No, I don’t look anything like this actually (I have been told over the years that I look like Carly Simon or Sandra Bullock or Laura San Giacomo–Not sure why, but I suppose if you could combine Carly’s mouth, Sandra’s nose and Laura’s coloring and hair, you’d get a close resemblance to Annie Em).
You, too, can dress up as a character on “Mad Men”. We finally finished watching Season 2 on dvd The characters are getting more interesting with each episode, as the series leisurely allows them to reveal themselves. And while Don Draper is clearly the protagonist of the series, the women characters are so much more intriguing to me than Draper’s odd mix of a Cheever character channeling and deconstructing Darrin Stephens (Bewitched)/Mike Brady (you know)/Michael Steadman (30something)/Major Anthony Nelson (I Dream of Jeanne)–ad men of tv shows past.
Season 3 is 1963, the year of Betty Friedan, and the year I was born. The women (Peggy, my fave, Joan and Betty) are all around my mom’s age (a little younger or older) in 1963. I see in all three women behaviors that either bug me or that I admire in my mom, so watching the show has both personal, and professional, resonance.
And it’s just incredibly addicting, as were those tv shows of the past.
Readers who are also TV viewers tend to avoid bragging about being up on the latest American Idol season, but they have no problem discussing with strangers the intimate plot and character details of shows like The Wire or The Sopranos.Adam Sternbergh writes about “Quality Show Fatigue” in the Dec. 8th, 2008 issue of New York Magazine: he just can’t bring himself to be caught in another obsessive need to watch another “quality show” on TV.
I’m a bit behind on my “good for you” cable television show viewing. So last night my s.o. and I watched the first two episodes of Mad Men (season 2 started summer 2008 and is not yet on dvd).The précis is that it’s a show about the men who work in advertising, and the women who serve them, circa 1960.So I immediately pictured a sort of thirtysomething (that late 1980s tv show with two male characters (Michael Steadman and Elliot Weston) who work in advertising, though the show focused as much on their wives), but of course with more sex (since Mad Men is on cable).Then my mind wandered to those other tv shows with male characters who worked in advertising: Bewitched (Darrin) and The Brady Bunch (Mr. Brady) (I know there were others—what were they?).
The first two episodes were immediately engaging: don’t know if it was the acting (wonderfully understated) or the writing (quick dialogue, but not at, say, The West Wing speed), but I was instantly hooked.What is most appalling, of course, is the blatant sexism that women endured in the workplace (and at home) in 1960 (before I was born, but not much).Some of that sexism is still there in 1987 thirtysomething, but not to this degree. One of the “new girls” in the office, Peggy, is a fascinating character from Brooklyn: I suspect at this point that her Pollyanna act is indeed an act and I’m hoping to see her develop as a character (I’m deliberately ignoring any articles/blogs, etc about the show to maintain that “first run” feeling).I gather than the main ad-guy’s wife will soon be a Stepford Wife, and that his girlfriend must be one of those women from the Beat generation anticipating and effectively out-doing the soon to be hippy girl (it is only 1960 in the series).
I’m looking forward to watching more.Of course Lost starts in two weeks and the Tudors’ last season is coming out on dvd next week: so much to watch, so little time. These “quality shows” are like the detective novels that academics feast on during down times:they provide us with nearly literary quality characters, plots and dialogue but with a touch of sex, violence, or intrigue as sweetener.High brow porn?