Were Mad Men set today I would agree that Lane is an anachronism but he appeared in the show last season which was set in 1963. If you took a cross section of upper management of a London firm in the late 50s or early 60s Lane would not appear out of place. Granted I was not around then but not many people who have experience of being in upper management of a London firm at that time are still with us.
He is certainly no more cliched than the wise Joan using her wiles and femine charm to suceed in a male dominated workplace. Nor the naive ideolistic young Peggy who wants the world to be put right.
One of the great aspects of Mad Men is the move from the pre 60s world into what we would consider the modern age. Season 1 was set in 1960 during the Nixon Kennedy election. The feeling of the show is still an old world view. We don't have all the rock n roll and jargon we normally get with the 60s. Granted there are the beatniks that Dons meets but they are on the periphery of society.
Now were up to 1965 and you can see how the clothes and hairstyles have moved on and we are hearing the Stones on the radio. Television is getting more prevalent. The men don't all wear hats now.
We see America moving from Roger through Don onto Pete & Peggy. We see the Brits moving from Lane to The Beatles. There is great progression. Who knows where this will end? Would be really good if it can go as far as the Watergate scandal although I don't know if they will be able to age everyone another eight years realistically. I think they probably can although some of the older character might not survive that long.
Just got on this thread now. I'm three episodes into season 2 and remain nonplussed. Lots of pretty things and people, pseudo-Freudian insight and that's about it. The Sopranos had plenty of those deep, silent moments but also story arcs, narrative drive and convincing antagonists. Weiner here though just gives us an endless succession of nice-looking tableaux. Someone should tell him he's not making Tarkovsky but TV.
Yes, but my struggle is this: In what way is an episode great or excellent? To me (and this a personal view), an 'excellent' or 'great' episode is something that I would find original/different; an episode/scene/writing that said something new and/or challenged (my) pre-conceived views/ideas of a person, gender, race, sexuality, identity, time/era or place etc; something that while it rings true, it also makes me 'see' things differently and/or enhances me knowledge of things, people, places ...
I may not have that much insight/understanding of upper middle-class, middle-aged men and their lives in the 1960s. But Lane's love for the Bunny Girl felt more like Lane drabbling in something he knows is a forbidden thing to do among his social peers/class. What exactly does he feel for Bunny Girl? Is real love for a person he can relate to? Or is some eroticised fascination for the forbidden black girl who represents nothing more to him than a repressed desire to rebel against his father and his social/class/cultural expectations? The whole Lane, Bunny Girl, Dad scenes left me cold:(
I'm probably sounding a bit pedantic now when I don't mean to:(. Nor is what I am saying that earth shattering. It's just when I come across like larryschomohawk, it causes me to stop and think a little.
PS: If anyone are bored with me already, you pass always it off as the mad rantings of know-nothing Eng Lit grad - I won't be offended!:D
My feeling about Lane is that he's intoxicated by the freedom of his life in the Land of the Free. An ex-boyfriend of mine moved there in the early 70s and was stunned (and delighted) by the difference in attitudes and lifestyle. He even bought a gun :eek:
@parthena I think you have touched the key to understanding Lane.
The whole show is about the American Dream---its limits, its consequences, its effects on individuals,and most of all the selling of the American Dream. The advertisers are programming people to expect instant, permanent happiness by identifying freedom with materialism. This is not the path to happiness, as we see that Dick Whitman's climbing the social ladder only leads to another kind of misery, Joan's pursuit of a doctor leaves her trapped, Betty's dream of having the perfect home is suffocating, etc.
All this is very pessimistic. But we also have Lane who finds that no one has asked him what school he went to. To him, the American Dream is real because it has allowed him to escape his own suffocating environment in the British class system. A necessary and important counterbalance to the experiences of the other characters. Yet in Mad Men the past always comes back and cannot be repressed forever (another critique of the American ideal of reinventing yourself). For Don the past comes back in the form of G-men, for Lane it takes the form of his father's cane. (excuse the Freudianism).
As to the complaints about stereotypes, part of the premise of the show is that all these characters are not presenting themselves as they truly are, but as society expects them to be. Don literally has stolen another man's identity, Betty is the perfect housewife, Joan is a Marilyn, Sal is married, etc. They are unhappy because they are not living as their authentic selves. The British characters present themselves as posh because that is the image they try to project, especially to the Americans.
