Waifu Radia posted:

this show owns

Waifu Radia posted:

this show owns

Jerusalem posted:

kalel posted:

so d'ja finish your rewatch/reread yet or what??

Foreign Substance posted:

Is this the right time to say I really enjoyed following this thread? Because I did, it was a treat to re-experience one of my favourite tv shows along with someone who was excited about it too and the recaps and ensuing discussion connected some dots I'd previously missed. So, thanks.

Jerusalem posted:

walks excitedly into thread, finds it deserted, camera slowly pulls away as I contemplate a fate of my own making, but still fail to learn from it

Waifu Radia posted:

this show owns

JethroMcB posted:

A thing like that!

Foreign Substance posted:

Is this the right time to say I really enjoyed following this thread? Because I did, it was a treat to re-experience one of my favourite tv shows along with someone who was excited about it too and the recaps and ensuing discussion connected some dots I'd previously missed. So, thanks.

God Hole posted:

I also waited until the series was long over to watch it, and when I finally did, it was a binge-watch. so needless to say, I only really got a surface-level understanding of some of the more ambitious social commentaries the series was attempting. it wasn't until months after I finished it that I finally internalized the darker implications behind the last sequence in the finale.

Xealot posted:

Mad Men is probably my favorite TV drama ever made, and I've had some frustrating conversations with people recently who found it too slow or plodding or to be "about nothing." It absolutely is about something, I think best summarized by Faye in S4, it all comes down to what people want vs. what's expected of them. The show is filled with characters seeking to become some aspirational self, who are then confronted by the inescapable reality of who they actually are. The central focus on advertising is the perfect metaphor for this...an industry built around lies promising a better life, designed to distract people from the obvious truth that those promises were always empty.

Xealot posted:

I remember rolling my eyes a bit when the first season twist comes out, that "Don Draper" is actually a false identity that Dick Whitman stole. What the show does with that ends up being really efficient, though, and I'm really glad they did it. It literalizes Don's inner conflict over his identity, and conflates his shame over his impoverished youth with his guilt over what he had to do to escape it. All the ways Don is some masculine ideal become a literal performance within the narrative, as well...it's explicitly his cynical imagination of what a successful man is supposed to look like: confident, dominant, stoic, but also selfish, guarded and unavailable.

Xealot posted:

It kind of becomes a way for the show to have its cake and eat it, too. You can hate Don Draper and love Dick Whitman, rooting for his moments of vulnerability or empathy or kindness and condemning the total rear end in a top hat he's encouraged to be by the culture of Madison Ave. It's interesting how as the show progresses, his business triumphs become more and more hollow, while the things that actually feel like victories for him become interpersonal (connecting in a genuine way with Anna, showing his kids the home he grew up in, letting his own career take a back seat to Peggy's.)

God Hole posted:

the one moment that had me picking my jaw up off the floor was after don's picnic with his family, he grabs the blanket and whips ALL the garbage off it onto the ground, and then walks away. it was one of those moments where you were like "yeah, 60's" but there was something just so obscene about it.

Gaius Marius posted:

Hobo code was pretty good I was really surprised how much of the things that happened in season six and seven were set up by the first season.

lurker2006 posted:

He was ok at the level of a 7-10 year old but he was not up to the task of playing a high-schooler.

Xealot posted:

Pete's extreme fragility makes his relationship with Peggy make so much sense, though. Because she's the only person naive enough to actually be impressed by him. I think it's true that everyone who matters at Sterling-Cooper sees right through Pete...they tolerate him at best but nobody particularly likes him. But then there's Peggy, this rube from Brooklyn who's actually taken-in by his pretensions of status or importance. The scene where he waxes poetic about his romantic fantasy of killing a deer for his frontier wife is so cringy, and the fact it turns Peggy on is ludicrous. But it also makes the later scene - where Peggy tells him, "I had your baby, and I gave it away" - so effective. Eventually, even she comes to see him for what he actually is, which is equal parts devastating for Pete and intensely cathartic for Peggy.

Yoshi Wins posted:

Some of the characters, while deeply flawed in every season, are in my opinion bigger assholes in season 1. I find Don and Joan more sympathetic in the other seasons. Pete remains a jerk, but at least he starts working hard in later seasons. I find them a bit too hard to get invested in, on a rewatch. Also, the show gets MUCH, MUCH FUNNIER. There are simply a lot more jokes written into the scripts in later seasons, and the laughs are excellent. The show misses the comic relief when it's largely absent from season 1.

