A Midcentury Bender: Revisiting Mad Men | Hacker News Reader

A Midcentury Bender: Revisiting Mad Men

theamericanscholar.org

74 pointsapollinaire95 comments

I watched the full series in like 2016 for the first time and decided to read the AV Club’s excellent contemporary reviews after each episode to engage a bit more with the show. Highly recommend. Here’s S02E01: https://www.avclub.com/mad-men-for-those-who-think-young-179...

Those reviews often clued me into the nice little period touches the show does. It’s also fun to read all the guesswork people were doing to figure out where the show was going next. The comments are great. (Note they didn’t review all of season 1 at the time, but revisited it in 2013 with some light spoilers of the full story)

Will check out the AV Club reviews! These look great. By the way, you might want contemporaneous instead of contemporary [0].

[0] https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/30207/contempora...

As your own link concurs, GP's usage is not incorrect, just potentially ambiguous because of the (sometimes proscribed) 'contempory [to now]' meaning.

Hah, I waffled between the two while writing. Thanks!

I always looked at these kind of per-episode analyses with some skepticism, but I recently got into Deadwood as a result of Very Bad Wizard's podcast series on the show (they cover an episode about every 2 weeks as bonus patreon content for their regular podcast).

For shows that have the requisite depth to be worth the analysis, content like this turns out to be a fun way to enhance your understanding of the themes of the show. The VBW thing is behind their paywall so you'd probably have to already be a fan of the show to be convinced it's worthwhile, but their coverage really enhanced my viewing of the show (although they've only got episodes up through the first season so far, and if you start Deadwood you definitely won't be able to wait for them, it's pretty compelling).

I've had friends bounce off this show as they find it boring, but I really love it. I think you have to fall in love with the characters and how they change over the decade. Pete Campbell's journey is an incredible one - compare him in Season 1 to Season 4 to Season 7 for example.

As someone who loves history but wasn't alive in the 60's and has only heard about it from their parents, I do appreciate getting some context for the events of that decade, however dressed up and thin it may be in a show like this. When Roger casually rambles off the date of his daughter's wedding as they pick out invitations, I almost spit out my drink the first time I watched.

> I've had friends bounce off this show as they find it boring

This is me. I don't have any interest in watching TV to see people change over decades. I want to be entertained for an hour and I just never found Mad Men entertaining (this is the same reason I greatly prefer Homicide: Life on the Street to The Wire).

Like Jerry Seinfeld said, "If I wanted a long boring story, I've got my life."

Mad Men is a great show, but it demonstrates how setting a guy up as the protagonist modifies viewer perceptions.

Don Draper might be the biggest asshole to ever be a lead character on TV. He has zero sense of humor, takes all the credit for his employees' work, sleeps around (obviously) with his kid's teacher, with clients, with two of his secretaries (today we'd certainly call this an abuse of power), he refuses to have a relationship with his long-lost brother, mostly ignores his kids, never acknowledges Peggy's skills or contributions, fires a gay guy for not "entertaining" a client, drinks and sleeps at work all day. Plus plenty more I can't immediately recall.

Sure, Tony Soprano has people killed, but he isn't nearly the passive-aggressive dickhead that Don is.

Yes he is a complex person but the same show could have been made from a different character's perspective with Don Draper being the asshole everyone in the office avoids at all costs.

First I want to say that I agree with you but there is one point that I think they treated more subtly than you describe here. When Sal was fired it was not, imo, strictly for not entertaining a client. If you recall, Don first discovered Sal was gay before the incident with Lee Garner. Don's response at the time was to tell Sal to be discreet. My reading of this was that Don, perhaps somewhat anachronistically and certainly out of character, did not have a problem with Sal's sexuality but understood that it could cause trouble for Sal and maybe even the firm. So when Lee demands that Sal be taken off the account the firm has no choice. Lucky Strike pays the bills. Also, you might recall that it was Roger who fired Sal not Don. It was Roger because Lucky Strike was his account and Lee only dealt with him. Roger didn't even care to know the reason. IIRC he even said something to the effect of "Lee wants you gone so you're gone. It doesn't matter why." Don's response to this was the privately tell Sal he'd be a reference for him. My recollection of that episode was that Don had little to do with the outcome and was uncharacteristically compassionate.

