Artsculture

What Can 'Mad Men' Tell Us?

Smart TV show recalls when men were men, and women weren't glad.

By Dorothy Woodend and Steve Burgess, 21 Sep 2007, TheTyee.ca

Mad Men

This isn't your parents' Doris and Rock.

[Editor's note: This week, Dorothy Woodend and Steve Burgess trade views on the summer's most critically acclaimed show.]

DOROTHY WOODEND: Maddening Men

When I was about eight or nine years old, I spent hours flipping through my grandmother's cache of Life magazines from the '50s and '60s. I never read the articles, it was the ads that fascinated me. The little cartoon storyboards about scalp odour, armpit odour and worst of all, feminine odour. Aside from the inherent mysteriousness of these maladies, it was the drama within the illustrations that enthralled, the sotto voce secrets exchanged between women. The story was always about a beautiful young thing who had been unceremoniously dumped by her recent boyfriend. Her friend, a wiser woman, surreptitiously passed her some product designed to make her less smelly: love blossoms in the absence of feminine odiferousness, and all is well. I pored over these ads, trying to decipher their hidden meaning, their secret code words. What exactly is scalp odour? Watching Mad Men, AMC's new dramatic series, it all came flooding back.

Mad Men takes place in 1960, at a Madison Avenue advertising agency called Sterling Cooper. The year 1960 is pivotal: the birth control pill was introduced and the Nixon/Kennedy contest was just revving up.

The star of Sterling Cooper is Don Draper (Jon Hamm), a man who is his own best advertisement. Cary Grant-handsome, cleft of chin and smooth of hair, he is also possessed of many secrets, including a mysterious past, a beatnik mistress, and a beautiful blond wife and two kids stashed in the suburbs. Mad Men reminds you about all the things you barely remember about the days when people smacked their kids, and other people's kids as well. When everyone smoked and drank and drank and smoked. (The show is filled with telling little moments, such as Don and his wife waking up in the morning and spending the first few moments coughing and hacking with the distinct bark of longtime smokers.)

Peeling back the glossy '60s surface

The world of advertising is a masculine bastion, populated by alpha males, beta frat boys and a pool of pliant secretaries on the hunt for a husband. The rules are clear: women are purely ornamental and men are largely cads, partly by nature, but also because, in the postwar era of entitlement, it's simply expected. The Manhattan skyscrapers thrust erectly upwards, so too, the boys of Madison Avenue.

Into this concrete jungle comes Peggy (Elisabeth Moss), Don's new secretary, whose biggest sin isn't the fact that she's no longer a virgin, but that she hasn't been paying enough attention to her figure. One of the men likens her to a lobster: "All the meat's in the tail." These are not bodies we've seen on TV for a long while. Christina Hendricks who plays Joan, the queen of the secretarial pool, has a peaches-and-cream complexion and an ass that could stop a mack truck. I believe the term used to be "brickhouse," which suits the redhead, all 36-24-36 inches of her. In the neo-Darwinian battle of the sexes, women have their minds and their bodies, men have money and power. It's not an even playing field, but then, when was it ever? But for all its steamy salaciousness, Mad Men actually seems more forthright about gender politics than many contemporary offerings.

The entire point of the show, according to the series' creator Matthew Weiner (famous for his work as executive producer on The Sopranos) was to peel back the glossy surface, familiar from Doris Day/Rock Hudson vehicles, and show the nitty-gritty stuff underneath. While the show isn't quite in the realm of Hubert Selby Jr., its blunt presentation of men and women engaged in a bare-knuckle brawl of lust and lies is somehow oddly refreshing. We haven't really changed all that much, we simply got better at hiding the truth. Or to borrow some advertising jargon -- "Yesterday is the New Tomorrow!"

The business of lying

Weiner has likened the 1960s time trip to science fiction, a genre in which current cultural mores can be examined in an oblique, but no less scrutinizing, way. There is definitely something about 1960 that lends itself to this; it's distant enough to seem exotic, but close enough that much of the costume and set design, not to mention the behaviour, you'll remember from your parents or grandparents. AMC has apparently spared no expense in recreating the time with near-fetishistic attention to detail, no hair out of place, no stiletto put wrong, but what exactly is the show trying to tell us?

