middle of season two - which, by the way, is even better than season one - the overarching theme has become all too apparent. It's not the vacuity of advertising, or the attractiveness of smoking, or the sexism of the workplace, it's the melancholy of the human condition. They're all so sad. So deeply, deeply, existentially, irreparably sad. Don Draper's sad. Peggy Olson's sad. Pete Campbell's sad. Roger Sterling's sad. Duck Phillips is sad (and now, so is his dog, Chauncey). Duck Phillips's kids are sad. Betty Draper is sad (or at least, just when she seems to look happy, Don makes her sad, as he did when he called her bikini in this week's episode "desperate"). Everyone Don has sex with is sad. Any elements of Paul Kinsey that seem happy are quickly reduced to being sad by Sterling Cooper. Ken Cosgrove, always smiling, is sad. Joan also has moments of seeming happy, but she's sad too. Even with that figure and the fiance. I love it. I love every sad moment of it. And this week's, Maidenform, was perhaps the saddest episode of all.
posted by Andrew Collins @ 10:02 AM
29 Comments
Contact
Andrew at
29 Comments:
Even children in the show are sad! I totally love it though.
Loving too obviously, it's beautiful. And you're right it is sad, and I'd never really thought about that. I thought everyone had problems but they are inherently sad. So this dreamtime of the early 1960s wasn't such a golden age after, but full of sadness.
Oh dear, I'm going for like down.
I wonder how long it can go on this vein? Now we know there are two sides to Don Draper, what next? Actually, I find some of the minor characters far more interesting than Don sometimes. Pete Campbell is the best. No redeeming qualities.
I watched the first half of season one and stopped. Nothing about it hooked me. I was unable to empathise with a single character.
Yes, it's sad and melancholy, but there's very little substance there.
Using the 'existential' reference is a little misleading, I'd say. It's just a miserable drama series where (shock, horror) people smoke, drink and are mean to each other.
It is skill. I find myself watching it and realising I have no idea where the story is going or what's going to happen. Certain (mainly US cable) shows are like this. The Sopranos was one, and to some extent (obligatory Wire reference) The Wire was too.
I love that you often don't know who you're rooting for.
I also don't know how long it can remain interesting, but season two kept the quality up, so here's to a few more seasons.
We have Mad Men evenings and watch a few episodes in a row with great food and drink - no smoking though! It is brilliant but also explains why alot of the housewives were on valium and why they all needed to drink so much.
The fear of not conforming to the rules of society for the majority of people - women especially - still hadn't changed much from Jane Austen's time! Even the girdles - especially Joan's, are restricting them. Break out the smelling salts!
Claire
Fair enough, Swines. But why can't I use the word "existential"? In the second series, they're not just miserable because they have unhappy marriages or because they lose an account, they are deeply disturbed by bigger questions, even if they don't explicitly ask them. Theirs is a loneliness that's much bigger than being lonely in a marriage or in a room. That's existential, isn't it? (And if you only watched half of season one, you're hardly in a position to tell me whether my assessment of season two is "misleading" or not, sonny boy!)
At least I admitted my lack of qualification!
Alright, so maybe I should have stuck with it before giving it a booting. And I should add that though it's not my cup of tea, I'd rather the likes of this on the box over other rubbish. It reeks of quality.
As for 'existential', I tend to get miffed n the term is used too loosely, probably because I studied existentialism at university. And look where that got me. (Nowhere).
I suppose Mad Men has the sombre air of a Hopper painting in its styling and the troubled and unmotivated characters suggest they're overwhelmed, but essentially that's all implied.
From what I've seen they generally go about their daily business and aren't crippled by the very essence of their being, unlike good old Roquentin.
I'm still watching it - though I'm not exactly sure why.
The smoking and drinking are at self-parody levels, none of the characters are empathetic, I'm not a big fan of frocks, it lacks subtlety and nothing ever happens.... yet I am still watching it....
You studied existentialism? That explains a lot!
