Good grief, but I love thinking too much about this show.
- In his recent interview with the New York Times, Matthew Weiner said of his tentative seven-season plan, "My plan always, and it’s how I pitched the show to AMC, is, let me show the difference between these people at the beginning of the ’60s and the end of the ’60s. You see how adult they are when it starts. But I guarantee you when we look back after the finale, you will say, ‘Look how young they were.’ And you will look back with nostalgia." I think that's already true - at least, I was surprised by how young the actors looked to me now rewatching Season One. I particularly think that the flashbacks in "Waldorf Stories" give a different sense of where Don is at the beginning of the series - it feels more like we come in on him still shaping the myth of Don Draper.
- I liked the third season less upon rewatch than I expected. It still contains some of my favorite episodes - "Shut the Door, Have a Seat," "Guy Walks Into an Advertising Agency," and "The Grown-Ups" (a personal favorite for its take on television spectatorship) - and some moments I really love. (Nothing will match the feeling of recognizing the opening strains of "Bye Bye Birdie" - a longtime favorite of mine - at the beginning of "Love Among the Ruins" when I first watched it.) But the season's got two major issues in Suzanne Farrell - easily the worst of any of Don's conquests thus far - and Conrad Hilton. I found that knowing both will be gone by the end of the season really drains away whatever patience I was willing to employ when I watched the season live. Additionally, I think in retrospect that the third season's conceptual departures - like "The Fog" or "Seven Twenty Three" - don't work as well as episodes like "The Jet Set" or "The Summer Man." (Though now I'm convinced that somewhere within me there's an essay about deconstructing the awkward intersections of "The Fog," The Help, Medgar Evers and White Lady Problems.) The last quibble is one that may very well still be addressed - the departures of Sal and Paul Kinsey felt so abrupt, and still do with no updates on where they might have ended up during the fourth season. I wouldn't put it past Weiner to suddenly bring one of them back - he did it with Freddy Rumsen - so maybe that's a point of contention to store away for whenever the show concludes.
- One thing that feels sort of surprising looking back - we've never gone home with Ken Cosgrove. Even the subplot in "The Gold Violin" is more about Sal than Ken. Hopefully, the casting of Larisa Oleynik and Ray Wise as his fiancee and father-in-law-to-be, respectively, in "Chinese Wall" is an indicator of the show laying groundwork to finally delve deeper into its most unassuming accounts man.
- Another realization - we don't really have any sense of Joan's relationship with her mother. Could that change if we come back in on her with a baby?
- I forgot how much of the fourth season's back half is devoted to the firm's financial woes. I'm curious to see if they pick some of the seeds of potential business back up - especially the conclusion of the Honda plot in "The Chrysanthemum and the Sword" and mentions of Dow Chemical in "Tomorrowland." I'm especially intrigued by the latter. After a season and a half of mostly oblique references to Vietnam, outside of Greg Harris' plot, would Weiner now put SCDP that close to the war machine?
- It's still surprising sometimes to recall how funny the show is - to take a few moments from "The Beautiful Girls," for example, Harry's indignant reaction to finding his afghan being used to help shepherd Miss Blankenship outside the range of the clients' eyes or Don finding that Sally doused his French toast with rum instead of syrup and just rolling with it.
- Speaking of "The Beautiful Girls," like much of the fourth season it replays well. But I still don't really understand Joyce's "men are like soup" metaphor.
- Naturi Naughton's appearance in "Hands and Knees" feels super-weird post-The Playboy Club.
- A potentially big plot point I wonder about for the future is whether Don will ever get that last bit of information he's missing about Peggy's pregnancy - they go right up to the edge of it in "The Suitcase," and I think the tension around Pete being one of the only people in SCDP with an inkling of Don's background (especially with the North American Aviation debacle in "Hands and Knees") suggests that there could be interesting dramatic fallout. There's a cautious equilibrium among the three of them that's reminiscent of the dynamic that Peggy overturned in "Meditations on an Emergency."
Some leftover thoughts on "Tomorrowland" that I never got around to posting when the episode actually aired:
- It's a little thing, but I loved that Glen asked if Sally was "decent" when he knocked on her door. One, because it subtly put the lie to Betty's manic anti-Glen stance, but also because it struck me as so dad-like. (That is, to someone whose parents are roughly the same age as Sally.)