We all deal in stereotypes-- for example, a British person who asks a Kansan if Dorothy lives near by should not be surprised that he is then asked about Lady Di.:)
PS: If anyone are bored with me already, you pass always it off as the mad rantings of know-nothing Eng Lit grad - I won't be offended!:D
You're entitled to your opinion and are well within your rights to post them. Don't feel like you can't just as long as you don't insult others or be rude (which you haven't). I don't agree with all of your opinions but that is my right and I shall post my thoughts.
This episode was about so much more than the Lane story. I hardly even noticed it to be fair. It is just one of many side stories. This episode had a lot going on.
The agency lost Lucky Strike which at the start of the season was something like 75% of SCDP's revenue, although it may be less now if they've grown their business.
Don's (or Dick's) past is catching up to him, which endangers him and the agency as the government are looking into his character.
Joan and Roger (and baby) is still ongoing. Where will this go if her husband dies or even if her husband returns.
Don's love life is becoming an entangled web of desires. Everywhere he looks there are women and he is unsure how he should treat them. Are they mothers? Are they secretaries? Are they workmates?
Pete's position is very interesting. He is protecting Don (and the Agency) but at what cost to himself. He has to keep secrets from his wife and collegues.
So the Agency could lose Lucky Strike, Lane, and Don. Could it survive without these?
As for the episodes being great or excellent. Well the writing is sharp, the acting is superb. The costumes are awesome. the story is intriging. The pace of the show is spot on it starts quite slow but builds up towards a climatic end. This show is excellent.
@parthena I think you have touched the key to understanding Lane.
The whole show is about the American Dream---its limits, its consequences, its effects on individuals,and most of all the selling of the American Dream. The advertisers are programming people to expect instant, permanent happiness by identifying freedom with materialism. This is not the path to happiness, as we see that Dick Whitman's climbing the social ladder only leads to another kind of misery, Joan's pursuit of a doctor leaves her trapped, Betty's dream of having the perfect home is suffocating, etc.
All this is very pessimistic. But we also have Lane who finds that no one has asked him what school he went to. To him, the American Dream is real because it has allowed him to escape his own suffocating environment in the British class system. A necessary and important counterbalance to the experiences of the other characters. Yet in Mad Men the past always comes back and cannot be repressed forever (another critique of the American ideal of reinventing yourself). For Don the past comes back in the form of G-men, for Lane it takes the form of his father's cane. (excuse the Freudianism).
As to the complaints about stereotypes, part of the premise of the show is that all these characters are not presenting themselves as they truly are, but as society expects them to be. Don literally has stolen another man's identity, Betty is the perfect housewife, Joan is a Marilyn, Sal is married, etc. They are unhappy because they are not living as their authentic selves. The British characters present themselves as posh because that is the image they try to project, especially to the Americans.
We all deal in stereotypes-- for example, a British person who asks a Kansan if Dorothy lives near by should not be surprised that he is then asked about Lady Di.:)
What a brilliant/excellent/great (choose as appropriate) post - the best definitional summary/appraisal of the America Dream that I've read in a very long time, Dan-Am.
Seriuosly, get it published!
I searched for books/writing on the American Dream a few years back as I was making all those trips to and around the States and couln't find all that much.
Only a book positioned as being about pop culture entitled, Why Does Everyone Love America?, came close to describing american influence worldwide, but it didn't go into any sort of definition on the American Dream. As a reader, you had to construct it yourself.
As for stereotypes, these can be dismissed too quickly as often they are usualy based on a foundation of fact/truth which may well be the essence of an issue.
My comments a few posts back may well have been a bit harsh in their tone on the parochail nature of many americans I have met. Parochialism, of course, is not the preserve of residents of the mid west states; there is plenty of it elswhere both here in the UK and around the world.
But my comments about Kansas were actually tongue in cheek. The Subway worker did ask me about Lady Di but this was probably because she was young, had not travelled, may (or may not) not have been that well read, just simply not experienced to know what a child-like question that would be.
I didn't really believe that Dorothy was from Manhattan (that's Kansa, not NYC!). Honest:p
I was in Kansas to see Coffeeville (where the Doolan gang hung out, and the inspiration of the Eagles song, Desperado) and to see the heritage sites of the old West in Wichita, Dodge City and Forts Scott and Larned and Front Street in Dodge City where despite many legends/myths, there were hardly any gun fights as guns had to be abandoned to the Sheriff in most of the 1870 Cow-towns on entering town. Sorry to dispel that myth or break the stereotypical view (or both)!!!
