Mad Men on AMC • Fifth Season Thread

a lot of great shows have heavy soap opera dynamics

one of melissa's critiques is that the show is anachronistically tepid in the show's acceptance of a mixed race office/social world in direct opposition to the more broad mores of the time and that it's ignoring more complex issues in favor of soap opera. that resonates, is accurate and is more or less damning depending on what you're watching the show for.

― "in this super-sexy postracial age" (forksclovetofu), Thursday, April 26, 2012 11:01 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

no, melissa's critique seems to be that the show is "anachronistically tepid" wr2 these things in comparison to a few acknowledged trailblazers. that may be accurate, but i don't find it particularly resonant or damning. honestly, i think that mad men captures the day-to-day mores of its time & place pretty well. it concentrates not on the reactionary or progressive extremes, the entire tapestry of culture, but on a few small people caught somewhere in the middle. that seems a valid strategy to me.

1. My critique is that the show is about the most boring ad agency in New York when it could be about a fictionalized BBDO or JWT, to be honest. I mean, for all that my problems with the show rest on criticisms that may come across as sociopolitical in nature, my biggest problem with the show is that it's boring and I hate all the characters and I don't understand why there is a tv show about them. I'd rather watch fictional Caroline Robinson Jones as a character. I'd rather watch fictional Mary Wells Lawrence. I hate that Mad Men exists and yet I'm never going to see something like their story play out, because it's what I'd find compelling and because it's such a missed opportunity. I straight-up don't understand what's compelling about watching a show about a middling ad agency with middling aims which will never actually get to the interesting stuff that was actually happening in the ad industry in the 60s which doesn't cover the perspective of anyone whose perspective isn't usually covered by tv or films set during the era. Don Draper would have been the lead character in Mad Men if it had been a movie made in 1960. So what's the point, really? Like idk y'all are missing the point that I just think the show is bad and boring and I wish it were better. I mean, not that I don't think it isn't actually gross with respect to women and POC and isn't anachronistic in many respects, but I'm not just pissed off because I want it to tick some social justice boxes for the sake of being more diverse. I want it to be more interesting to watch.

2. Somewhere up there someone called me out for comparing Peggy to trailblazers and then unreasonably complaining that she falls short, which honestly makes no sense to me. Because while there were far more women in advertising at the time than Mad Men suggests, the ones who did make it as far as Peggy were basically rock stars. None of the women who worked general accounts were as mediocre at their job as Peggy appears to be, because blah blah had to be twice as good to be seen as half as good as their male counterparts. Maybe she's about the level of a low-level minion on women's accounts in terms of her displayed skill. I brought up Mary Wells because there was that scene earlier in the season where Roger claimed that Mohawk would want someone handling their accounts who had a penis. But if Mohawk/Roger was paying any attention to the competition (Braniff), they'd know that Wells had just completely revitalized them and it's weird that Roger wouldn't say something like "we could sell you to them as our own Mary Wells".

3. I have problems with the conclusions that that Slate article draws based on his perception of the Mad Men characters and historical statistics. As if Roger doing blackface has anything to do with the hiring practices of SCDP (seriously, want to venture a guess as to how many current partners of major companies have done something as gross wrt race as blackface?). As if the show is skill with respect to how it handles race by not really handling it at all. As if the absence of a story can be a statement in and of itself (spoiler alert: it can't be, or else Friends and Girls are also really nuanced portraits of race in the 90s and 10s). I'm tired of people congratulating Mad Men for having the bravery or something to be all white. It's just gross, especially coming from a white dude on Slate (who seems to fancy himself an expert on race relations à la Tim Wise). It's one thing to me to defend the accuracy of SCDP being all white (sure, it's plausible), it's quite another to claim that that in and of itself is a powerful statement on race rather than the absence of one. I mean sure, it might be Matthew Weiner's justification (see: his justification for getting rid of Sal and thus the presence of all LGBT issues on the show), but it's a poor one. Ultimately, my point is that if you can both historically justify the show being all white and just as easily historically justify having some (really interesting) characters of color, why on earth would you go with the first option? Why would you continue to go for the first option as the show is entering its fifth season and 1966?

Matthew Weiner has made some gross comments about how the ad agency is "still" all white so I think the answer is that he thinks he's doing everybody a favor and that he really is making some sort of trenchant commentary about race in corporate America by not having any characters of color, because somehow he thinks he's incapable of telling the story in such a way that SCDP's hiring of a character of color doesn't end with "and then racism was over, the end". Because clearly the answer to the after school special grossness of how race is often covered in things like this is to just not have people of color in your stories at all.

god this is obnoxious I should start my own thread

i like the show more than you seem to, but otherwise you're otm and i think you should continue to post in this thread.

