Type in any movie or show to find where you can watch it, or type a person's name.

User Reviews for: Mad Men

FinnQuill
CONTAINS SPOILERS5/10  6 years ago
==_Light spoilers ahead._==

This is the kind of show where the fanbase sticks its nose in the air and pretends you have no class because you can't understand that it's 'art'. Betty says "Only boring people are bored", and it's like the barb from the fanbase, maybe even the creators, at the people who can't sit through this slow burn of miserable assholes.

The show is boring because I don't care about 90% of the cast. I don't want to watch the subtleties because Don Draper is a such a complete asshole, that I just want to see him suffer, and yet he continues to succeed. There's a point midway through the series where there almost seems to be a light at the end of the tunnel, and for a fun little season, Don Draper actually tries to be a better person. The show takes a bit of a turn, and there's fun to be had, before descending back into the bleak parade of miserable people doing miserable things again.

I wanted to quit a few seasons in, but stuck it out to see Kiernan Shipka's rebellious evolution, and appreciate the growth of Peggy (who is always a bit miserable as well, but started out being someone to at least root for), before she settles in to being just another asshole in the bunch.

Honestly, it speaks a lot to the show that maybe the most charming character in it is a man who still forces you to sit through an all too long scene of him with shoe polish on his face putting on a minstrel show.

In the end, this show is like Bert Cooper's painting, substituting subtlety for substance.

[EDIT to add: I wrote this review while I was near the end of Season 7, and the ending was truly lame. It was about as subtle as a 6-year-old playing spy, and being the most obvious kid on the playground while 'hiding'. Another in the tradition of bad TV endings like _Lost_ that feel like the writers were trying too hard to be clever or deep.]
Like  -  Dislike  -  20
Please use spoiler tags:[spoiler] text [/spoiler]
rnhaas
9/10  8 months ago
I watched Mad Men over an even longer period than most of you, so my memory of the individual episodes is not perfect. I know there were some weaker ones in there, and there even parts of seasons – perhaps even whole seasons – that I didn’t enjoy on the level of the best parts of the show. But I want to talk about the show as a whole, and not dwell on its occasional missteps or the fact that it ran on too long – like most other American TV shows…


English-language cinema, particularly American cinema, has been singularly plot-obsessed for most of its existence. You might not think that this is a weird thing as cinema is (normally) engaged in storytelling. But literature had abandoned the obsession with plot above everything else before narrative cinema even came into existence. And it was only American cinema really that was so singularly plot-focused in the early days of Motion Pictures. (Even British cinema had films that broke away from the obsession with plot plot plot.)

It was only in the 1960s, with both the collapse of the Production Code and the accessibility of foreign films through new distribution that one might say US cinema (sort of) grew up. (Of course, you can also point to the rise of the Blockbuster and say there was a counterrevolution, but that’s another story.) From the late ’60s through to the late ’70s or early ’80s, there was a renaissance in US cinema, that largely eschewed traditional American cinema narratives (or mocked them openly). And even though maybe it’s harder to make those kinds of films in the US any more, there’s still a lot of great stuff coming out of the US, much of which bucks the kinds of narrative conventions that were just about mandatory prior to the American Renaissance.

What the hell does all of this have to do with Mad Men?

Well, the same thing didn’t happen in the world of American television. American television was famously dumb. Even the famous (second? third?) Golden Age of Television didn’t occur (or get named) until the 21st century, over 30 years after the American Film Renaissance began. (Whether or not we’re still living in that Golden Age is a debate for another time.)

It took a long time for TV to catch up. But even when it did catch up with the sophistication of movies, US TV was still obsessed with plot. Even the Greatest TV Show of All Time*, The Wire (*fictional, dramatic), needed significant plotting to get its message across. But Mad Men has changed all that.

You might say that Mad Men is the first European (successful) TV show to be made in the United States. Like numerous foreign films before it – and the odd American film – Mad Men is first and foremost concerned with characters, then with period and mood, then, and only then, with narrative devices. The show’s central mystery has mostly been on the back-burner for the show’s run. And the rest of the show has basically been character development draped in impeccably designed sets and clothes. Yes, there’s the social comment, too, which is an important part of the show, but the show’s central allegory relies more on the central character’s of the show – and Don’s failure to fully attain the American Dream – than it does on the mystery of Don’s past, or what name is currently on the door.