Since the series is ostensibly about the business of lying (smoking won't kill you, a new lipstick can really change your life, trust Dick Nixon), what it has to say about human behaviour is that we're all born liars and suckers. We've simply gotten better at lying and suckering.

Watching it, I found myself thinking about Laura Kipnis's recent review for Harper's Magazine entitled "Lust and Disgust: A Short History of Prudery, Feminist and Otherwise." Kipnis compares the 20th anniversary edition of Andrea Dworkin's book Intercourse to the modern advice offered in Laura Sessions Stepp's Unhooked: How Young Women Pursue Sex, Delay Love and Lose at Both and Wendy Shalit's Girls Gone Mild: Young Women Reclaim Self-Respect, and Find It's Not Bad to Be Good. If you can stop vomiting long enough to read these latter two titles, you'll discover both books advocate a return to days when women only gave it up in return for love and marriage.

Everything old is new again, apparently. Dworkin, whom Kipnis likens to "a stampeding dinosaur in our era of bubbly pro-sex post-feminism," at least had the courage of her convictions. It is doubtful if the same can be said about Shalit and Sessions Stepp, whose books simply smack of marketing. (Marketing is the new advertising! Women are the new men!) The golden age of modesty, the time before the sexual revolution and the pill, has long been disabused, even before Betty Friedan fired her first shot with Feminine Mystique (published in 1963). In Mad Men, the era is presented as a time of almost rampant promiscuity, despite the copy about women being good and sanitary. The traditional construction of femininity is just that, from the foundation up -- girdle to eyeliner, it's simply easier to see through the slant of history.

STEVE BURGESS: '1960s Male Fortress Was Impregnable'

Turner Classic Movies recently ran the 1962 movie Lover Come Back. Rock Hudson and Doris Day play rival advertising executives on Madison Avenue. When the first season of Mad Men comes out on DVD, they ought to include Lover Come Back as an extra. The new American Movie Channel TV series explores the same turf and the same themes, but without the ironic historical perspective. Instead of Doris Day, you get stay-at-home wives, compliant secretaries, and a bunch of hard-drinking ad guys who know that a dame only gets to be a Madison Avenue executive in the movies.

Mad Men looks at that world from the other end of the telescope. It deserves tremendous credit for getting the era -- early 1960s -- right. In addition to weaving an intriguing story around its central characters, Mad Men works on another level as a time capsule. Piling up a wealth of small, telling details, Mad Men shows us the male fortress -- impregnable by definition -- that faced the likes of early feminists such as Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem.

Mad Men has not pandered to modern sensibilities by having characters question prevailing 1960s values. Advertising is a boy's club, attended by a staff of women, most of whom are too busy playing their own intramural games to waste time wondering why they aren't climbing the same ladder as their male bosses.

Lover Come Back paints that era pretty well, too. "I'm not married," Day tells Hudson early in the film.

"That figures," Hudson replies. "A husband would be too much competition. There's only room for one man in a family."

Ha! Dames! Rock was probably just joking about the "only room for one man" part. But in the manly world of 1960 Madison Avenue, the real-life Hudson would have stayed in the closet, just as he did in Hollywood. In fact, the gay character on Mad Men doesn't even admit the truth to himself.

'Mad Men' characters

So far, Mad Men has been compelling television (and a pleasant surprise coming from AMC, a so-called movie lovers' channel that has the ugly habit of editing movies for content). Will it keep up the good work? Although top exec Don Draper (Jon Hamm) is Mad Men's central figure, the key could be watching Pete Campbell (Vincent Kartheiser), a weaselly little creep who is also a surprisingly fascinating character. A rich kid on the make, an insecure social klutz, a scheming little Nixon, a naïve newlywed, a young man in love (not with his wife), and a misogynist, Campbell is a complex creation. Occasionally though, the writers threaten to turn him into a stock villain. He could be a weathervane for the show's future. Draper's wife Betty (January Jones) is obviously pegged for interesting things -- in recent episodes the docile young housewife has been seen slapping a neighbour and shooting at another neighbour's pigeons.