If my read on this particular scene is accurate I think it does actually further prove the point you're making. The show did go out of its way to make Don a more sympathetic character to a 21st century audience despite him being a real piece of shit.

Edit: another way to read Don's acceptance (if you could call it that) of Sal's sexuality was not that he was ok with being gay but that he understood what it was like to have a real secret. He understood what it means to live a lie and present yourself as someone you're not. This maybe allowed him to refrain from judging Sal even if he did have a problem with homosexuality.

> not that he was ok with being gay but that he understood what it was like to have a real secret

That is a really interesting interpretation, thanks.

(Also a reminder that even if Don was pretty anachronistically OK with it, he still dropped a "you people" line to Sal)

You're 100% right. I completely forgot about the "you people" line. And now that you mention it I do recall Don sort of looking at Sal with disgust. It's hard to tell though if that disgust was because of intense homophobia (probably) or simply because he gave Sal a chance and asked him to be discreet and Sal then almost immediately created a problem for the firm.

> the same show could have been made from a different character's perspective with Don Draper being the asshole everyone in the office avoids at all costs

You might be alluding to this, but that is a major component to the show.

He gets away with being a trash human being through his handsomeness and extreme charisma, but deludes himself into thinking he's a genuinely talented and excellent person. He disposes of the women he surrounds himself with the moment they see a glimpse of who he is, choosing to keep running rather than face even the slightest judgement.

The early seasons involve the viewer slowly realizing that for themselves, as we begin to find out who he really is.

The show later becomes him accepting his awfulness, and finally, actually sharing that candidly with others.

The season 6 finale is poignant. He's been lying to his kids their whole lives.

But he takes Sally to his real house, where he actually grew up – "this is a bad neighborhood!" But the talented young actress portraying Sally just gives her father a look of slow understanding, and he squints back in silent confirmation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tm3yrjwaRLo

It's like they're seeing each other for the first time.

Or maybe the false dichotomy between good and bad people is boring? People like the Sopranos and Mad Men for being smart and subtle fictions.

Works of art actually don’t have to pass moral judgment or teach so called values to the audience.

>Works of art actually don’t have to pass moral judgment or teach so called values to the audience.

Thanks for this, I was trying to put exactly this into words. I actually find Draper refreshing, he's not so much evil as he is a flawed human, as we all are. Blessed with good looks, charisma, charm and cursed with a broken childhood, insecurity, and a secret past.

Nobody is asking for, or expecting, moral lessons. That's what Full House or Growing Pains were for. The point is that, especially upon a second viewing, Don does so few positive, admirable, or generous things and so many selfish, nasty, hurtful things. It still doesn't make him a "bad person" like Joan's rapey husband, it just demonstrates that Don is innately an asshole, a very big one.

> Don does so few positive, admirable, or generous things

True, but he still seems to do these things quite a bit more often than almost every other character on the show. They are all pretty selfish

This is why they're called an antihero.

The absurd, frustrating, and sometimes hilarious experience of the characters in Mad Men reminds me _a lot_ of the chaos of working in tech startups the last 10 years during the boom economy. A lot of people have had bosses reminiscent of a Don Draper, Roger Sterling, or Cooper, even if it wasn't full bore day drinking, fuck-your-secretary 1960s levels of bad behavior. Pretty close though. I'll never forget hearing a story a date once told me about her eng manager doing nitrous oxide at his desk. Or how Dropbox, Google, etc. literally had places to nap in the office. Or the many many women who went to coding bootcamps, only to have their mentors try and date them.

Even if you think Draper is an unappealing asshole, there are other characters (like Peggy!) that are there to personally identify with and root for. Mad Men provides a lot of catharsis seeing a set of deeply flawed people, subject to the trials and tribulations of history, make it through life and work. We all want to believe that despite our various fuckups, we're good people and deserve to be happy.

See also: Fight Club.

Or The Wolf of Wall Street.

Lots of folks just seem to get a vibe from what they watch, and that forms their entire view of what they've seen. The actual plot? What the characters do? Nope, all vibe.

Yeah, people tend to misunderstand the points of those movies, even if the message is painted so thick, it feels impossible to miss, like in Fight Club.

The movie satirizes the entire premise, the narrator, Tyler, and their club at every possible step. The whole thing about how they are all "unique and different from the sheep", all while they end up shaving their heads, wearing the exact same clothing, and getting rid of their names to just serve Tyler as faceless "soldiers" felt like such a blatant mockery.