Xealot posted:

I guess I'm kind of a sadist when it comes to Pete Campbell, though. A lot of my favorite moments involve him having a bad time. Perhaps my favorite episode of the show in general is S5E05 "Signal 30," a flawless takedown of the paper-thin masculine insecurity that defines every single problem Pete Campbell has. It's just a rock-solid episode.

JethroMcB posted:

He's not just a grimy little pimp, but a grimy little pimp with real and believable motivations as to why he's so terrible.

GoutPatrol posted:

I tend to think of this show in 3 arcs. Seasons 1-3 the show feels more like the 50s to me, and it kinda fits with the idea that "the 60s don't really start until Kennedy dies." 4-6 are like the 60s, through the Summer of Love and when the protests all get going. Season 7 is like the beginning of the 70s - after the 60s burnout and the start of something new, even if it still technically starts in the late 60s

Escobarbarian posted:

Totally agreed with this. I also think (Jerusalem don’t read this seriously!) that 2 and 3 are probably the weakest seasons - they’re still great, especially 2, but I definitely had somewhat of a sense of it treading water. Then the s3 finale comes and gives the show a huge kick in the rear end and those changes really propel it to all-timer status for me. 6 also has a repetition feel at times but the difference is that it’s 100% intentional in that case imo

Forktoss posted:

This is exactly how I've always seen it as well. Seasons 1-3 feel almost like one big season that's starting to get the slightest bit stale towards the end, and then the changeover to Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce gives it a massive jolt of energy that carries it pretty much all the way to Season 7.

Jerusalem posted:

Sure he (Pete) knows he's got a hefty inheritance coming when his parents die, but that could be decades away which at his age probably might as well be forever.

lurker2006 posted:

I think I recall a rumor of his abrupt exit being driven by irl grievances over the actor repeatedly leaking plot details.

Escobarbarian posted:

There’s no way this was ever going to be a real thing.

My favourite finale theory that never happened was (Jerusalem, this is ok to read because it’s not actually related to anything in the show, but I spoiled it JUUUUST in case) that Don was going to turn out to be D. B. Cooper, the man in 1971 who hijacked an aircraft, stole $200k, parachuted out, and was never found.

Gaius Marius posted:

Ken certainly gains a different perspective of things by the end

PriorMarcus posted:

Whilst Adam's fate and his presence loom large in the show after this I was always surprised they didn't do more with him and Don's relationship in flashback or ever confront it more directly. In the moment it always felt like a missed opportunity with Adam's character. But in retrospect I feel like it was probably the right choice.

GoutPatrol posted:

I thought the entire point of these was that nobody changes. pete may be moving to the middle of the country at the end but I don't think he will change his philandering ways. Don's weird sabbaticals just become what he does, he always comes back.

Gaius Marius posted:

I've seen that take before and it's absolutely insane. look at where don, Peggy, or even harry's at. it's been slow and they've relapsed into prior behavior but every one of them ends up in a totally different place then the first episode

Xealot posted:

I agree more with you. absolutely think the characters change, in incremental ways that are slow day-to-day but striking if taken as a whole. I likewise think that's true of the setting: as you watch season-by-season, the changes to the broader culture accumulate fairly gradually, but comparing 1960 to the early 1970's is mind-blowing. To me, anyway.

MAJOR SPOILERS for the ending: But I also think the cynicism GoutPatrol brings to it is justified. Like, is Pete actually going to value his family this time or not? Did joyless workaholic Peggy actually fill the romantic void in her life, or is this a temporary distraction? Is Roger in an honest relationship between equals, or is he going to sabotage it with another 20-year-old next month? It's purposefully open-ended in a sense, Don's ending most of all. Is that smile at the end a moment of genuine catharsis or clarity for him? Or did he literally learn nothing, leaving there with a killer Coke ad and nothing more.