Many of my American friends just could not understand why I went there. They also couldn't understand why I went to Nebraska (Pioneer Trails etc), South Dakota (Black Hills), Montana (Custer at the Big Horn), Wyoming (Fetterman, Fort Laramie, Independence Rock, Butch Cassidy), Oaklahoma (Land Runs), Colorado (Boulder) or West Texas (sites of Larry McMurty's Lonesome Dove series), but I leaned more about the American way in these places than endless days in New York, Chicago, Miami or Los Angeles, fascinating though these cities also are.
Were these places brilliant, great or amazing? Yes to all three.
Back to Mad Men, isn't Dan-Am's summary that encapsulates what is so good about the scripts? That they have numerous levels of possible meaning which gets our grey matter going?
PS The Eagles have just come on the radio. Nice co-incidence!
Yes, but my struggle is this: In what way is an episode great or excellent? To me (and this a personal view), an 'excellent' or 'great' episode is something that I would find original/different; an episode/scene/writing that said something new and/or challenged (my) pre-conceived views/ideas of a person, gender, race, sexuality, identity, time/era or place etc; something that while it rings true, it also makes me 'see' things differently and/or enhances me knowledge of things, people, places ...
I may not have that much insight/understanding of upper middle-class, middle-aged men and their lives in the 1960s. But Lane's love for the Bunny Girl felt more like Lane drabbling in something he knows is a forbidden thing to do among his social peers/class. What exactly does he feel for Bunny Girl? Is real love for a person he can relate to? Or is some eroticised fascination for the forbidden black girl who represents nothing more to him than a repressed desire to rebel against his father and his social/class/cultural expectations? The whole Lane, Bunny Girl, Dad scenes left me cold:(
I'm probably sounding a bit pedantic now when I don't mean to:(. Nor is what I am saying that earth shattering. It's just when I come across like larryschomohawk, it causes me to stop and think a little.
PS: If anyone are bored with me already, you pass always it off as the mad rantings of know-nothing Eng Lit grad - I won't be offended!:D
At Last, I love your posts so far.
But why do you mention that you are an English Lit graduate? I don't get the significance of this in relation to your points.
You appraisal of Lane and the young Bunny is very interesting. But I sense that you are being critical/even dismissive of the vignette because it leaves you cold?
All the possible explanataions of Lane above, including yours are begining to pice together the jigsaw puzzle of that character
If you are serching for answers, well join the club. The one thing that Weiner does not do, it seems to me, is spell things out.
Maybe we'll find out answers to many questions about Lane as we keep watching? then again, Maybe not.
But whereas, of course, everyone must watch and enjoy the programmes how they choose, it seems to me that as well as the immediate enjoyment of the transmissions, trying to work out what Weiner is doing is as central a part of the Mad Men experience as any.
Keep up the posts, At Last. And do me a favour? Bring your knowledge and experience as an English Lit Graduate into play more, not less.
Maybe, just maybe that was a stereotype that held in the early 60's. But only in London and only then in central London, amongst city workers. The vast majority of men in the late 60s and onwards never, ever wore hats at all and most did not speak with a "crisp" accent, since most of them were not from London or the Home Counties.
Most men spoke with regional accents, and if they wore anything on their heads it would be much more likely to be a flat cap (although that's another stereotype).
All the TV portrayal of those times tells us is just how parochial the programme makers were (and still are, to a large extent)
Anyway, back to Mad Men. It's an american programme and only cares about entertaining american audiences. It is therefore bound to pander to their stereotypes and assumptions, otherwise the viewers won't watch "foreigners" that they can't immediately recognise as not conforming to their ideas of whet those foreigners should be. So we just have to let it go and smile sweetly at their misconceptions. Just as I have when asked by americans (in america) if I was french, of if we have toilet paper "in europe" or "do you have pie in your country?"
I agree with your points about hats and accents above, Petely.
But referring to my post somewhere above, I think that it would have been highly likely that Excecutives from top UK Agencies, which in the early/mid 60's were based predominantly in London, would have been staffed at more senior levels by men as depicted by Lane and the actor who plays him.
I'm not saying that its impossible for such a character as Lane to have had say a Mancunian accent, but it would probably have been very unlikely.
In those years, my father was Partner of one of the UK's largest Civil Engineering Firms based in London, WC1. Although my Dad wasn't like Lane, his partners, who I met numerous times, most definately were.
So, in the case of Lane, I don't think that the writers, producers and casting directors are far off what would have probably been the reality at all.
I also take your point about the Europe/Toilet Paper and Pie comments. I've heard a number quite similar.
The English in Mad Men are, to me, the weakest part of a brilliant show; Lane was acceptable until the latest episode, but the other members of the firm that bought them out were all one dimensional clichés based on a rather odd view of the English.