And yet, despite that, it fell on deaf years for many people.

A certain subset of viewers envy Leonardo's character -- hot wife, sycophant employees, yacht, Lambo, etc -- but the film never presents him as admirable or even talented (except at ripping people off). A little like the book Liar's Poker back in the 80s -- Michael Lewis (sort of) intended it as an expose of the toxicity, absurdity, and excess of Wall Street. But the book was so entertaining, it actually made it sound like the greatest place anyone would ever want to work. Having enough money to bet $10 million on one hand, talking shit about Equities in Dallas, and of course, becoming known as a Big Swinging Dick.

Fight Club is a bit more subtle, it doesn't really renounce (or endorse) anything, but its main character is (spoiler) obviously seriously mentally ill with two entirely distinct personas.

Walter White comes to mind, too. The creator was aghast at how much people _liked_ Walter and gave Skylar shit.

I can say, upon watching the series a 2nd (and 3rd!) time, I definitely came to dislike Walter.

Walt at least starts out with noble sounding goals motivated by pride. The show lets the mask fall so slowly on what he really is the viewer will probably have a hard time letting go of the initial appearance, especially if you identified with it personally. But even half way through the show you'd have to be deluding yourself if you still thought he was a good person, and by the end he's explicit about what a monster he always actually was.

To be fair, Walter indeed becomes one of the worst human beings (if not the worst) on the show by the end of it, in terms of morality and just in general. But he is entertaining to watch, even though at times it is frustrating.

Skyler isn't really a terrible person at all (the whole petty thing with Ted aside, which is really minor and understandable in the context). But I would be lying if I said she wasn't extremely annoying and frustrating to watch (which imo speaks well about the writing on the show).

I think it's tough to write characters who spend a really long time knowing far less than the audience does, even if they're mostly behaving very reasonably (generously, even) considering what they do know, and not have them become annoying. Especially when they get as much screen time as she did.

Which, of course, can also be blamed on the writers. No one made them write it like that.

Oh, let me clarify, I didn't mean that Skyler being written as an annoying character is necessarily a flaw. I don't know if it was intentional, but to me it feels like it works well within the story, and makes it feel more real to how real life often works out.

There are plenty of all around good people in real life who just happen to be annoying to interact with in certain contexts. That's just the reality of life, and imo the show executed it well.

To add, I found Marie to be written annoyingly as well, but in a very different way from Skyler, which further indicates that it was somewhat of a deliberate choice. Despite me finding both of them being frustrating to watch interactions with, I would say they were written well. And no, I don't have some bias against women in the show. One of my favorite, in all aspects, characters from the Breaking Bad universe is Kim Wexler from Better Call Saul spin-off, and by far.

I mean, one might take the couple most prominent women in the show being annoying on the one hand and frustratingly bone-headed on the other (Marie) as bias or misogyny... except that nearly all the guys are monsters, or worthless, or are also annoying (sometimes all three). I think it's just a show where almost no-one's good, all the way, entirely, or has always psychologically got it together. Even Hank gets pathetically sorry for himself and starts wasting money on his weird clearly-coping-for-something (ahem, PTSD, among other things probably) rock collecting (well, rock buying) "hobby"—except, I've seen people behave almost exactly that same way in real life! Its characters are human, often such that it's hard to fully like them, just as it can be hard to like most people in real life without some familial or long-running friend bond to get you over their quirks and weaknesses.

... still, there's a lot of time in those first couple seasons in particular when, to the viewer, Skyler kinda just comes off as a clueless nag, even when she's actually behaving reasonably, just because of how the show's presented. "Skyler, you don't get what he's dealing with, just back off!" you want to yell at the screen—then, if you think for a second, you remember he's dissolving bodies in bathtubs and living a secret life and lying to everyone and putting everyone around him in mortal danger and all kinds of messed-up shit, all because he couldn't swallow his pride just once for the sake of his family, so maaaaaybe we should go easier on her. But the presentation, the writing—it does tend to raise such ill thoughts of Skyler to begin with.

I was drawn to Draper's charisma at the start of the show, as intended. But as all the infidelities, abuses of power, and general narcissism piled up, I grew to dislike him. By the end of the series I felt a deep ambivalence for the man, but that's a testament to how well written and acted the character was.

> passive-aggressive dickhead that Don is.

