Simon G Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 Hey everyone, Is anyone else in love with Mad Men? The third season started yesterday and I have to admit I was a little disappointed, especially with the racier take that this season is following. I know that the producers stated in interview that to mirror the changing times as the series progresses into the 60s they were going to "sex" it up a bit, but I loved the previous seasons' playing by the rules of what could or couldn't be shown in the early 60s. The gay kiss especially irked me (and I'm not being homophobic here) I just feel that even in 1963 two men wouldn't have been shown actually kissing on TV or film and even though it was restrained, it just felt far too contemporary. Also I was praying the air stewardess wouldn't take her hands away and give a full frontal as that most definitely would have been absolutely verboten in 60s TV, and thankfully she didn't. Though it was rather clever on their part as they teased the audience as to "would she or wouldn't she?". I don't know, what did other people think, if you saw the episode, that is of course. Link to comment
Helene Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 The last thing I read last night before I turned off my computer was this disappointed review of the new season in The Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...9081304170.html Link to comment
Kathleen O'Connell Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 My husband and I are about halfway through season 2 (on DVD) - we're definitely fans. We won't get to season 3 until it's on DVD. I think even in seasons 1 & 2 the show has already pretty much violated the rules of what could or couldn't have been show on 60s TV, in the US at least. I'd have to join Mr. Peabody and Sherman in the way-back machine to check, but I don't think one would have seen a man and a woman and a double bed in the same scene, even if the couple were married. (Didn't Lucy and Ricky sleep in twin beds?) We've already seen a lot of wrassling under the sheets and more than suggestive tumbling onto any available flat surface. And never mind the kiss - I don't think we would have been allowed to see one man as sweetly besotted by another the way Sal Romano is besotted by Ken Cosgrove (and who wouldn't be, one might ask); if we were shown homosexual desire at all I suspect it would have looked sinister, or at least pathetic, but not natural. I'm not sure we would have even seen open infidelity on TV, either. Movies, maybe. In any event, I'm not sure I like the idea of the show being any more explicit than it already is. Here's what's disappointed me: I was flipping through The New York Times' fall fashion section yesterday and was crushed to see that all the designers appear to have looked to Dynasty rather than Mad Men for their inspiration. Link to comment
dirac Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 I have mixed feelings about Mad Men, to be honest, Simon. The idea is great and the production design is cool, but Matthew Weiner and his writers haven’t always been able to come up with strong stories, and although there have been some very good individual episodes what they do come up with isn’t always so satisfying. In other words, I find myself watching in a state of mild boredom more than I would like. I spent a long time during Season One waiting for them to get over the hair and clothes and attitudes to actual plotting, and and the influence of The Sopranos hung heavily over everything. If not for John Slattery’s intermittent appearances I probably would have ceased watching entirely. I also like Vincent Kartheiser as Pete. Still, I persist in my viewing and will definitely report back in this space when I’ve seen the new episode. I was flipping through The New York Times' fall fashion section yesterday and was crushed to see that all the designers appear to have looked to Dynasty rather than Mad Men for their inspiration. A Nolan Miller revival would be kind of fun, actually. Mad Men is made for American Movie Channel, and so while things are a little looser than network television, they don’t have the freedom of shows made for HBO or Showtime and you are not likely to see much full frontal action, which is fine by me. Anyone else see it last night? Link to comment
Leigh Witchel Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 When I think of portrayal of gays in the early 60's, I think of Dirk Bogarde in the 1961 film "Victim." I'm sure there's a difference between film's portrayal of homosexuality and actual gay life in 1963 - but I was born that year! Link to comment
dirac Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 No one could do miserable like Bogarde. As for Sal, he's so glaringly obvious in his faux macho that I don't know why the entire office hasn't sussed him out yet. Thank you for the link to Stuever’s piece, Helene. He seemed to be critiquing the hype and the show’s fan base more than the show itself, and he was too hard on it in general, I thought. For all the complaints I outlined earlier it's superior to a lot of the other stuff out there. As I said, I'll continue to watch (and whine when it seems called for). I do agree with him that the cast's smoking leaves much to be desired, but it's a common failing among today's actors, especially the younger ones. Either they don't know how to smoke a cigarette or they don't know how to look natural doing it. Link to comment