Meanwhile, Peggy Olson (Elisabeth Moss) is the only female staffer who is on a path to the future, slowing gaining awareness of her own abilities and the opportunities they imply. Will Mad Men simply become a self-referential soap? Or does it have a long-term plan? So far, the show is succeeding as a novel period piece and an intriguing ensemble drama. Here's hoping the '60s will continue to be an exciting decade.

Related Tyee stories:

  • Steakhouse Guys
    Salt of the earth fellas with big smiles and a whiff of Brylcreem. All over B.C. I used to meet them. Where are they now?
  • How Men Choose Women
    From 'The Private Lives of Men.'
  • Back into the Kitchen, Girls
    Why are females increasingly portrayed as twits who fall down? Call it Attack of the 50-Foot Hollywood Wiener Women.
 [Tyee]

21  Comments:

Login or register to post comments

  • Jack's

    4 years ago

    good tobacco advertising

    The show's producer claims that the excessive smoking portrayed in this program is realistic to the 60s.
    In fact, that is my main objection. There isn't hardly a moment in the program where an actor isn't puffing on a cigarette or cigar.
    I imagine the only objection the tobacco industry would have is that there isn't more teens watching.
    Really Mad Men is not a program worth watching. Certainly nothing that you can't find in your average prime time soap opera. Well, on second thought maybe the plot moves a little more quickly.

  • James Burns

    4 years ago

    Period piece

    You know it's a little trite to focus on the smoking as if it's some kind of tobacco industry advertising conspiracy. That would be like suggesting all the mistreatment of women in the series is merely a conspiracy by anti-feminists.

    Having seen the first couple of episodes, I have to admit that the world it depicts looks horrifying. Sexual harassment as a way of daily life. Having read fiction of the period, like Last Exit to Brooklyn, I'm well aware that life in that era was anything but idyllic, as so many nostalgic conservatives like to make it out to be. Humans are humans after all. I can only imagine how much more difficult it would have been to be black back then.

    So far it's interesting. TAnd I think it has some use in depicting that, yes in fact we have come a long way in some areas. While ironically at the same time we're regressing in a number of ways economically.

  • Jack's

    4 years ago

    smoking?

    Quote:
    You know it's a little trite to focus on the smoking as if it's some kind of tobacco industry advertising conspiracy.

    Wow, how naive can one get! Films and TV are the main advertisers for the tobacco industry even though to my knowledge its not allowed in commercials. Do you really believe that this same industry isn't throwing money at the producers?
    Even the actors readily admit that they are supplied all the cigarettes they can smoke free of charge. It isn't done because the actors can't afford to buy them - it's done for them to keep the habit.
    Surely anyone is aware that films portray an unrealistic percentage of smokers.
    But regardless of that - anyone who watches and enjoys this program truly proves that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

  • southdeltawalker

    4 years ago

    Simone Signoret.......

    Is it any coincidence that there are now two shows featuring the 60's. The early 60"s-complete with: sexism, harrassment, no tolerance of anyone who is "different" and of course, smoking?

    With Globalization, environmental disaster, illegal wars and neo- conservatism now-the T V watching masses have something to feel smug about.
    At least they are not like these T V folks....they have "come a long way".

    Why watch these shows?

    Read "The Shock Doctrine", do something in your community
    'cause after all and to quote Simone Signoret...
    "Nostalgia ain't what it used to be."

  • BC Dude

    4 years ago

  • James Burns

    4 years ago

    The point of something like

    The point of something like Mad Men, other than entertainment, is to deflate myths about the past. The lies of it being a better time that we should return to, as so many social conservatives like to believe.

    It helps people reflect on the current state of the world. It certainly wakes them up to it far better than so-called reality television.

    Sure people could always be doing more productive, and more virtuous activities than watching shows like these. And it's especially easy to get on your high horse and tell people exactly that. It's certainly a lot easier than actually engaging in those activities yourself.