I very much disagree. Look how Tony treats his sister when she's trying to better herself and change their families tendency to rage, he jabs at her constantly until she breaks and gets immense satisfaction that she is as broken as him.

Melfi even argues Tony is a sociopath, Don at least realizes the difference between right and wrong.

Although I've watched every episode of The Sopranos, it was quite a long time ago. I recall that for the most part, when Tony was pissed at someone, he typically confronted that person, and if he didn't do it personally, the "victim" usually knew why he was getting wacked or beat up or whatever.

But yes, you're correct, within his family -- especially his mother, Uncle Junior, his sister and sometimes his wife -- things are a lot more complicated.

Nice article, with some good insights.

My take is that Mad Men has something that's missing from so many other shows: strong larger-than-life characters. Their wills and quirks trump over rationality, circumstances and luck, good or bad. They never miss the oportunity to be themselves, no matter what. I watched it with the impression that they were real people that I had met.

They are also horrible people in a way that doesn't feel as real in the Sopranos. That's a downside for me, I couldn't watch more than 6 episodes of these horrible, selfish people.

That's interesting, I see them more like trapped and still doing what they really want instead of what the prison they live in tries to force them to do. It's a theme that repeats all over the place. I would call it "assertive" instead of "selfish".

Edit: as an example, Peggy goes to extremes to do what she wants to do, overcoming all the obstacles that come her way. Is she selfish? Maybe but what kind of life would have she had if she had acted in some other way?

Peggy has an affair with a married man in the first episode and many more throughout the series. I don't blame the characters for hustling at work because everyone needs to make money, I blame them for their completely horrible and short sighted personal life decisions.

I can't think of any worthwhile stories based solely on rational, moral characters. I mean I love watching Great British Bake Off as a palette cleanser for exactly this reason, but real characters are flawed, make mistakes, and are involved in real life conflicts.

Lol you can only understand their work motivations but not anything else? Seems more like a you problem than a the-show problem

I’d still argue that the worst characters in mad men are still better human beings in almost every way than the best ones in Sopranos.

Yes, but it also often reduces its characters to caricatures. In todays day and age, reducing people to caricatures is a no-go, but for some exceptions, but even so, I think this is too heavy handed and makes the show less compelling as commentary and instead reduces it to sort of crass entertainment whereas it markets itself as somewhat "middle brow" and provoking.

This post mirrors why mad men isn’t nearly on the same level as the sopranos/breaking bad/the wire.

For all the visual richness and unique period dynamics, the story wasn’t particularly compelling and the show winds up feeling empty.

Personally I disagree that it feels empty. The period it examines has a rich set of defining issues (e.g. post-war trauma, feminism, rise of consumerism, generational shifts, automation) with several character arcs that I found compelling and realistic.

Agreed. It felt far more realistic to me too. The characters in Breaking Bad, Sopranos, etc... most people aren't that complex; for some reason, they fail to hold my focus. Mad Men and The Wire are more realistic to me. (Not surprising, as The Wire is of course based on real life accounts).

It took me giving it a second chance to see past this.

The first time I watched it I didn’t get it, a bunch of office drama, cheating and pettiness mixed in a timepiece. Great visuals but that’s it.

What I understood better the second time(and I suck at putting this into words) is that it’s a show where you have to appreciate the metadata more than the main story. Its about the changes in the times, the contrast between what life seemed to be and what life actually was, the psychological changes as time progressed, the “tough looking but house of cards psychology” if everything at the time is what got me to appreciate it more the second time.

I've always took the view that a show about the birth of consumer society from the point of view of ad executives is a brilliant take. We get to witness the machinery of post war capitalism taking shape. If the same concept was applied to investment bankers in the 80's it could be pretty interesting.

Don is kinda like the past, trying to adapt. Struggling with a new identity, escaping past trauma. I think the character embodies the old fashioned behavior (as himself and Betty refer to themselves often), while Peggy is the youth of the 60, stumbling into an old world and at the same time making it her own because many of the epochal changes resonate with her. Her walk into the 70s ready to shake things up at the end of the series is amazing.

The periods are the characters we're following. The rest is just a vehicle for that portrait. In other period pieces it's often the reverse.