I agree. None of the British characters seemed as complex or sympathetic as the American ones, and the gruesome lawn-mower accident was played for laughs ("He'll never play golf again" or somesuch).
I'm not surprised that Lane should fall for a young black babe, but I am surprised that she should apparently fall for him. Surely she must meet many richer, younger, better-looking men in the course of her work.
Thanks for your generous assessment of my comment.
I thought your Kansas anecdote was funny enough to have been a moment in a Mad Men episode, a tongue-in-cheek encounter that the writers would use as illustrative of mutual misunderstandings and preconceptions. The writers do often walk a fine line between being clever and being too clever, and when they're too clever they risk losing credibility--- the British characters were sometimes overdone, I concede. But as your encounter illustrates, people are funny and we just have to grin and barrett (season 2). Groan.
Watching the Sat night repeat, I think I may have found a flaw (shock horror).
Dr Faye's reaction to Don's revelation seemed to be completely off to me. He basically told her he stole the identity of another soldier and all she could say was 'Oh my goodness."
No mention of what happened to the other man, no realization that Don Draper is not Don Draper at all - but someone else. Just misty eyes and a cuddle in bed. I have to say Dr Faye started out like a feisty, very smart, new woman but she seems to regressed over time. Is Peggy really the only forward thinking, independent woman in New York?
But why do you mention that you are an English Lit graduate? I don't get the significance of this in relation to your points.
You appraisal of Lane and the young Bunny is very interesting. But I sense that you are being critical/even dismissive of the vignette because it leaves you cold?
All the possible explanataions of Lane above, including yours are begining to pice together the jigsaw puzzle of that character
If you are serching for answers, well join the club. The one thing that Weiner does not do, it seems to me, is spell things out.
Maybe we'll find out answers to many questions about Lane as we keep watching? then again, Maybe not.
But whereas, of course, everyone must watch and enjoy the programmes how they choose, it seems to me that as well as the immediate enjoyment of the transmissions, trying to work out what Weiner is doing is as central a part of the Mad Men experience as any.
Keep up the posts, At Last. And do me a favour? Bring your knowledge and experience as an English Lit Graduate into play more, not less.
Absolutely! It's one of the reasons why I love MadMen- I look forward to the new episode every Wednesday night, and reading the comments here afterwards. I really enjoy discussing the characterisation and symbolism. I'm an English lit grad too. It's so nice to be able to watch such a richly written and acted TV programme.
Dr Faye's reaction to Don's revelation seemed to be completely off to me. He basically told her he stole the identity of another soldier and all she could say was 'Oh my goodness."
Don't forget she told Don in an earlier episode that her father was a small-time hood who ran a candy shop where the mob would have meetings. She's used to dealing with shady types and perhaps this accounts for part of Don's appeal to her. Also, when she tells him "There are things you can do" to solve this,maybe she's thinking of using her connections to bribe relevant government officials.
I don't know if someone's mentioned it before but for those looking for more Mad Men discussion and English lit type analysis, the comments section of the Guardian's Mad Men blog is an excellent site.
I actually just ordered Will Dean's ultimate guide earlier this afternoon, the Guardian blog is a great read and I'm quite jealous that I only started watching the show within the past few months, so didn't read a lot of analysis along the way. I' think once the BBC run finishes (I watched US pace but have been watching the season again), I'll start from the beginning again and read it along the way.
I don't know if someone's mentioned it before but for those looking for more Mad Men discussion and English lit type analysis, the comments section of the Guardian's Mad Men blog is an excellent site.
I like the Guardian's commentary too. I used to look at the US AMC Madmen site where there are threads for each episode but so many of the comments there are speculation or arguments.
I have enjoyed watching the development of Lane's character and consider that the writers and Jared Harris have done a really good job of it.
At first the British characters from the earlier season may have appeared a bit stereotypical but I don't think they were out of keeping with the time. British business in the early 60s were probably much like that. In fact, from a personal viewpoint, coming across businessmen and the professions from the 70s onwards, they weren't too much off some of the depictions. I recognise the type depicted.
Lane's separation from his wife and his progress during this series has been fascinating. Behind his facade you could see his loneliness and alienation when his wife left. His evening with Don during which he met the two women who turned out to be call-girls turned out to be revelatory for his character development.
Now we see he has gone one step further by joining the Playboy Club and starting a relationship with a black woman. As an aside, the main thing that surprised me there was the fact that the woman risked her position by dating a client. I may be naive and it did presumably go on, but wasn't it supposed to be forbidden in the rules of the Playboy Club in those days, for bunnies to date clientele? Or was that rule more successful in the breach?