  • alive

    4 years ago

    Reflection is good

    I do not think it is unrealistic to depict smoking as a social pastime in that timeframe.
    I vividly remember choking on tobacco smoke at work and at play, anywhere!
    One was also a misfit by not joining up in the ranks of smokers, and any objection to smoke was scoffed at.
    It is barely 10 years ago that I encountered a similar attitude on the Praries, at small town cafe's.
    "What do you mean: a no smoking area?"
    It is gratifying that this campaign has worked, just like the seatbelt laws that finally are taken seriously.
    Maybe if the public is exposed to how bad it was, they also will consider that other endavours we take for granted may not be all that great?

  • Skywalker

    4 years ago

    What does the smoking contribute?

    If showing people smoking is necessary to give a show a touch of realism then there can't be much substance in the rest of it. What is next? We start showing sitcoms set in the 40's and 50's and start throwing around the "n" word because all the rest of the dialogue is vacuous? Sure, that makes sense.

  • James Burns

    4 years ago

    Hell yeah, there can't be

    Hell yeah, there can't be much of substance if there's smoking. Heck, there's adultery too. Can't be good. Oh and the drinking of alcohol, even by pregnant women. Gadzooks, they're in cahoots with the tobacco and liquor companies to get pregnant women smoking and drinking again. But the worst...they drive cars. Big polluting cars that probably do far worse things to the environment than all that smoking, and they don't even wear seat belts. What a lack of substance. In fact, why have people in it at all? If it was really something of substance it would deal only with profound notions of the intellect, and we all know how hard it is to properly parse those out once you start involving people and all their bad habits.

  • Skywalker

    4 years ago

    Hey if adultery gets you to watch...

    then maybe the shows don't need anything else. Why have witty or dramatic dialogue? The same for all the other scenes that fill the sitcoms and the news. How much talent does it take. Why do you think the Reality TV is so popular. Is it because it adds something of value to the human condition? Throw in everything totally irrelevant to a plot and call it art and entertainment.

  • James Burns

    4 years ago

    Skywalker judging from your

    Skywalker judging from your comments, it sounds to me like you haven't actually watched the show. You assume a lot about it, and the more you assume the more it seems clear you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

  • Bailey

    4 years ago

    Judgement out of context

    It seems a little goofy to me to consider history from the standpoint of a different political paradigm. Each cultural mindset has it's own truths, and they exist only in their own set,as a wholeness.

    In the fifties and sixties, admen were sort of priests. They gave their culture it's truths, but failed to tie up all the loose ends. To them, their lies were the same as truths, as long as the sales figures showed that they were believed.

    It's important to remember that these men were the survivors of the soul destroying horror of total war against whole populations, with high explosives. They were so spiritually damaged by these experiences, so ill equiped to deal with this damage that they could only fall back on money to judge their lives by, and their children were almost immediately about to reject the whole paradigm and seek a different path through the various civil rights movements and spiritual seekings of the 60s.

    Their reality was so barren that their own children couldn't stick it, or find any comfort there at all.

    We might possibly try to focus a bit on the lessons of history, and not so much on our own cultural power struggles, even though it's true that our history is the ultimate soil from which our prejudices grew.

  • James Burns

    4 years ago

    But

    Quote:
    They were so spiritually damaged by these experiences, so ill equiped to deal with this damage that they could only fall back on money to judge their lives by, and their children were almost immediately about to reject the whole paradigm and seek a different path through the various civil rights movements and spiritual seekings of the 60s.

    And then irony of ironies, the baby boom generation, who rejected all that money=success in their teen and university years, became the most materialistic generation ever. The Me generation that perfected disaster capitalism and shock therapy economics. And of course they've given us the Iraq War. Where did all the peace and love go?

  • Bailey

    4 years ago

    They had their own war

    And to make it worse, they lost. Their heroes were murdered in a cynical coup d'etat that left them without hope, and the techniques developed by their own parents to sell lies were used effectively to sell them dishonour as patriotism.

    I think their own damage may have been worse than their parents.