"a show about a middling ad agency with middling aims" <-- this is what makes it good, i think.

I mean, for all that my problems with the show rest on criticisms that may come across as sociopolitical in nature, my biggest problem with the show is that it's boring and I hate all the characters and I don't understand why there is a tv show about them.

lol okay kinda don't get why you're posting on this thread then

insert "food here is terrible/and in such small portions" joke

what shouldn't she post here? there isn't a finite amount of thread space. it can accommodate ppl who are passionate about the show, ppl turned off by it, and every position in between.

Because it is a show that appeals to me a lot in theory but not in practice, which compels me to watch it but also be eternally frustrated.

Also, I think the show should have just started in 1950 rather than 1960. It wouldn't fix everything, but it would actually make the show less annoying on several fronts. x-posts

I just always find it odd when people expend a lot of intellectual energy engaging with a piece of work they profess to hate.

god this is obnoxious I should start my own thread

nah, i like long, thoughtful posts. wish there were more such stuff on ILX. fwiw, i agree with you that there's nothing terribly remarkable about mad men's approach to race and gender. it's just another show about mediocre white people living mediocre lives. but, see, i was never sold the idea that it might be any more than that. i never saw anything more than that in the show. i like it for what it is, with the understanding that it's really just the thousand thousandth variation on the same old thing.

so your last round criticism, while undeniable, still doesn't really "resonate" for me. yes, i wish american TV were better. i wish it were more curious, smart and brave, that it weren't so complacently focused on stories about middle class white people going through the same old relationshit. but that's a criticism of american television, not of mad men in particular.

the one thing i can't deny or wave away is your point about mary wells and braniff, especially as it plays into SCDP's acquisition of an airline client and peggy's struggles to be taken seriously by clients. the show's ignorance of or decision to elide people like wells is kind of shameful.

for ex. if the food tastes bad, I don't continue eating it and ordering more so that I can continue to complain about how bad it is to the people at the table next to me.

xp

Peggy is very good at her job from what I can see, she's just not good in front of frustrating clients (and it isn't her job to do so, Don just left her in the lurch).

I just always find it odd when people expend a lot of intellectual energy engaging with a piece of work they profess to hate.

― heavy is the head that eats the crayons (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, April 27, 2012 9:10 AM (14 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i don't. why shouldn't someone wrestle with something they don't like? and melissa i really like your posts here

Noticing some typos I made above. Should be "Matthew Weiner has made some gross comments about how the ad industry is "still" all white", not "ad agency". x-post

can't believe this show is about perspectives and people have interpretations of those perspectives

for ex. if the food tastes bad, I don't continue eating it and ordering more so that I can continue to complain about how bad it is to the people at the table next to me.

I think it's p. normal for people to keep up with zeitgeist-y things even if they dislike them, particularly if they feel the critical conversation is overlooking things they feel strongly about. substitute "the twilight saga" for "food" in your quote above and you've described 40% of my online interactions during 2009.

why shouldn't someone wrestle with something they don't like? and melissa i really like your posts here

donna otm

why shouldn't someone wrestle with something they don't like?

it's just not an inclination I share. I have more productive, enjoyable things to do with my time.

it's one thing to critically engage with say, a book or a film you don't like. 5 seasons of a TV show seems a bit much.

yes tbh i was frustrated by your earlier posts, Melissa, but the long one you just posted is definite food for thought, thanks.

like I can critically engage with a couple songs and figure out why I don't like a them. Listening to the act's entire catalog seems more like being a glutton for punishment.

xp

I just always find it odd when people expend a lot of intellectual energy engaging with a piece of work they profess to hate.

― heavy is the head that eats the crayons (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, April 27, 2012 11:10 AM (46 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i completely disagree w/ melissa but cmon this post is hilarious

(spoiler alert: it can't be, or else Friends and Girls are also really nuanced portraits of race in the 90s and 10s)

what? it cant because if it could, these two specific examples WOULD be? have you ever seen a whit stillman movie?

None of the women who worked general accounts were as mediocre at their job as Peggy appears to be

i never get the impression whatsoever that she's bad at her job? this feels like fiction

sadly otm

madmen tends to feel like it could be a truly great show that often settles for good with flashes of stupidity and excellence. The last episode was SO good though tbrr

i never get the impression whatsoever that she's bad at her job? this feels like fiction

Well, that's the thing though. Impression is all the show operates on when it comes to Peggy. She is often said to be good, but whenever we actually see her doing anything related to a pitch, her idea is poorly thought out or needs significant finessing by Don to actually be a pitch rather than toothless brainstorming ("you can't frame a phone call"). She is never shown to be a heavy hitter that can get the job done on her own, and when we do see her solo her ideas usually aren't great and she can't land a pitch. It was actively weird when Don tried to say that her ideas were ahead of their time at the end of season 3 when he was trying to get her to join the new agency, when she hadn't actually created anything on her own that entire season.

