« Social Conservatism and Double Standards | Main | Into the West »

The Politics of Mad Men

29 Aug 2007 09:27 pm

I still haven't watched more Mad Men - I will, I promise! - but the fact that it inspires articles like this one isn't exactly encouraging. Writing for The Nation, Anna McCarthy makes the show sound like The Sopranos meets Pleasantville - a glossy, tedious exercise in ex post facto liberal condescension. Mad Men, she writes, is "concerned with demonstrating the progress we've made in gender relations since the alienated years before the women's movement," and with dramatizing "the disaffection of midcentury suburbia's 'lonely crowd' and the oppressive expectations of the feminine mystique," not to mention "the hatefulness of conformist WASP culture." (Such dramatic conceits are hackneyed enough at this point that even a Nation writer like McCarthy can recognize that they "are not terribly original," and gently suggest that may be "more revealing as a window onto the present, exposing what 'cutting-edge' popular entertainment considers the cultural gains and losses of the past fifty years.")

Then she whips out this hum-dinger of a conclusion:

Maybe, and perhaps wholly unconsciously, Mad Men signals a desire to return to a time when advertising, and the consumer culture it helped sustain, represented the vitality of Western democracy and the deeper moral meanings of capitalism. The perception that consumption is patriotic is still around, part of the arsenal of ideas used to gain support for the "war on terror," but it's becoming increasingly hard to stomach, especially as bankruptcy and foreclosure rates rise. Automobile ownership, planned obsolescence and the pure plastic perfection of Tupperware were once part of a battle against totalitarianism, American weapons of containment in the cold war. Nowadays, they are part of a global image problem, one that all the President's admen may be powerless to fix.

Dana Stevens, call your office.

Comments (14)

I have watched Mad Men from the beginning, and find it to be (on the whole) good television (as it goes). It does hit you over the head with the "we were all hopeless Neanderthals before the cultural revolution" at every turn.

Anna McCarthy ridiculous conclusion is exactly that. Instead of just giving a decent review, it seems she was overcome with the temptation to “be original” or profound…. It seems the train went off the tracks however.

Between this and the ridiculous arguing over The Bourne Ultimatum, I'm beginning to wonder if I'll ever be able to just enjoy a television show or movie again without having to parse What It All Means.

To quote Larry Craig, Jiminy God!

You realize, of course, that seeing aspects of a TV show or movie that aren't there because of your political bias isn't any worse than failing to see those that are there because of your own political bias.

I can't wait for Ross to bash someone for suggesting that The Constant Gardener is critical of pharmaceutical companies.

"You realize, of course, that seeing aspects of a TV show or movie that aren't there because of your political bias isn't any worse than failing to see those that are there because of your own political bias."

Somehow I don't think he does.

Click on McCarthy's link. It's a well-supported, accurate description of the tone and content of the show. I suspect most people who have seen every episode so far (like me and apparently unlike Ross) would agree with what McCarthy has to say. But Ross highlights McCarthy's conclusions without addressing her evidence to cast her opinions in the worst possible light (after all, she's writing for The Nation!--*nudge, nudge*). And as for her point about consumption, is it not true that our supposed decadence and materialism contribute to our negative perception abroad?

Ashish George: Actually, I get the impression that Ross DOES assume that McCarthy's description of the show is accurate. He says it "isn't exactly encouraging," with the implication being that what McCarthy describes is actually true, but what she sees as positive he sees as negative. He only mocks her when she comes to her attempt to link the show to Bush; before that he is mocking the show, on the assumption that her description is accurate.

It's a well-supported, accurate description of the tone and content of the show. I suspect most people who have seen every episode so far (like me and apparently unlike Ross) would agree with what McCarthy has to say.

I've been enjoying the show immensely, but I have to say, I simply don't agree with quite a lot of McCarthy's assessment.

Especially:

Weiner's depiction of postwar midtown Manhattan is a lot like his vision of millennial mafia-run northern New Jersey. Both are alien and amoral worlds in which people do terrible things, and both shows draw us in by exposing the vulnerability of the monster.

Do the two worlds really seem morally comparable? The two characters? The flaws and indulgences of the Mad Men, at least so far, seem fairly trivial (mainly affairs and rampant entitlement) compared to the vicious dealings of the mob. Their other unenviable traits (anti-semitism/racism, outdated gender notions) seem much more driven by the larger world around them, not by their particular insular group. They are of their time; the Soprano families, by contrast, felt out of time, growing old and irrelevant in their attitudes and their general impact on the world around them.

She is right that changes in gender roles are prominent, but that seems a) unavoidable and b) not always exactly the point of the show, at least in terms of the main character (it is more prominent in the substories involving two of the secretaries). Much more salient to the main character and some of the others are issues of identity and status (particularly regarding accomplishment vs. inheritence).

Additionally, I think she (and the Pleasantville comparison) downplays the ways in which the show lingers on what we have lost as well as gained. Maybe it's just me, but I don't see all of the differences in a self-congratulatory "look how far we've come" fashion. The people in the show aren't afraid of their food (as she points out), but they also often aren't afraid of speaking straightforwardly when we might not. Her example of the disciplined child cuts both ways -- it would not be deemed appropriate now, but a) the children are quite well behaved and b) the action falls well short of anything dangerous. I don't think it is meant to provoke outrage and contempt so much as describe the world they are in.

It's a good, character-driven show, and, to my eyes, not a didactic treatise on our transformation into an enlightened age. But that's just me.

It goes without saying that a person’s artistic feelings towards Madmen will be inevitably tainted, to one degree or another, by their political feelings on the 1950s and the cultural changes that occurred thereafter. All that aside however, I think Anna McCarthy is espousing less serious art criticism and more “Nation” politics in this final paragraph. This line in particular is dead wrong:

Mad Men signals a desire to return to a time when advertising, and the consumer culture it helped sustain, represented the vitality of Western democracy and the deeper moral meanings of capitalism.

I really don’t understand this – at all. Mad men does not leak one drop of nostalgia. Just listen to the dialogue! In one scene, a man compares a woman saying some thing clever to a “dog playing the piano”. In another, the boss intentionally pronounces a Jewish clients name as “Urine”. One should also evaluate the love interests of Don Draper, the main ad-guy. One of them is an unmarried Jew – an outsider. His mistress currently is a bohemian artist – an outsider. He is certainly not feeling ‘sustained’ and ‘vital’ by the culture of which is a member. He feels disconnected.

buy online pharmacy viagra

buy canada viagra http://magic-pills-swicki.eurekster.com/Buy+Viagra+Online buy viagra online buy cheapest viagra

regionalism exude gadfly supernormal basto reflectoscope pahmi waistcloth
http://www.pumptheory.com/ >Pumptheory.com
http://www.cisp-publishing.com

All juegos de polly poker gross dime outs deuces stack symbols poker pc game croupier risk hand second tight bank card credit login orchard beard event clubs street chalk omaha!

At this point probabilidades texas holdem fast hand blind million texas torneos de poker gratis action fold kicker juego dados poker jacks lock street ball?

At this point probabilidades texas holdem fast hand blind million texas torneos de poker gratis action fold kicker juego dados poker jacks lock street ball?