Anyhow, Lane appears to be burning his bridges. He must have known what his father's reaction would be to meeting the girl. Lane and his father obviously have had an abusive relationship and this was very cleverly depicted. The old man striking him like that was so revealing on so many levels of the nature of Lane's upbringing and background. After all, Lane could have beaten the old man to a pulp in retaliation. It is almost as if Lane is belatedly going through a sort of adolescent phase of defiance - maybe that's what a mid-life crisis actually is - when a man who has been "good" all his life and done what is expected of him decides to take a stand. It's as if he's thinking that he has only one life and he's going to do what he will with it. It'll be interesting to see how he further develops. Will he toe the line or not?
This is the American Dream of course - life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The problem is that happiness is a transient rather than a constant in anyone's life. That's why ultimately they're all so disaffected.
The episode reminded me of Gloria Steinem's famous article about working in the Playboy club as a bunny. Apparently the bunnies were discouraged from making it apparent to clients that they had a boyfriend. They weren't allowed to see or meet their boyfriends near the club. Some accounts claim that the management put pressure on the bunnies to date important keyholders.
Don't forget she told Don in an earlier episode that her father was a small-time hood who ran a candy shop where the mob would have meetings. She's used to dealing with shady types and perhaps this accounts for part of Don's appeal to her. Also, when she tells him "There are things you can do" to solve this,maybe she's thinking of using her connections to bribe relevant government officials.
Hmm good point. It might explain her odd reaction if in fact she is hiding a big secret too. Maybe she is not who she says either?
But for now, her acceptance of the news seemed very strange.
Yes, but my struggle is this: In what way is an episode great or excellent? To me (and this a personal view), an 'excellent' or 'great' episode is something that I would find original/different; an episode/scene/writing that said something new and/or challenged (my) pre-conceived views/ideas of a person, gender, race, sexuality, identity, time/era or place etc; something that while it rings true, it also makes me 'see' things differently and/or enhances me knowledge of things, people, places ...
Hi, just to add my tuppence worth - what you consider to be great or excellent is what English Language students would call schema-refreshing as opposed to schema-reinforcing which confirms your opinions/views/ideas.
I think when people (or at when I) use the word great or excellent about an episode they simply mean that they really enjoyed it and that may be for a number of reasons:
it may have challenged their preconceptions - which I think is your criterion
it may have contained a fantastic storyline
it may have contained a WTF moment
it may have exhibited strong acting (I struggled to find a word other than great!)
it may have been funny - Man Walks into an Advertising Agency springs to mind
PS not sure the list function is going to work
I have a much simpler view of what is good/great/excellent TV.
It's a good programme if I watch it all the way through - rather than starting off watching and thinking (after a few minutes, or seconds) what a load of old cobblers.
It's great TV if I will watch the same programme a second time, even though I know the story / subject / outcome
It's excellent TV if I find new layers of meaning the more times I watch it.
No matter what others may say (and I'm not open to persuasion on this point), I believe that ultimately all TV is essentially entertainment. It's only function is to allow us to spend some time in an enjoyable pursuit. What it is that gives us enjoyment is a very individual thing: it could be learning something, it could be letting us forget how lonely we are, it could be watching "our team" play/win, it could be raising us out of the depths of our gloomy little lives, or to show us a new way of looking at something we take for granted - or it could even be demonstrating that there are others worse off than we are. There are loads of other possibilities, but ultimately: why do something voluntarily, if you don't enjoy it?
After watching last night's episode, Dr Faye must be one of the worst characters on the show! Just as there was a brief spark of personality, she turns back into something out of a daytime soap opera. I hope there is a dark twist to be revealed that might explain why she comes across as shallow and subservient (when she started out on the show as being fiercely independent and intelligent)
The spectacle of ad men hijacking births and deaths to strike business deals was interesting. Was/Is advertising business really done like that, I wonder?
Comments
He is certainly no more cliched than the wise Joan using her wiles and femine charm to suceed in a male dominated workplace. Nor the naive ideolistic young Peggy who wants the world to be put right.
One of the great aspects of Mad Men is the move from the pre 60s world into what we would consider the modern age. Season 1 was set in 1960 during the Nixon Kennedy election. The feeling of the show is still an old world view. We don't have all the rock n roll and jargon we normally get with the 60s. Granted there are the beatniks that Dons meets but they are on the periphery of society.
Now were up to 1965 and you can see how the clothes and hairstyles have moved on and we are hearing the Stones on the radio. Television is getting more prevalent. The men don't all wear hats now.