I think the main point of the show was how fast American culture changed in the 1960s rather about the characters. The beginning seasons in particular set in the early 1960s focused a lot on how openly people said racist and sexist things and how all the advertising execs were white men, with women only at the secretary level, but as the decade goes on, women, and finally people of color begin to show up at the executive level and society begins to resemble much more our society. Despite cultural changes since, the 1960s probably were the decade of the most cultural change in the shortest time.

Yes, nothing communicates this more than just the wardrobe of the first season vs. the last.

The show also followed several decades of demonization of the changes that happened in the 60s. I sometimes think of Mad Men as making the point that the 60s happened for (good) reasons.

Mad Men's popularity hinged on style over substance. There was a semi-interesting set of stories, but people mainly tuned in to experience an early 60's time capsule.

My mom watched the show because it reminded her of when she started work in an office, up to and including the casual sexual harassment. She wasn't so fond of that part but "that's the way it was back then". Similar to how cops claim The Shield was the most accurate depiction of policing.

> Mad Men's popularity hinged on style over substance

To the contrary, all of the fan base at the time hinged on character developments! Married Pete got Peggy pregnant in the first episode, was anything ever going to come of that? would Don ever stoop so low as to make a pass at Joan? would Roger and Joan's series-long tryst blow up their respective relationships? etc etc

A lot of it is left un-shown, as each season jumps ahead in time. You slowly figure out what happened during those jumps by inference. I thought it was great.

One attribute of the show I greatly appreciated was patience. We don’t get a “real” moment between Don and Joan—obliquely answering the “why not” question—until late in Season 5. It’s immensely more powerful and satisfying as a result. (Not to mention what happens later.)

The Don and Peggy relationship is also a fantastic slow burn.

I think about that scene a lot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WxUJ2qSp_E

"The only sin she's committed is being familiar."

I felt like none of this really paid off. Peggy has a child, that should be a life-changing event, but it's just ignored for the rest of the show because it's not convenient for where the writers wanted to take her character, I guess? I have to agree with other commenters that the show was stylistically impressive but dramatically hollow.

It is life-changing, and echoes in Peggy’s character and relationships through the entire series, as well as being called out explicitly at half a dozen key moments.

Peggy’s baby is a crystallization of the contrast between her and Don. Don tells her, “It will shock you how much this never happened.” He is always running, ignoring what life repeatedly tries to teach him. Peggy makes the decision to give up her baby the keystone of her character: She could have had Pete and the life of an adoring housewife, instead she embraced her choice and consciously took a different path.

What the writers resisted was the potential melodrama of reintroducing the baby to Peggy’s life in some way. But that would have undermined the moment of Peggy’s choice: It was gone.

That's all very tidy, but what you've described is barely in the show at all.

Until reading your comment my recollection was that she left it with her sister; apparently that's wrong and you can figure out what really happened by piecing together a few different short scenes across several seasons. As someone who watched the show as it came out over 8 years, it was like the baby fell off the face of the earth with no explanation.

The baby did fall off the face of (Peggy’s) earth. She gave it up shortly after it was born. That’s it.

As I said, it comes up again and again. Most directly in “Meditations in an Emergency”, wherein she tells Pete the whole story of his baby and why she gave it up.

So we're just going to pretend that Season 5 of The Wire never happened? Because that story sure stuck out like a sore thumb.

My point is, all shows have their ups and downs. Sopranos/BB/Wire were great and definitely kickstarted the golden age of television, but Mad Men just hits differently and I think I now know why: the visual richness and spectacular screenwriting/character development.

Indeed, being the nerd that I am, I have seen just one episode, which is where they brought in the IBM/360. It left me unsatisfied.

You saw one middle episode of a largely serialized show with no context as to the characters or overarching plot lines and you expected to be satisfied?

That's like flipping to a random chapter in the middle of the Harry Potter series and saying "I don't get what they're doing with the latin and these wands, and what's with the owl? Who's Ron? We never met him in this random chapter, whole book series is just unsatisfying."

It’s also a really off-kilter episode, of the kind in which Mad Men would occasionally indulge with varying degrees of success.

I enjoyed all the Kubrick references, but didn’t find it paid off the strangeness well.

To clarify, the only character I cared about was the IBM/360.

A good take I heard a while back:

Mad Men is dystopian and also happens to be pretty historically accurate.

The ending would have been a lot better if Don was DB Cooper at the end. At the time I was sure that was going to be the ending.