The characters in Mad Men exist in a world of promise and facade but very little substance. They are unfaithful and venal and opportunistic and greedy and all seem to struggle with a "What's it all about?" type of ennui: with all these appliances and cigarettes and cocktails, why aren't we as happy as the folks in the adverts? They are also staring at nuclear annihilation (I think the last episode of the second season coincides with the Cuban Missile Crisis, which certainly made my Mum and Dad feel a bit existential at the time).
I didn't study it - I studied drawing pictures, as previously stated - but I think I'm right in forcing existential melancholy on a TV programme. In this case.
I've loved it since the start too. As mentioned above, much like the Sopranos and The Wire, what hooks me is I like being challenged by the fact that you're never sure whether you should be rooting for the lead characters or not. Just when you think you've got the measure of Don (good or bad) he takes another turn to make you change your mind (again).
Mad Men and 30 Rock are currently the only distractions I've got from my 2 episodes a night consumption of the complete Wire boxset, especially given that Heroes is revving up to jump the shark, and Lost is half way through its penultimate season.
Never mind, next week it's Apprentice time of year again and, better still, Andrew's recaps!
I've watched all of them and I really enjoy it. I've even had heated debates with people who insist it's just style over substance. Trouble is I'm starting to think they may be right. When it's as gloriously stylish as Man Men truly is maybe it doesn't matter much but there are weeks when I begin to wonder if anything is really happening other than Peggy's emancipation and Don's womanising.
Too many story lines have been dropped. Don's dead brother and identity crisis for two. I suppose that what he was meant to be thinking of that as he gazed wistfully out of the kitchen window after he left the golf do but it's hardly bubbling under the surface. And what of the seething under current of sexuality on the housing estate with that woman who's son Betty baby sat for? I'm not sure all the acting is up to scratch either. Maybe Pete Campbell is supposed to be a bit arch to represent the 'uptightness' of the times but I'm not so sure it isn't just the actors fault.
I'd like to see more real events intrude into their lives to shake things up a bit and presumably that's about to happen if this is 1963. I DO LIKE IT THOUGH.
Soon a day will come when I post a contribution free from spelling mistakes, grammatical errors and missing, or completely wrong, words. But it is not this day.
Actually this one seems alrigghgjjjjjklllll;;oj... shit.
I did write a response saying I'm now forced to go back and watch the rest of season one because of AC's psychological bullying. But it got lost in the time-out.
I also linked to an excellent book written by my former tutor - the one who knows his onions on existentialism:
heeeere...
I'm going to be a twat but the first episode is devoid of the theme.
You're not a twat. You're absolutely right! Let's call it artistic licence on my part.
Oldnathan - I don't think storylines are dropped, they just disappear into the background for a while, and I quite like that. For instance, Don's affair with Rachel Menken had gone completely unmentioned in series 2 until last week, when he unexpectedly bumped into her in a restaurant – and I suspect we'll see her again at some point.
Similarly, I'm sure we haven't heard the last of Don's big secret, since Pete can't have forgotten about it.
The scriptwriters seem to be using series 2 to flesh out the 'supporting cast' a bit, having focused mainly on Don and Peggy in series 1. This will hopefully give them even more – and more intriguing – plot lines to play with in future series.
This is why the comparison with The Sopranos is so apt: both shows tend to have a standalone story that carries the episode, with other plot lines, major and minor, weaving in and out of the series as a whole. I can't think of a British drama series that uses the same structure so expertly.
Agreed, Tim T. And who created Mad Men? Matthew Weiner, former writer and producer on the latter seasons of The Sopranos.
It's great to see the supporting cast fleshed out. I'm gripped by Duck Phillips. (And not just because he's called Duck.)
Well only time will tell (what a pointless phrase that is) Tim. But it moves so slowly on the big plot developments it may not have enough time to revisit them.
I'm all for a realistic pacing rather than Corrie's 'lets change this persons character to suit the plot this week' approach (and I do like Corrie too, I was just looking for the other extreme). However at a realistic pace some of these plots may take decades!
This isin't HBO. They may not stick with it that long.