We see America moving from Roger through Don onto Pete & Peggy. We see the Brits moving from Lane to The Beatles. There is great progression. Who knows where this will end? Would be really good if it can go as far as the Watergate scandal although I don't know if they will be able to age everyone another eight years realistically. I think they probably can although some of the older character might not survive that long.
Yes, but my struggle is this: In what way is an episode great or excellent? To me (and this a personal view), an 'excellent' or 'great' episode is something that I would find original/different; an episode/scene/writing that said something new and/or challenged (my) pre-conceived views/ideas of a person, gender, race, sexuality, identity, time/era or place etc; something that while it rings true, it also makes me 'see' things differently and/or enhances me knowledge of things, people, places ...
I may not have that much insight/understanding of upper middle-class, middle-aged men and their lives in the 1960s. But Lane's love for the Bunny Girl felt more like Lane drabbling in something he knows is a forbidden thing to do among his social peers/class. What exactly does he feel for Bunny Girl? Is real love for a person he can relate to? Or is some eroticised fascination for the forbidden black girl who represents nothing more to him than a repressed desire to rebel against his father and his social/class/cultural expectations? The whole Lane, Bunny Girl, Dad scenes left me cold:(
I'm probably sounding a bit pedantic now when I don't mean to:(. Nor is what I am saying that earth shattering. It's just when I come across like larryschomohawk, it causes me to stop and think a little.
PS: If anyone are bored with me already, you pass always it off as the mad rantings of know-nothing Eng Lit grad - I won't be offended!:D
parthena
The whole show is about the American Dream---its limits, its consequences, its effects on individuals,and most of all the selling of the American Dream. The advertisers are programming people to expect instant, permanent happiness by identifying freedom with materialism. This is not the path to happiness, as we see that Dick Whitman's climbing the social ladder only leads to another kind of misery, Joan's pursuit of a doctor leaves her trapped, Betty's dream of having the perfect home is suffocating, etc.
All this is very pessimistic. But we also have Lane who finds that no one has asked him what school he went to. To him, the American Dream is real because it has allowed him to escape his own suffocating environment in the British class system. A necessary and important counterbalance to the experiences of the other characters. Yet in Mad Men the past always comes back and cannot be repressed forever (another critique of the American ideal of reinventing yourself). For Don the past comes back in the form of G-men, for Lane it takes the form of his father's cane. (excuse the Freudianism).
As to the complaints about stereotypes, part of the premise of the show is that all these characters are not presenting themselves as they truly are, but as society expects them to be. Don literally has stolen another man's identity, Betty is the perfect housewife, Joan is a Marilyn, Sal is married, etc. They are unhappy because they are not living as their authentic selves. The British characters present themselves as posh because that is the image they try to project, especially to the Americans.
We all deal in stereotypes-- for example, a British person who asks a Kansan if Dorothy lives near by should not be surprised that he is then asked about Lady Di.:)
You're entitled to your opinion and are well within your rights to post them. Don't feel like you can't just as long as you don't insult others or be rude (which you haven't). I don't agree with all of your opinions but that is my right and I shall post my thoughts.
This episode was about so much more than the Lane story. I hardly even noticed it to be fair. It is just one of many side stories. This episode had a lot going on.
The agency lost Lucky Strike which at the start of the season was something like 75% of SCDP's revenue, although it may be less now if they've grown their business.
Don's (or Dick's) past is catching up to him, which endangers him and the agency as the government are looking into his character.
Joan and Roger (and baby) is still ongoing. Where will this go if her husband dies or even if her husband returns.
Don's love life is becoming an entangled web of desires. Everywhere he looks there are women and he is unsure how he should treat them. Are they mothers? Are they secretaries? Are they workmates?
Pete's position is very interesting. He is protecting Don (and the Agency) but at what cost to himself. He has to keep secrets from his wife and collegues.
So the Agency could lose Lucky Strike, Lane, and Don. Could it survive without these?
As for the episodes being great or excellent. Well the writing is sharp, the acting is superb. The costumes are awesome. the story is intriging. The pace of the show is spot on it starts quite slow but builds up towards a climatic end. This show is excellent.
What a brilliant/excellent/great (choose as appropriate) post - the best definitional summary/appraisal of the America Dream that I've read in a very long time, Dan-Am.
Seriuosly, get it published!
I searched for books/writing on the American Dream a few years back as I was making all those trips to and around the States and couln't find all that much.
