"Mad Men" on AMC (US) - (Spoilers Within)

[Tomasso]

I thought it was a bit disappointing compared to all the hype and good reviews. I think i was expecting more out of it.

It just seemd kinda flat storyline wise.

Premiere episodes, where a lot of time and storyline are used to introduce the characters, can often be a little flat. BTW, reviewers are given several episodes to view so I imagine that the best is still to come.

 

[Doctor Strange]

I finally got around to watching my tape. I didn't love it, but it's interesting enough to keep me watching. Certainly, the production design and costumes are dead-on for 1960, even if some aspects of the portrayal of the office and sexual politics of the time are stereotyped and exaggerated. I don't know that the series is exactly *necessary* (Billy Wilder's "The Apartment" really says it all as far as this subject goes!), but it's nice to see an attempt at something different, and the cast is certainly attractive.

Speaking of which, fans of the late lamented "Firefly" should note that Joan (who I also thought was a standout character) is played by Christina Hendricks - Mal's "wife" Saffron. (The con artist aka Bridget, aka Yolanda!)

 

[Feraud]

Who are the writers of this show?

 

[Doctor Strange]

I believe the creator/producer and writer of the pilot is formerly of "The Sopranos".

 

[Feraud]

O.k. thanks. Considering the tone of the discussion tends to drift towards the sexual politics of the day I was wondering what credibility the writer is bringing to the table.
My impression from limited viewing of the show is the writer is taking a narrow aspect of the times and presenting it as commonplace.
I will set the dvr to record and check it out.

 

[Doctor Strange]

I agree: it is clearly exaggerated for effect.

But as the NYT review observed, that's what makes the locale interesting to modern viewers: it's presented as a time when (at least among white-collar WASPs) excessive indulging in drinking, smoking, affairs, racism and sexism was possible without all the attendent guilt of the present!

 

[vintage68]

I agree: it is clearly exaggerated for effect.

But as the NYT review observed, that's what makes the locale interesting to modern viewers: it's presented as a time when (at least among white-collar WASPs) excessive indulging in drinking, smoking, affairs, racism and sexism was possible without all the attendent guilt of the present!

I'm not so sure it was exaggerated. I spoke to my uncle, a former regional VP of the old AT&T in NY and who was himself considered progressive back in the day, and he said that he really felt for the women in the 50's-60's because the sexism was pretty blatant and rude especially the higher up you went. Being a corporate officer gave you enormous latitude for stepping on people, just as it does today, but even worse back then.

 

[Dutch McCoy]

I watched it Sunday and I must say that it was not bad. Not my favorite show on television but by far not my least favorite. I will certainly give it a few more episodes.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

I'm not so sure it was exaggerated.

Neither am I. My dad was a junior executive at General Electric and then Montgomery Ward in the early 1960s. Even he was surprised by the massive amounts of drinking, smoking and skirt chasing that went on. You were expected to down scotches at every lunch and dinner meeting. Made negotiating somewhat difficult, especially at meetings with union executives (usually big, beefy blokes who could hold their multiple drinks better than anyone).

.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Oh that's typical. Blame the man who works hard for a living.

No, really. According to my dad, many of these guys were indeed physically big. And that's understandable: they moved up the ranks from factories and machine shops (where muscles are made) to union leadership positions. They were also two-fisted drinkers who could hold their liquor well during contract/strike meetings held at steakhouse restaurants. The goal was to get the young, "lightweight" management execs drunk and then gain some leverage during the talks.

.

 

[akaBruno]

There is a certain amount of truth to that. Most union leaders are elected, though. It's mostly just perspective when it comes to that sterotyping.

 

[Tomasso]

Most union leaders are elected, though.

Ya, but they're like Chicago elections. Seriously, I've dealt with the construction trade unions and Marc is spot on. Now on the other hand, the teachers union........

 

[RedHotRidinHood]

My mother had been putting up with the blatant sexism since she started her secretarial career in the early 60s, and it was still going on in the early 80s when she finally had to sue the company she worked for at the time for sexually harassing her. She lost, mostly because we lived in a smallish town and it was very old-boy-network still, even at that late date. It wasn't over something trivial, either. So, is it exaggerated in the show? I don't think so. IMO, it's just been the last 15 years or so that it's swung over to favor the person claiming harassment. I also think that in alot of cases, it's swung too far, especially with 5 year olds being expelled from school for it. It would be good to have it be in balance. Sorry-got a little fftopic: there.

I just love the show, and Doctor Strange-I THOUGHT Joan looked familiar! Good catch on that! She looks a wee bit different with a beehive!

 

[Marc Chevalier]

The Mad Men lifestyle is alive and well in Chile. Executives there smoke like chimneys. At lunchtime, many of them stroll from their offices to one of the many downtown "cafes with legs": these are darklit places that serve only coffee -- but the waitresses are nearly nude. After work, the execs go to cafes that serve coffee spiked heavily with vodka, whiskey, etc.


As recently as 2004, a very prominent bank in Chile's capital had an "unspoken" rule: every floor of its corporate headquarters had to have at least two naturally blonde young secretaries. This, in a country where nearly everyone has dark hair and eyes. Oh, and resumes must be accompanied by a photo of your face -- no matter what kind of work you're applying for. Unattractive or overweight receptionists don't tend to get hired.

.

 

[akaBruno]

I guess that you could look at it this way...

It' s more of a historical look-back than the cowboy shows a lot of us grew up watching.

Bruno

 

[Tomasso]

every floor of its corporate headquarters had to have at least two naturally blonde young secretaries.

.

And who would be called upon to perform that particular bit of due diligence?

 

[Marc Chevalier]

And who would be called upon to perform that particular bit of due diligence?

I can assure you that there would be plenty of volunteers.

.

 

[Sylvester D]

I'm surprised that there isn't more discussion here regarding this great new show. Granted, it takes place in 1960 and not during the 30s and 40s, but it still is a great period show with men wearing suits to work.

The show is not fast paced like "24" or Prison Break but i think it is a type of show to be savored and to dwell on as you watch it.

 

[Senator Jack]

Granted, it takes place in 1960 and not during the 30s and 40s, but it still is a great period show with men wearing suits to work.

Yes, 1960s style really sucked big time.

 

[Tony in Tarzana]

Jack, do you think the ties on that show are a little too thick? 1960 was 1 year before I was born, so I have very few personal memories, but I have a feeling they are. What does your research say?