I can only think of one other show that aired before Mad Men that dared go down this road and that show (Six Feet Under) had its share of conventional plotting (including a murder mystery!). Though I haven’t watched Six Feet Under in years, I still feel like Mad Men has gone many places that show never did. Mad Men broke down one of the last few barriers still existing in US television, though it’s unlikely too many shows will follow now that the door is open.

Sure, there were episodes that didn’t work. I didn’t particularly like Season 5 (or was it 4?). But all of this is sort of irrelevant in the face of the fact that someone was able to create an American serial drama where character development always trumped plot contrivance. There was never anything like it in the history of US television.

Mad Men is still not in my absolute top tier of TV shows – it ran too long and too inconsistently for that – but it is a landmark and one of the must-watch shows of the Golden Age of Television. (As if you needed me to tell you that…)
Like  -  Dislike  -  10
Please use spoiler tags:[spoiler] text [/spoiler]
blakepatterson
10/10  3 years ago
**_Mad Men_: The Second Great American Novel of Television...**
Created by Matthew Weiner.
Written by Blake Patterson.

In the third season of _Mad Men_, Don Draper expresses, "If you don’t like what is being said, then change the conversation." The irony of this statement is how the subject the advertisers avoid catches up with them in surprising ways. Through various conflicts, Matthew Weiner exposes his characters at their best and worst in this period piece concerning an advertising agency in the sixties. Weiner defies the archetypes in place by displaying their emotional complications and how they endure them. By developing each character and set piece through different means, Weiner creates a sociological portrait of an advertising agency with systemic issues at its center.


Initially, Weiner presents his characters through routines to emanate the daily experience for the men and women at the workplace, specifically the agency _Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce_. In 1960, Weiner conveys how the men in charge have more advantages than women through their official status and behavior. As the men cheat on their wives and smoke cigarettes, the situations are intriguing and complex originally until they become repetitive and tiresome in the first season. The intention is to acknowledge how the agency is still living in a '50s mindset which will eventually experience some social changes to their system. In his evocation of the early years, the set design is lushly red like a scene out of Todd Haynes' _Far From Heaven_ or Wong Kar-wai's _In the Mood for Love_. By accurately capturing the decor and behavior, it is primarily disappointing to watch _Mad Men_ because the characters are thin sketches.


Then, Weiner commits a subversive act by finding the internal feelings of each character through the decadent facade. From Don Draper to Peggy Olsen, Weiner examines their range as people living in this orthodox setting for the sixties. Like his main colleagues, Draper is an alcoholic who manipulates women to have sex with him despite his marital status. However, Weiner and Jon Hamm evoke the character's vulnerability, and Hamm masterfully transitions from selfish to charming during each episode. It is not merely Hamm's showcase because the other performers establish striking realizations of these eccentric personalities. As Olsen, Elisabeth Moss is brilliant in her portrayal of a woman trying to succeed in a sexist environment, and it is easy to root for the character due to Moss' amiable approach. Even when characters are despicable, Weiner never loses grasp of their humanity.


While the series intricately studies sexism, _Mad Men_ also addresses other issues from the sixties. When the narrative reaches 1964, Weiner delves into how these characters respond to African Americans through subtle and explosive ways. There will be a scene with a racist character in blackface while another person may ignore any chance at confrontation. Weiner exudes how difficult it is for black women at the agency when some white characters side against them. During an episode, Peggy Olsen assumes a black secretary will make it in the workplace because of her struggle as a woman. Despite Olsen's generousness, Moss subtly emits the character's naivete. When characters act insensitively, Weiner seriously critiques their behavior and how it impacts a victim's life.


As the narrative evolves, it is difficult to not empathize with these characters as they experience hardships. Like the characters, audiences will react angrily, mournfully, happily, etc. In its thematic and emotional understanding of the period, _Mad Men_ has the richness of a Robert Altman film, and this is why it is like a great American novel. Even though it begins slowly, the issue seems insignificant after the series concludes because of the viewer's connection with the characters. As meticulous as it is, Weiner never forgets the importance of insight and pathos.

Grade: A.
Like  -  Dislike  -  10
Please use spoiler tags:[spoiler] text [/spoiler]
Back to Top