I don't think the show necessarily means to portray her as bad at her job, but she's pretty much never been shown as being good at her job, and that's a pretty significant failure on the part of the show. When we hear about her, she's great. But when they bother to show her working, it's only when she's fucking up or collaborating with Don and not really contributing much. I honestly can't think of a time when Peggy has been shown as hitting anything out of the park or really impressing anyone.

wrong again

Peggy (w/Ken) breaking the firm's "losing streak" last season

I'm sure there's others

Aside from Don winning the Clio (which Peggy played a part in), when was the last time he really 'knocked it out of the park'? I think the focus has shifted, as though we're meant to take for granted that both Don and Peggy are competent at their jobs, it's just how they're selling it that differs. Peggy's gambit last week seemed absurd and suicidal, but Don has taken similar approaches and they worked.

wanna say there was something to do with Ponds re: Peggy but can't remember

also yeah this show hardly focuses on "the work" per se (the agency spent most of last season scranbling just to GET work at all)

Peggy's gambit last week seemed absurd and suicidal, but Don has taken similar approaches and they worked

this was totally intentional tho. Peggy was very deliberately aping Don's diction, mannerisms and speech patterns - but it backfired for the reason some other (female) character previously noted, "no one likes a woman who acts like a man"

I agree. I don't think it was down to being bad at her job.

with shakey and gubke here. there's every indication in the show that peggy really is remarkably good at her job. it's just that the show says this more than shows it. similar to pete's apparent excellence when we mostly just see him being a weaselly little dork. the problem is that the show doesn't devote much time to the day-to-day advertising work that sustains the company, not that peggy is poor at her job or a fundamentally unbelievable creation.

the only thing they really show is that she works insane hours.

the problem is that the show doesn't devote much time to the day-to-day advertising work

this isn't a problem. a show that did would be mind-numbingly boring.

cuz then every episode really WOULD end with someone selling beans or whatever

i still don't get the "there's no way a person with Peggy's story ever existed" jab from yesterday. like, what aspect are we talking about here? her promotion/career arc - or private life?

remembered something else - it was Peggy's idea that was used for the ad that won the Clio

xp

i mean problem relative to how we understand the characters' relationships w their jobs. dramatically, it's obviously a good call.

Well, that's the thing though. Impression is all the show operates on when it comes to Peggy. She is often said to be good, but whenever we actually see her doing anything related to a pitch, her idea is poorly thought out or needs significant finessing by Don to actually be a pitch rather than toothless brainstorming ("you can't frame a phone call"). She is never shown to be a heavy hitter that can get the job done on her own, and when we do see her solo her ideas usually aren't great and she can't land a pitch. It was actively weird when Don tried to say that her ideas were ahead of their time at the end of season 3 when he was trying to get her to join the new agency, when she hadn't actually created anything on her own that entire season.

I don't think the show necessarily means to portray her as bad at her job, but she's pretty much never been shown as being good at her job, and that's a pretty significant failure on the part of the show. When we hear about her, she's great. But when they bother to show her working, it's only when she's fucking up or collaborating with Don and not really contributing much. I honestly can't think of a time when Peggy has been shown as hitting anything out of the park or really impressing anyone.

― Melissa W, Friday, April 27, 2012 1:07 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

in addition to what everyone else said, she's like 15 years younger than don! of course she's not as experienced or successful as him -- the dynamic (which is shifting) is that he's good at his job & she's a rising talent, and i think they convey that dynamic effectively

On the bright side, SCDP isn't just riffing on the Volkswagon ad like a lot of their lesser competition seems to

I think this raises the interesting question of the show's relationship to Don's supposed "genius"--is it agnostic on that front? (I'm thinking in particular of that amazing ep where Don says that kids are already nostalgic for the childhood they are in the middle of and not so much the "love was created by men like me in order to sell nylons.")

well he sure has been shown to be fucking up quite a bit over the last season and a half

this isn't a problem. a show that did would be mind-numbingly boring.

Disagree with Shakey, agree with contendo. The excitement that was captured on S1E1 ("Lucky Strike: it's toasted") has never been equalled. The show had the opportunity to be a Sherlock Holmes / Law & Order style 'weekly puzzle', but has dissolved into the flimsy race/gender commentary (well said, btw, Melissa) and character-based melodrama. I still like the show, sure, but never as much as I did in the very beginning.

The show had the opportunity to be a Sherlock Holmes / Law & Order style 'weekly puzzle'

you think TV needs more of this why now

i like both, but L&O is about 100x the show that MM is