Only a book positioned as being about pop culture entitled, Why Does Everyone Love America?, came close to describing american influence worldwide, but it didn't go into any sort of definition on the American Dream. As a reader, you had to construct it yourself.
As for stereotypes, these can be dismissed too quickly as often they are usualy based on a foundation of fact/truth which may well be the essence of an issue.
My comments a few posts back may well have been a bit harsh in their tone on the parochail nature of many americans I have met. Parochialism, of course, is not the preserve of residents of the mid west states; there is plenty of it elswhere both here in the UK and around the world.
But my comments about Kansas were actually tongue in cheek. The Subway worker did ask me about Lady Di but this was probably because she was young, had not travelled, may (or may not) not have been that well read, just simply not experienced to know what a child-like question that would be.
I didn't really believe that Dorothy was from Manhattan (that's Kansa, not NYC!). Honest:p
I was in Kansas to see Coffeeville (where the Doolan gang hung out, and the inspiration of the Eagles song, Desperado) and to see the heritage sites of the old West in Wichita, Dodge City and Forts Scott and Larned and Front Street in Dodge City where despite many legends/myths, there were hardly any gun fights as guns had to be abandoned to the Sheriff in most of the 1870 Cow-towns on entering town. Sorry to dispel that myth or break the stereotypical view (or both)!!!
Many of my American friends just could not understand why I went there. They also couldn't understand why I went to Nebraska (Pioneer Trails etc), South Dakota (Black Hills), Montana (Custer at the Big Horn), Wyoming (Fetterman, Fort Laramie, Independence Rock, Butch Cassidy), Oaklahoma (Land Runs), Colorado (Boulder) or West Texas (sites of Larry McMurty's Lonesome Dove series), but I leaned more about the American way in these places than endless days in New York, Chicago, Miami or Los Angeles, fascinating though these cities also are.
Were these places brilliant, great or amazing? Yes to all three.
Back to Mad Men, isn't Dan-Am's summary that encapsulates what is so good about the scripts? That they have numerous levels of possible meaning which gets our grey matter going?
PS The Eagles have just come on the radio. Nice co-incidence!
At Last, I love your posts so far.
But why do you mention that you are an English Lit graduate? I don't get the significance of this in relation to your points.
You appraisal of Lane and the young Bunny is very interesting. But I sense that you are being critical/even dismissive of the vignette because it leaves you cold?
All the possible explanataions of Lane above, including yours are begining to pice together the jigsaw puzzle of that character
If you are serching for answers, well join the club. The one thing that Weiner does not do, it seems to me, is spell things out.
Maybe we'll find out answers to many questions about Lane as we keep watching? then again, Maybe not.
But whereas, of course, everyone must watch and enjoy the programmes how they choose, it seems to me that as well as the immediate enjoyment of the transmissions, trying to work out what Weiner is doing is as central a part of the Mad Men experience as any.
Keep up the posts, At Last. And do me a favour? Bring your knowledge and experience as an English Lit Graduate into play more, not less.
I agree with your points about hats and accents above, Petely.
But referring to my post somewhere above, I think that it would have been highly likely that Excecutives from top UK Agencies, which in the early/mid 60's were based predominantly in London, would have been staffed at more senior levels by men as depicted by Lane and the actor who plays him.
I'm not saying that its impossible for such a character as Lane to have had say a Mancunian accent, but it would probably have been very unlikely.
In those years, my father was Partner of one of the UK's largest Civil Engineering Firms based in London, WC1. Although my Dad wasn't like Lane, his partners, who I met numerous times, most definately were.
So, in the case of Lane, I don't think that the writers, producers and casting directors are far off what would have probably been the reality at all.
I also take your point about the Europe/Toilet Paper and Pie comments. I've heard a number quite similar.
I'm not surprised that Lane should fall for a young black babe, but I am surprised that she should apparently fall for him. Surely she must meet many richer, younger, better-looking men in the course of her work.
Thanks for your generous assessment of my comment.
I thought your Kansas anecdote was funny enough to have been a moment in a Mad Men episode, a tongue-in-cheek encounter that the writers would use as illustrative of mutual misunderstandings and preconceptions. The writers do often walk a fine line between being clever and being too clever, and when they're too clever they risk losing credibility--- the British characters were sometimes overdone, I concede. But as your encounter illustrates, people are funny and we just have to grin and barrett (season 2). Groan.
Dr Faye's reaction to Don's revelation seemed to be completely off to me. He basically told her he stole the identity of another soldier and all she could say was 'Oh my goodness."
