"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.

.