Yoshi Wins posted:

People both change and stay the same. Both are true. Don (along Peggy and the other principal characters) is clearly different in substantive ways by the end of the show, so the message of the show can't be "people don't change." But we see several examples of people making mistakes that are similar to ones they made in the past, even in season 7. So the message also can't be "people always grow and change and move beyond their problems." I honestly think the thesis is: "Do people change? Well... sometimes! In some ways! Uh, it's complicated! Case-by-case basis, man!" Which I really appreciate, because that's REAL! I think the writers cared about emotional authenticity, and that made the show better and more impactful.

Xealot posted:

The women Don wants to marry mostly serve that fiction for him, first Betty as a 50's housewife and later Meghan* as some kind of glamorous urban trophy. Don's mistresses, by contrast, don't need to be any of those things. They can be messy, and complex, and honest because the transgressive nature of adultery keeps it all hidden. But also the *kind* of woman he pursues for these affairs is different. They're not Jane Siegel, who Roger cheats with...they're women like Rachel or Bobbie or Suzanne or Sylvia, women with their own lives, often their own careers, who've made choices and have outspoken opinions. They tend to challenge him, aren't carefree, have their own problems. In short, Don's affairs tend to be with women who invite emotion and vulnerability and honesty. So, of course they elicit the same out of him, and one of the tragedies of Don's character is that these things *should* be the building blocks for solid, healthy actual relationships...but he reserves them for affairs that are doomed to fail.

This is most upsetting with Faye Miller, another complicated career woman whom he treats like a mistress, even though they're both single adults. It feels like an affair because of the professional boundary between them, but decidedly isn't one and could have become a healthy, communicative relationship between equals. But Don Draper doesn't want that. Faye is the kind of woman Don fucks, the kind he connects with in his usual intense and clandestine way, but not the kind he marries.

* Of course, Meghan especially ISN'T that. She's way smarter and more confrontational than she initially seems, and I really like her S5 onward. But in S4, she's very much the easy, uncomplicated choice for Don.

KellHound posted:

Also gonna add Trudy being cynical makes her an excellent foil for Betty. They have the same goal of the picture perfect family. But Betty is completely naive about it and goes for Don who superficial matches all those things. Trudy knows it's more about appearances. And it shows in how both women eventually confront their husbands about failing to hold up their end of the perfect picture. Both get told they can't know or prove anything about the cheating. Betty backs down a bit. Because if there is no cheating she would be the one breaking things. Trudy tells Pete she basically doesn't care that she doesn't have proof, the fact that the image is broken is what matters to her. She knew that image was fake, but wanted the image.

Xealot posted:

The plot where Joey in the art dept keeps harassing Joan is so good on this point. Joan's plan is some 4D chess to crumble Joey's prospects from within the company. Peggy's plan is to tell him directly, "pack your poo poo. You're done." I get Joan's argument, that this makes Joan look like a secretary and makes Peggy look like a humorless bitch, but goddamn do I think Peggy was still right. Pull some poo poo like Joey pulls, and you get fired. The esteem of his male coworkers shouldn't matter at all, and it's one of the first points in the show where society felt contemporary.

Yoshi Wins posted:

I've always completely agreed with your take in the spoiler. Joey pulls some poo poo, Peggy fires him, and he is GONE. Peggy's coworkers may say she's a humorless bitch... but probably not to her face. And anyway, Joan isn't right about that either. Peggy gets along well with dudes in creative in the latter half of the show. It's pretty clear she's not humorless. She just doesn't care that much if people don't like her.

But Joan was just trying to recapture some dignity. Throwing some powerful shade at Peggy was all she had left at that point. And Peggy should have talked to Joan first before firing Joey, if only as a courtesy.

lurker2006 posted:

To make a larger point I don't think the show ever really properly demonstrated her (Peggy's) spark for creative, at least not enough to justify the amount of time she's treated like an advertising prodigy. I compare her to other women like Joan, Megan, Faye, Don's other mistresses, and even Betty as much as she had devolved into the house wife role, and Peggy seems uncultured and dull, overshadowed by any personality she's in the room with. Maybe that's the point, an average girl like her has such a leg up because she was able to get a foot into the man's world and out of the secretary straight jacket.

Shageletic posted:

Cannot more disagree about that

by the middle section of the show Peggy had a velvet smooth presentation style that shrewdly played on the psychology of the client in the room. It wasnt Don's alpha domineering thing, it was a more gentle, yet insistent pitching style that absolutely showed why she was so valued.