A DB Cooper inspired ending for Don would have been great, and possibly a more fitting conclusion to his story arc. The show began to decline in quality in the 5th season, and really started to come apart at the seams by season 7b.

At the time of airing there was also some speculation that upon moving to LA Megan was going to get murdered Sharon Tate style, as in one of the scenes she wore a red star shirt identical to the one Sharon wore in her Esquire photoshoot, but that also never came to pass.

I have a strong feeling that most American’s views of the past are painted largely by Mad Men. Young people think it’s an accurate and historic view of societal and gender norms.

That's the idea, innit. The show is pretty much a counter to conservative nostalgia for the mid-century era, which was really only wonderful if you were a straight white male.

Yeah those guys are the worst, aren't they?

that's not what they were saying but now that you force the issue yes.

That mid century modern style is so popular with furniture right now. Look at trendy places like West Elm, nearly all their stuff looks like it came out of a set of Mad Men. I’m not complaining, I love that style.

This article does not have anything to do with furniture.

I dream of a sunken living room.. and Jeannie

Spoiler alert! :( I'm watching the show for the first time right now and there are spoilers mentioned in the article (major plot reveals)

you clicked on an article that reviews the series that ended almost a decade ago

Yes, but the beginning of the article doesn't mention any spoilers and the article doesn't specifically mention that it contains spoilers... Authors typically put a disclaimer

King Kong dies at the end of King Kong.

Spoiler alert! Rosebud is the sled

Sephiroth killed Aerith, dude.

Best tv show ever produced

I do not remotely get the fascination with this show.

The plot/writing is just straight up stupid. If someone acted like Don in a marketing meeting the clients would be like "what in the fuck are you talking about?"

Then you have the obvious heavy handed feminist messaging. "Boy I sure would like to work, but I have to be a goood wife and stay home while my husband cheats on me" wife turns to camera "cause the patriarchy"

And then they try to paint Don as this cool customer who is the pinnacle of suave, when in reality his character is just a straight up goober. He's weird as hell, and comes off dumb as a box of rocks.

I just don't don't get it. My theory is that no one actually likes the show outside of internet people and people in the entertainment industry.

>"Boy I sure would like to work, but I have to be a goood wife and stay home while my husband cheats on me"

Do you honestly believe this kind of thing does not now nor did happen? I have personal experience with families like this.

>I just don't don't get it. My theory is that no one actually likes the show outside of internet people and people in the entertainment industry.

In my immediate circle of friends, I have 2 that this is one of their go to shows to binge when "nothing else is on". Can pretty much perform the show as a one person act by this point. Neither of the two are "internet people" as they are my personal friends, and neither are in the entertainment industry. Maybe it's not enough evidence for you to feel your theory is wrong, but it doesn't hold up from my experience.

Sure I'll buy my theory is wrong. I guess it just doesn't strike my fancy. I also can't understand the appeal of marvel movies, and half the planet loves those things.

And yeah of course that kind of thing happens. My problem is chiefly that it is super heavy handed. Like the story doesn't really paint a picture of reasonable people who are struggling in their relationship, but rather this caricature of a larger-than-life husband who does whatever he wants and an incredibly demure wife who just puts up with it. Again, that exists, but it is absolutely not the norm - and the show seems to suggest that this is just how life was in those days. I just don't buy that at all. Maybe it was more acceptable, maybe it was easier to hide your shittyness, but shitty people are shitty people are shitty people. It's not like in the 60s everyone was like 'hell yeah bro you cheated on your wife and the mother of your children. High five that's sick bro"

Its like if you made a period piece about the building of the railroads in the late 1800s and every white character just said things like "boy I sure do hate those chinese" instead of actually creating realistic characters that demonstrate their hatred instead of just being a caricature of a racist.

I agree with your comment on "heavy handedness". I think this is common in modern cinema in all forms. They fail to capture subtlety and come across as cartoonish. For example, based on conversations I remember with the older generations from my early childhood, usually racism was not expressed as some sort of outright hatred. Far more common was just casual ideologies that were part of the thinking of the times and rooted in tribalism in general, but had an overarching affect on society. One of the old ladies at my church when I was a child told me, "birds of a feather flock together" regarding people of different races. They thought races should be kept separate and that problems came up when you mixed races together. To them, it was "just so" and just as casual as the thought "that businesses should not be open on Sunday" or whatever. It was a set of axioms that were ingrained in their thinking. But if you asked her if she hated black people, she would say "no, they're God's children", etc.