BUT I DO REALLY LIKE IT!!!! Think I've made that clear now.
It's not just skill, it is ace and skill!
Though as the picture (for the next podcast?) shows, John Slattery hasn't come close with his impersonation of Mr Herring.
I can't get enough of it but I have no-one to discuss it with at work as no-one else watches it - tasteless swines.
To be honest, I'm glad because I'm not sure they would get it.
In our house we boo Pete Campbell whenever he comes on - he even looks like a weasel.
I love the fact that not much 'happens'. I love the style, the atmosphere, the pace, the characters (c'mon Peggy, give someone a whack!) and not having a clue where it is going next.
Long may it continue - and thank goodness it doesn't think 6 episodes constitutes a 'series'.
Pete
Ace! I was wondering today, actually, while listening to the podcast, if you watched it. Not sure why.
I totally agree with your analysis, Andrew. It is about the godawfullness of everything and how we can barely communicate. But is also really entertaining, somehow.
I like also how it has moments of goofy humour, like Pete in his tennis shorts.
And hello oldnathan, if you are the same oldnathan from the Radio 2 boards. I used to post there myself, before I stopped.
Hello Ian
Are you the 'Ian' Ian? IP33 or something like that? Used to like to ruck with RJ? (this'll be making a lot of sense to everyone else). Better here isn't it?
Apart from a brief mention from AC no one else has really mentioned Joan yet from Mad Men. She is a fanatastic character - seemingly the woman most in control of her life in the prgramme - but because the programme makes the most of her figure, its impossible not to discuss her properly without referring to it. And although I've not counted, I get the feeling that this blog has more comments from men than women and we're all a bit too PC!
Good. I'm glad we're too PC.
Was a bit appalled when they used some contemporary pop to introduce this week's show. Apart from that, it's perfect.
And to those who said they watched one episode and hated all the characters - KEEP WATCHING IT! You really warm to the characters once you see they're all having a miserable time.
And I loved how the bright colours and summery fell of the 60s is starting to come through this season. And I love those 'Don Draper encounters counter culture and despises it/ secretly envies it' moments :)
The titles caught my eye,as using a similar graphic device as "Casino Royale",and the music is great,the descending scale along with the falling man
I havnt seen much of it,but a devotee concurred that it deals with the themes evinced by the likes of "Imitation of Life" and,most recently "Revolution Rd"
Check out Dyna Moe's superb graphic tributes...
Oldnathan, no I'm not IP. I'm the person whose username suggested that he, as a man, was very concerned about things, if you see what I mean. I forgot my password actually, and I never could be bothered to set up a new account, otherwise I would have thanked you for trying to answer a question that I asked, which was, can you remember what chaps Mark Radcliffe and Stuart Maconie said they quite fancied one night on the show. Annoying to forget my password, second time that has happened on the BBC, because you lose your history. Oh well, all things must pass. I went through a phase of posting loads on the cult TV boards years ago and all of that was lost when they shut the boards down- I can barely remember a thing about it now but for a year or two it was quite a big part of my life.
Sorry Andrew, for using your blog for private nattering of no interest to anyone else.
Ahhh TheWorriedMan! Well if AC will allow me one more personal message, it's good to cross keyboard's with you again. I always liked the way you breezed in and out of the BBC 2 boards with long gaps in between, like you had better things to do most of the time. Always very personable without sounding like you were desperate to make friends. I'm probably being a bit too chummy for you even now!
Well, I'm going to have to impose on Andrew's patience one last time to say yes, I'm him. I didn't mean to breeze... funny the impression you can make on people. But I'm glad it was a positive one. Good to see you about as well Nat, I'd noticed you on here before and I thought it was probably you. Let's hope Belle and Sebastian release some new stuff before too long.
Yeah I'm getting a bit worried. They've never gone this long between records before have they? Not without at least and EP to sustain us.
The 'new' element of the British music scene is absolutely shit at the moment. In fact it's a contradiction in terms.
Post a Comment
<< Home