KellHound posted:

I think when her and Paul compete and Paul forgets his idea, and him forgetting his idea sparks her imagination, when she does the virgin mary popcycle ad, her changing the hard days night ad on the spot, and her going with the actor rocking out to headphones all show she has a creative flexibility others lack until Ginsberg shows up. Which is why Ginsberg is the closest to threatening Peggy's position.

Xealot posted:

I also think the show does a good job of showing, not just telling that Peggy is talented. I echo what Shageletic said: she doesn't emulate Don's style, but she has her own that projects a real and convincing emotionality. What I think she's best at, though, is deconstructing her own creative before the pitch happens. She's analytical and self-aware, and constantly asks if the idea is actually good or if the target consumer will resonate with it. It's not a genius prodigy thing, it's an intense shrewdness and perfectionism that other copywriters don't have. Ted Chaugh says as much, "I look at your book, and I see someone who writes as if every product is for them."

This is best exemplified with the Burger Chef pitch. They had a whole strategy, backed with research, everything was ready to go...but it didn't feel right. And she tortured herself until she sorted out why. Don couldn't fix it, because his intuition wasn't the one setting off an alarm. The pitch was great in the end because Peggy cut through to the core of what the messaging was supposed to be. Because she's excellent at her job.[/spoiler]

Yoshi Wins posted:

Peggy and Don are both very good, but Peggy doesn’t craft as much of a genius persona. There’s a sexist attitude in our society that genius is a male trait. Women are often seen as highly competent but rarely brilliant. This is because men, even more so in Don’s era, are given permission or even encouragement to be assertive and bold, whereas women are expected to go along, not make waves, etc.

Peggy’s more workmanlike approach may reflect the fact that society would not reward her for pulling the kind of alpha move Don pulled in the Belle Jolie pitch. When Rachel Menken gets assertive with Don in their first business meeting, he says he won’t be spoken to that way by a woman and storms out. I imagine the Belle Jolie guy would have had a similar reaction, even though it was a woman who came up with the idea for how they should change their advertising strategy.

Don works hard to project that he is a genius. Peggy doesn’t really do that. She kind of just does the work, and her workplace persona is closer to the “real” Peggy than Don’s persona is to the “real” Don. This is part of why she is happier than Don. Don is successful at crafting and projecting his genius persona, but this just further adds to his intense isolation.

Harrow posted:

It's certainly my favorite show ever, that's for sure.

Gaius Marius posted:

For writing the works of JD Salinger evoke that same feeling of inescapable emptiness and the search for meaning among the bourgeois ashes. Franny and Zooey is his master work in my opinion, but it deals with younger college aged characters so unless Bobby and Sally were the reason you tuned in maybe consider Uncle Wiggly in Connecticut which drat near coulda been an episode featuring Season 1 or 2 Betty and whatever her friends name was.

PriorMarcus posted:

If you want to watch a great televised JD Salinger work you could watch Hollywoo Stars and Celebrities: What Do They Know? Do They Know Things? Let's Find Out!

ulvir posted:

with or without his hunting rifle BB-gun?

Jerusalem posted:

No no, common mistake. It's a Chip 'n' Dip!

Jerusalem posted:

No no, common mistake. It's a Chip 'n' Dip!

aBagorn posted:

we got two

Jerusalem posted:

No no, common mistake. It's a Chip 'n' Dip!

aBagorn posted:

we got two

JethroMcB posted:

Sour cream, with these little brown onions in it...it was very good.

Jerusalem posted:

Trudy: What gift did my Aunt get us, again?
Pete (pointing to other Chip 'n' Dip): A thing like that.

Qmass posted:

just watching s3 e4 "The Arrangements" and peggy's terrible roommate ad



got me thinking how there is no way she would have written such a trainwreck ad for herself when she's basically a prodigy in advertising.

kalel posted:

the funniest shows tend to be labeled as dramas. "comedy" as a genre is self-defeating. nothing kills the laughs better than being told to laugh, than expecting to laugh.

nothing in any comedy has left me crying laughing better than the entirety of the scene where ms. blankenship's body is taken away by secretaries. I thought I was going to die from lack of oxygen when harry came in with "my mother made that!"

Qmass posted:

mad men must be in my top 5 funniest shows ever... along with deadwood and then maybe some actual comedies like 30 rock XD