    Plus, even though we go farther than our parents could, and try to find our own paths, we are their children, and we learned to be people from them

  • dr evil

    4 years ago

    the pyschedelic wars

    Quote:
    Everybody knows that the dice are loaded
    Everybody rolls with their fingers crossed
    Everybody knows that the war is over
    Everybody knows the good guys lost
    Everybody knows the fight was fixed
    The poor stay poor, the rich get rich
    Thats how it goes
    Everybody knows

    Leonard Cohen

  • Bailey

    4 years ago

    the eugenics wars

    Other times teach other lessons. Mme Guillotine taught a course in history once.

    So did Spanish Influenza. Lucretia Borgia. Pol Pot. Mahatma Ghandi. Margaret Thatcher. Jim Jones.

    The things everybody knows are often less true than the things everybody does.

  • jhudgina

    4 years ago

    Smoking just another bad culture brought home from the wars

    But it's also an example of how much damage men brought to women and their children and I think it's a great thing to expose all of it.

    We have endured and survived all manner of bad experiences at the hands of men yet kept our heads about us. A prime example is how many women, now 'of an advanced age' and working from the post war years onward have managed to get along on a subsistence income. Most businesses would never have gotten off the ground without girlfriends, wives, mothers, to keep the books, keep cutomers happy and creditors at bay. And once established men expected other women to subsidize their business with barely enough income to live on.

    Even now women are struggling to get paid for the work they do and many men begrudge them such things as benefits. If a woman will do it, it can't be worth much is the cloak that keeps us in our place.

    And by the way, who decided that it would be women who would be forever relegated to cleaning a man's toilet—and as if it were a privilege?

    Perhaps from "Mad Men," men will realize what they have been doing all these years—forever—to women and by extension, their children, and start making changes. We live in hope.

  • BC Dude

    4 years ago

    If I had to run my home, I

    If I had to run my home, I probably would live in a pigsty with my kids eating frozen ready to eat GM/crap, and not looked after (payed) the bills and gone broke, as my ex-wife used to do all these things that I took for granted.
    All you have to do is look at our world run by greedy war mongering psychotic, psychopathic Corporations led by a very fewgreedy MADmen, and I use the word menwith distain, and yes I am a male!
    I say "ENOUGH"
    "...free enterprise, [is] a term that refers, in practice, to a system of public subsidy and private profit, with massive government intervention in the economy to maintain a welfare state for the rich." : Noam Chomsky

  • BC Dude

    4 years ago

    Harper selling off OUR

    Harper selling off OUR federal buildings at a great loss to US, CANADIANS? Madman = traitor
    http://www.harperindex.ca/ViewArticle.cfm?Ref=0088

  • BC Dude

    4 years ago

    When machines and computers,

    When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism, are incapable of being conquered. A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies: - Martin Luther King, Jr -from "A Time to Break Silence", King's address given on April 4th in 1967 at the Riverside Church in New York City.

  • dwicks

    4 years ago

    Smoking

    It's seems hard to believe that people really did smoke as much as is portrayed but it is true. I was born in the early 50's and actually do not remember anyone that didn't smoke, and chain smoke at that. The only places that seemed to not be smokey were hospitals and doctor's offices. This continued on into the 70's even on commercial aircraft and I can still clearly remember the blue haze from the front to the back of the aircraft. It was - unbelievable. And one small additional note - I quit smoking 15 years ago and there is still symptoms of the damage done.

    The portrayal of the roles of men and women are also accurate and I witnessed this animosity between my own parents as I was growing up. Each had their places, somewhat clearly defined and certainly not necessarily fair. My Mother sacrificed a career and regretted it for her entire life - the sacrifice being to "serve" my Father. It was definetly different then and left me with a set of values that have had to change in exceptionally difficult ways. Equality has been a challenge - perhaps more so for the later year baby boomers. Today's world is definetly a better place. The air is finally becoming clear in more ways than one.

    And one final note - I do believe there is a way to incorporate past "values" into today's lifestyle. It's a matter of choice as are our potential vices. At least we are growing towards equality and opportunity which is a huge improvement over where we were in the 60's. As a lawyer friend of mine said: "In the 50's and 60's the pendulum was all the way to one side and now it is all the way to the other side. Eventually it will come to rest in the center - but it takes awhile".

    • The discussion for this story is closed. No more comments can be added.