- Some interesting pop culture references in this episode. I don't think I can unpack Don's (slightly creepy) reference to The Sound of Music better than The Film Experience, (Poor Faye. No one wants to be the Baroness in that scenario.) but I think the choice of "I've Got You Babe" as the episode-closer is interesting, too: another couple with an older man and a younger woman, where the woman ultimately eclipsed him career-wise. Ten years after the song came out, they were divorced. It's always anyone's guess how much something like that is supposed to foreshadow, but given Megan's seeming ambition in the field of advertising, it seems worth keeping in mind.
- And, a note to add to that upon rewatching the episode: I wonder if that career ambition is destined to act at odds with the fact that Don clearly latches on to Megan because he wants her as a mother figure for his children.
I could say more (Suddenly noticing suitcase references in Season Two! Recalling the smarmy delight of Kevin Rahm as Ted Chaough! I can't decide whether I have things to say about the Slate pieces on the show's handling of race!) but I need to cut myself off. So, it remains to be seen what's in store for us tonight. I think the central appeal of the premieres is learning when we're rejoining the action and what's happened to everyone in the offscreen time - none of them, not even the pilot, is among my favorite episodes. I'm curious to see whether the two-hour format makes the episode more compelling overall. The weekly TV posts seem destined to start up again - between Mad Men and Game of Thrones, I'll simply have too much to over-analyze.
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Idle TV Marketing Thoughts
I'm not crazy, right? They're totally having Pete's hairline start to recede? That's so excellent.
(From this slideshow of Season Five promo pictures - as always, very stylish and generally information-free but: the hippest clothes I've seen on Elisabeth Moss as Peggy; Kiernan Shipka is starting to grow into her teen face; where's Megan and are Jay Ferguson and Christopher Stanley regular cast members now?)
Monday, March 12, 2012
On Downton Abbey Season Two
I always seem to have finale posts that linger for months after their respective shows aired, and I wanted to actually post this before the next cable cycle revs up.
- I ultimately liked the second series, but can't say I disagree with some of the criticisms that labeled it too soapy. I think the notable difference between the first and second series is that in the second the seams felt more visible in Fellowes' pastiche. The dramatic plot machinations sometimes felt overheated or specifically designed to postpone plot resolution until the latest possible moment rather than to drive the story organically. While the first series was great, I don't think it bought Fellowes the kind of goodwill that prompts people to give a free pass to similar plot developments in nineteenth-century classics of the genre. Nor does he seem terribly interested in trying to subvert some of those well-worn tropes instead of playing them straightforwardly. The highs were still high enough to carry the rest of the material, but hopefully the criticisms of the season will prompt a more measured take in the third go-round.
- The one development that really deserved the "soap opera" qualifier, though not necessarily with the negative connotations intended? Matthew's paralysis. Paralysis (and blindness) is like the Chekov's gun of soap operas; if a guy gets paralyzed in the first act, he's not still going to be in that wheelchair when you've reached the story's conclusion. They skipped a fairly standard step, in which the person (usually a man, I'm sure gender theorists could speculate as to why that is) who is paralyzed/blind realizes that they can walk/see again but keeps it a secret because they don't want to lose the relationships they've mended/created during the time of their injury. Then you get the emergency situation where they're suddenly forced to reveal that they have regained the ability to walk/see. It seemed like they were going to go there with Matthew, but I guess the suggestion of it got lost in all the characters' relief over his junk working again. (The other day, I happened to catch a few minutes of The Young and the Restless, where Jack Abbott is currently in a wheelchair and the day's story revolved around people discovering that formerly blind Adam Newman was responsible for the situation leading to said paralysis. At some point, someone said "Jack will never walk again!" and I think I said, "Oh, PLEASE." aloud to the television. Soaps are magical and wonderful, is basically the moral of that story.) In a set of episodes awash in classic melodrama, I think this was my favorite "oldie-but-a-goodie."