Simon G Posted August 17, 2009 Author Share Posted August 17, 2009 Hey dirac, You know it's funny, at first I was completely of the same opinion as you, actually moreso, I couldn't stand Mad Men. My friends told me there was this great new show on from the US, I watched part of one episode and just couldn't get into it, I found it style over substance and moody looks in search of a plot. Then one night I watched the final episode of season one, where Betty let's slip to her shrink she knows about Don's affairs, Don does the Kodak presentation and Betty confides her misery to 9 year old Glen and fell head over heels in love with the show. I ordered the season 1 DVD, watched season 2 zealously and bought the DVD for posterity. BUT during season 2 again there came that niggling feeling that perhaps this was going nowhere, was too low key, the plotlines did seem to meander and Betty's emancipation only resulted in her getting pregnant and allowing Don back into the house. But then again I accepted this as a valid representation of 50's/60's womanhood - Betty Friedman's The Feminine Mystique played out as drama. What other choices would Betty have? The problem is with such a beautifully designed show, actually the design I think may very well be the greatest of any show I've ever watched, it's so easy to forget or fool oneself that it's enough and watching season 3 episode one that niggling feeling I had has come back full force. Sal's tryst in the bedroom with the bellhop boy really broke the "fourth wall", if you will for me, for the first time a totally modern sensibility in TV drama was evident something completely of the Millennium - and I feel that was a big mistake on the producers' part. It's still early days so it'll be interesting to see where it goes, I owe it that much but this opening episode, especially with the flashbacks of Don's "whoreson" roots was too easy, too forced. Link to comment
dirac Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 I saw the episode last night. Didn’t get off to the most promising start – Jon Hamm started gazing off into space and I thought, Oh, dear, Don’s flashing back again. Although this was a highly unusual flashback as Don wasn’t actually there for most of the events he’s flashing back to. I agree with you, this was contrived, but a lot of this first episode screams contrivance – what a timely fire drill, and doesn’t Don leap promptly out of bed as soon as he hears the bell! I’ll bet he’s one of the volunteer sweepers for the office fire drills at Sterling Cooper. Guess that stewardess wasn’t so tempting, although she looked quite fetching in her underwear (I just love the lingerie in this show.) The best bits by far involved the awarding of the leadership of the accounts department to Pete and Ken both. I think Ken is going to kick Pete’s butt, but we’ll see. I could have done without the ant farm symbolism. Link to comment
dirac Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 Episode Two was a definite step forward, and last night's Episode Three was a definite step back. High point: Pete's Charleston. Low point: Roger's blackface number. I realize the writers wish to convey that this was a less enlightened era, but I had a very hard time believing this would go over. Link to comment
dirac Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 There must be a balletomane on the writing staff, because Don's latest adulterous love interest is named Suzanne Farrell. Could be coincidence, but I don't think so. The character herself is kind of obnoxious and I hope she's written off the show soon, but maybe a ballet connection can be worked into the plotline. The year is 1963, so Don sees a performance of Bugaku and becomes obsessed with Allegra Kent. Allegra, like apparently every other woman in Manhattan, regards Don as so much catnip and the two have an affair. The photographer hired for a new Sterling Cooper ad campaign is Bert Stern. Complications ensue. Link to comment
Ray Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 WOW great season ending. GO JOANIE! Link to comment
Ray Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 There must be a balletomane on the writing staff, because Don's latest adulterous love interest is named Suzanne Farrell. Could be coincidence, but I don't think so. It's interesting that Balanchine's Meditation --a pas de deux for Farrell and D'Amboise--premiered in Dec. 1963, the month that season 3 ends. The description of the dance on the Trust's website makes it sound like it was made for Don Draper: "On a darkened stage, a solitary, troubled young man enters and kneels. He is approached by a young woman who seeks to comfort him. They dance together and embrace; in the end she departs, and he is alone again." Link to comment
Simon G Posted November 9, 2009 Author Share Posted November 9, 2009 Mad Men isn't the only programme to have a covert balletomane with a hankering after the golden age of NYCB. In Dexter the series villain played by John Lithgow is Trinity a highly prolific serial killer whose alter ego is one, Arthur Mitchell. Mass murdering psychopaths and sociopathic mistresses are tributes of sorts, I suppose. Link to comment
Ray Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 Mad Men isn't the only programme to have a covert balletomane with a hankering after the golden age of NYCB. In Dexter the series villain played by John Lithgow is Trinity a highly prolific serial killer whose alter ego is one, Arthur Mitchell.Mass murdering psychopaths and sociopathic mistresses are tributes of sorts, I suppose. I'm behind on Dexter, but that's pretty hilarious. I wonder if someone who worked for AM is one of the writers...I'm just sayin'... Link to comment
dirac Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 WOW great season ending. GO JOANIE! This season has ranged mostly from good to meh, but last night made up for a lot, I agree. As I see it, Weiner had to accomplish at least two things: 1) Get rid of the Brits and 2) Bring back Joan. Mass murdering psychopaths and sociopathic mistresses are tributes of sorts, I suppose. Did you really think Suzanne was a sociopath, Simon??? Link to comment
Simon G Posted November 9, 2009 Author Share Posted November 9, 2009 WOW great season ending. GO JOANIE! This season has ranged mostly from good to meh, but last night made up for a lot, I agree. As I see it, Weiner had to accomplish at least two things: 1) Get rid of the Brits and 2) Bring back Joan. Mass murdering psychopaths and sociopathic mistresses are tributes of sorts, I suppose. Did you really think Suzanne was a sociopath, Simon??? Sorry, I meant neurotic. How I mixed them up, I don't quite know. Link to comment
Recommended Posts