No mention of what happened to the other man, no realization that Don Draper is not Don Draper at all - but someone else. Just misty eyes and a cuddle in bed. I have to say Dr Faye started out like a feisty, very smart, new woman but she seems to regressed over time. Is Peggy really the only forward thinking, independent woman in New York?
Remember the lines where Bets was telling Don that all she did all day was think about him coming home?
And what did she get when he did. Blank looks. Indifferent comments. And often a return to the City for a 'client dinner' - yeah right Don...Dick.
Felt sorry for Lane, Joan, Roger & Don but it did not have the impact of some, particularly the Don & Peggy episode a little while back.
Still must see TV though...
Absolutely! It's one of the reasons why I love MadMen- I look forward to the new episode every Wednesday night, and reading the comments here afterwards.
Don't forget she told Don in an earlier episode that her father was a small-time hood who ran a candy shop where the mob would have meetings. She's used to dealing with shady types and perhaps this accounts for part of Don's appeal to her. Also, when she tells him "There are things you can do" to solve this,maybe she's thinking of using her connections to bribe relevant government officials.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/series/notes-from-the-break-room
I like the Guardian's commentary too. I used to look at the US AMC Madmen site where there are threads for each episode but so many of the comments there are speculation or arguments.
At first the British characters from the earlier season may have appeared a bit stereotypical but I don't think they were out of keeping with the time. British business in the early 60s were probably much like that. In fact, from a personal viewpoint, coming across businessmen and the professions from the 70s onwards, they weren't too much off some of the depictions. I recognise the type depicted.
Lane's separation from his wife and his progress during this series has been fascinating. Behind his facade you could see his loneliness and alienation when his wife left. His evening with Don during which he met the two women who turned out to be call-girls turned out to be revelatory for his character development.
Now we see he has gone one step further by joining the Playboy Club and starting a relationship with a black woman. As an aside, the main thing that surprised me there was the fact that the woman risked her position by dating a client. I may be naive and it did presumably go on, but wasn't it supposed to be forbidden in the rules of the Playboy Club in those days, for bunnies to date clientele? Or was that rule more successful in the breach?
Anyhow, Lane appears to be burning his bridges. He must have known what his father's reaction would be to meeting the girl. Lane and his father obviously have had an abusive relationship and this was very cleverly depicted. The old man striking him like that was so revealing on so many levels of the nature of Lane's upbringing and background. After all, Lane could have beaten the old man to a pulp in retaliation. It is almost as if Lane is belatedly going through a sort of adolescent phase of defiance - maybe that's what a mid-life crisis actually is - when a man who has been "good" all his life and done what is expected of him decides to take a stand. It's as if he's thinking that he has only one life and he's going to do what he will with it. It'll be interesting to see how he further develops. Will he toe the line or not?
This is the American Dream of course - life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The problem is that happiness is a transient rather than a constant in anyone's life. That's why ultimately they're all so disaffected.
Hmm good point. It might explain her odd reaction if in fact she is hiding a big secret too. Maybe she is not who she says either?
But for now, her acceptance of the news seemed very strange.
Hi, just to add my tuppence worth - what you consider to be great or excellent is what English Language students would call schema-refreshing as opposed to schema-reinforcing which confirms your opinions/views/ideas.
I think when people (or at when I) use the word great or excellent about an episode they simply mean that they really enjoyed it and that may be for a number of reasons:
it may have challenged their preconceptions - which I think is your criterion it may have contained a fantastic storyline it may have contained a WTF moment it may have exhibited strong acting (I struggled to find a word other than great!) it may have been funny - Man Walks into an Advertising Agency springs to mind
PS not sure the list function is going to work
It's a good programme if I watch it all the way through - rather than starting off watching and thinking (after a few minutes, or seconds) what a load of old cobblers.
It's great TV if I will watch the same programme a second time, even though I know the story / subject / outcome
It's excellent TV if I find new layers of meaning the more times I watch it.
No matter what others may say (and I'm not open to persuasion on this point), I believe that ultimately all TV is essentially entertainment. It's only function is to allow us to spend some time in an enjoyable pursuit. What it is that gives us enjoyment is a very individual thing: it could be learning something, it could be letting us forget how lonely we are, it could be watching "our team" play/win, it could be raising us out of the depths of our gloomy little lives, or to show us a new way of looking at something we take for granted - or it could even be demonstrating that there are others worse off than we are. There are loads of other possibilities, but ultimately: why do something voluntarily, if you don't enjoy it?
The spectacle of ad men hijacking births and deaths to strike business deals was interesting. Was/Is advertising business really done like that, I wonder?