- So...babies and in-law drama for the third series? I could get behind that. (Plus, I guess, springing Bates from jail? That storyline kind of lost steam for me there towards the end.) Even with Matthew and Mary together, I think that the show's established enough about the characters that I feel semi-confident predicting that A) certain of the ensemble won't feel truly at ease until she's had at least two boys and B) Mary's the kind of person who will not take kindly at all to the feeling that her womb is being monitored. I also hope they use the Bransons to introduce some of the Irish conflict into the story - for whatever reason, I like the idea of DA and Boardwalk Empire having a bit of overlap in historical fictive space. It seems like the growth of new family lives for the young Ladies Crawley should be enough to propel the story organically. *fingers crossed*
- Apparently, they're moving the show (as they should) from Miniseries/Movie to Drama for this year's Emmys. This Hitfix piece from Dan Fienberg does a good job of dissecting some of the issues at play in the Drama field, specifically why "Can Downton Abbey derail Mad Men?" is the wrong question to ask. (The Drama field is so dense this year, and we haven't even seen Mad Men or Game of Thrones yet! Emmy prognosticating is so much denser and more fun than trying to predict the Oscars!) Hopefully, the move will be accompanied by at least Michelle Dockery's name being put on the nomination ballot. (I ended up not posting my "Unsubmitted" list for last year's Dream Ballot, but she was at the very top of it.)
- I ultimately liked the second series, but can't say I disagree with some of the criticisms that labeled it too soapy. I think the notable difference between the first and second series is that in the second the seams felt more visible in Fellowes' pastiche. The dramatic plot machinations sometimes felt overheated or specifically designed to postpone plot resolution until the latest possible moment rather than to drive the story organically. While the first series was great, I don't think it bought Fellowes the kind of goodwill that prompts people to give a free pass to similar plot developments in nineteenth-century classics of the genre. Nor does he seem terribly interested in trying to subvert some of those well-worn tropes instead of playing them straightforwardly. The highs were still high enough to carry the rest of the material, but hopefully the criticisms of the season will prompt a more measured take in the third go-round.
- The one development that really deserved the "soap opera" qualifier, though not necessarily with the negative connotations intended? Matthew's paralysis. Paralysis (and blindness) is like the Chekov's gun of soap operas; if a guy gets paralyzed in the first act, he's not still going to be in that wheelchair when you've reached the story's conclusion. They skipped a fairly standard step, in which the person (usually a man, I'm sure gender theorists could speculate as to why that is) who is paralyzed/blind realizes that they can walk/see again but keeps it a secret because they don't want to lose the relationships they've mended/created during the time of their injury. Then you get the emergency situation where they're suddenly forced to reveal that they have regained the ability to walk/see. It seemed like they were going to go there with Matthew, but I guess the suggestion of it got lost in all the characters' relief over his junk working again. (The other day, I happened to catch a few minutes of The Young and the Restless, where Jack Abbott is currently in a wheelchair and the day's story revolved around people discovering that formerly blind Adam Newman was responsible for the situation leading to said paralysis. At some point, someone said "Jack will never walk again!" and I think I said, "Oh, PLEASE." aloud to the television. Soaps are magical and wonderful, is basically the moral of that story.) In a set of episodes awash in classic melodrama, I think this was my favorite "oldie-but-a-goodie."
- So...babies and in-law drama for the third series? I could get behind that. (Plus, I guess, springing Bates from jail? That storyline kind of lost steam for me there towards the end.) Even with Matthew and Mary together, I think that the show's established enough about the characters that I feel semi-confident predicting that A) certain of the ensemble won't feel truly at ease until she's had at least two boys and B) Mary's the kind of person who will not take kindly at all to the feeling that her womb is being monitored. I also hope they use the Bransons to introduce some of the Irish conflict into the story - for whatever reason, I like the idea of DA and Boardwalk Empire having a bit of overlap in historical fictive space. It seems like the growth of new family lives for the young Ladies Crawley should be enough to propel the story organically. *fingers crossed*
- Apparently, they're moving the show (as they should) from Miniseries/Movie to Drama for this year's Emmys. This Hitfix piece from Dan Fienberg does a good job of dissecting some of the issues at play in the Drama field, specifically why "Can Downton Abbey derail Mad Men?" is the wrong question to ask. (The Drama field is so dense this year, and we haven't even seen Mad Men or Game of Thrones yet! Emmy prognosticating is so much denser and more fun than trying to predict the Oscars!) Hopefully, the move will be accompanied by at least Michelle Dockery's name being put on the nomination ballot. (I ended up not posting my "Unsubmitted" list for last year's Dream Ballot, but she was at the very top of it.)