Well it’s a feminist show or at least change in womens role in society is a large theme (hence the name). I think it might come across preachy if one expects a more nuanced show.

If you look it against films from the era like The Apartment (which is like styleguide to mad men) or All that heaven allows, similar themes and characters were displayed already then as sign of the times.

Sorry, you know the norms for social relationships in the 1960s?

>Its like if you made a period piece about the building of the railroads in the late 1800s and every white character just said things like "boy I sure do hate those chinese" instead of actually creating realistic characters that demonstrate their hatred instead of just being a caricature of a racist.

Have you watched mad men at all? it's nothing like this level of storytelling.

It sounds like you haven't really watched the show. Which is fine, but your criticisms assume too much and miss the mark.

For example, this:

> And then they try to paint Don as this cool customer who is the pinnacle of suave, when in reality his character is just a straight up goober. He's weird as hell, and comes off dumb as a box of rocks.

...is, probably, the main major theme that the show explores in some way in almost every episode. Ditto your feminism complaint. The show explores "feminism" from a bunch of different angles and none of them are as dumb as your dismissive caricature here.

It's fine not to like something, but you don't have to go out of your way to criticize something you don't seem to have actually engaged with. You can just say "Wasn't for me!" and move on. Or not say anything at all!

I mean, I definitely watched the first season. I don't know I think to some degree the show is a victim of high expectations - I heard so many positive remarks about the show that I was pretty surprised by the quality of the script and the acting. I mean it borders on lifetime/hallmark levels of cornball at times - but it sounds like you are saying that this might be intentional at least with regard to Don's gooberisms. I guess that just went over my head.

I used to think it was overrated, then I gave it watch over recently and it's, imo, the best of any of the prestige shows ever. Certainly no other prestige show hits strongly over all the seasons, and I think it has one of the best endings ever.

> I just don't don't get it. My theory is that no one actually likes the show outside of internet people and people in the entertainment industry.

You see this attitude more and more: I don't enjoy what I saw, it can't be that maybe I missed something, or that it just wasn't for me... no, it's everyone else that's stupid.

No, you don't see that attitude more and more. That's just a thing that people say. It's not even an attitude.

What I mean is that I don't know anyone that actually watches that show, but I hear about it like constantly on podcasts, interviews, etc. So it feels like some sort of zeitgeist that is just a mirage. But it just sounds like myself and those around me most have different tastes. cool, whatever. Enjoy your show.

I can still think its a really stupid show without thinking that the people that enjoy it are stupid.

But that happens all the time, it's not unusual at all, it's just different things for different people.

I was never into Disney/Pixar/cartoon (even as a child I rarely found anything animated engaging or funny, because in my mind 'anyone' can do that - make a drawing look or say something funny - there's not a skillful expression or delivery) or DC/Marvel/Star Wars stuff. Obviously plenty of people are!

I think your caricature is funny. It could work well in a parody of Mad Men.

There is a lot more complexity to these topics in the show, as others have also mentioned. You should watch it or read more about it if you want to understand the full context.

I watched the first season pretty attentively. Does it get better? Cause I really don't see myself finding anything redeeming on a second watch through

Movies do this often, they take a nugget and build it into a mountain for the sake of story (everyone is a drug dealer, or everyone is a misogynist). There is little nuance. However, it is surprising for a long-running show to go on about those things and go off on uninteresting infatuations with certain arcs. For example, one very irritating trope is where the guy spends money like water --like it did not matter at all, as if he was about to die tomorrow and had no family. It's very irritating.

I think that yes, movies do that often, but great movies/shows do not. Nuance is the name of the game for creating a rich and meaningful story imo.

I was just surprised at how shallow the show was after hearing such great things about it

These criticisms are valid in the first and second season, but they fall away in the third and the show really finds itself. I laud the show but really I usually come back to S3-6. Revisiting Season 1 was admittedly jarring. The quips were still good though.

Don Draper is popular for the same reason that Andrew Tate is a phenomenon: American culture has become so lopsidedly gynocentric that there's a generation of young men who have received zero guidance on what it means to be masculine and they're casting around for any example they can find, no matter how absurd.

Word. It is really tragic. Hard to watch little kids running around being weirdly misogynistic because they wanna be a top g one day...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com