Tuesday, March 06, 2012
Quoted
"A period transplant would change the historical details, pop-culture references, and mores, but not the characters, tone, or themes. Mad Men would still be Mad Men because the show isn’t about history. It’s about mystery — specifically the mystery of personality. Weiner practices sawdust-and-footlights dramaturgy. Scenes go on longer than TV’s norm and let significant action play out in wide shots that turn the edges of the screen into a proscenium. For all its snappy dialogue, the show’s most piercing moments are silent: Don, AWOL from his daughter’s birthday party, parked at a railroad crossing while a train rumbles past; ex-lovers Peggy and Pete regarding each other through a glass partition; Don and Peggy curled on Don’s office couch like shipwreck survivors on a raft."
- Matt Zoller Seitz "What Makes Mad Men Great" from Vulture
I agree with a lot of what he says, particularly about the show's true appeal being its function as a character study. However, I don't know that all the characters could translate as easily to other time periods as he claims. Namely, I think that a lot of what shapes Joan and Betty as characters is rooted in cultural expectations of women at the time and how they shape their lives around those expectations. (After recently watching "The Mountain King" again, I also think that this plays a part in why Anna decides to let Don get away with his identity fraud. But that's sort of a half-thought-out tangent.) They're both educated women who ultimately see their paths leading to the domestic sphere whether that best serves their personalities or talents or not, seemingly because it's what they're "supposed" to do. I'm not saying that this type of woman is exclusively tethered to the sixties, though The Feminine Mystique made her a sort of archetype of the era. I guess my question is what different experiences might result in a Joan or a Betty in, say, 1980?
- Matt Zoller Seitz "What Makes Mad Men Great" from Vulture
I agree with a lot of what he says, particularly about the show's true appeal being its function as a character study. However, I don't know that all the characters could translate as easily to other time periods as he claims. Namely, I think that a lot of what shapes Joan and Betty as characters is rooted in cultural expectations of women at the time and how they shape their lives around those expectations. (After recently watching "The Mountain King" again, I also think that this plays a part in why Anna decides to let Don get away with his identity fraud. But that's sort of a half-thought-out tangent.) They're both educated women who ultimately see their paths leading to the domestic sphere whether that best serves their personalities or talents or not, seemingly because it's what they're "supposed" to do. I'm not saying that this type of woman is exclusively tethered to the sixties, though The Feminine Mystique made her a sort of archetype of the era. I guess my question is what different experiences might result in a Joan or a Betty in, say, 1980?
Thursday, March 01, 2012
Random Movie Love
It's probably an indicator that I'm a bigger nerd than I should publicly admit to being that I even have a favorite studio logo, but: it's Universal, and they've revamped for their centennial!
I think Universal is my favorite because, to me, it works in all its different variations. (As opposed to, say, MGM, which I also love but I'm not wild about some of those lions. Like I said, super-nerd.) I love the old logo with the little plane so much - I flipped out the first time I saw it play before a movie. (I think it was the 1936 Show Boat, but I'm not positive.) It's interesting to feel while watching that retrospective that there are specific works I associate with different iterations of the logo, I guess based on what I watched most in the past. For me, the 80s logo goes with The Breakfast Club, the 90s with Beethoven (I know), the last before this new one with Battlestar Galactica (for whatever reason, it plays before every episode on the DVDs, as opposed to one play per disc).
I think Universal is my favorite because, to me, it works in all its different variations. (As opposed to, say, MGM, which I also love but I'm not wild about some of those lions. Like I said, super-nerd.) I love the old logo with the little plane so much - I flipped out the first time I saw it play before a movie. (I think it was the 1936 Show Boat, but I'm not positive.) It's interesting to feel while watching that retrospective that there are specific works I associate with different iterations of the logo, I guess based on what I watched most in the past. For me, the 80s logo goes with The Breakfast Club, the 90s with Beethoven (I know), the last before this new one with Battlestar Galactica (for whatever reason, it plays before every episode on the DVDs, as opposed to one play per disc).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)