Mad Men

The tension as Betty grills Don was so well done. Near perfect episode.

 

"I get to ask the questions."

After years of swallowing his bullshit, she got tough.

 

Contrast the School Teacher's concern with Phillips' breakoff. Guess fiction is better than real life.

Interesting how at the start of the show the writers reminded us of the "submissive" situations that women were subjected to in the 60's; now the writers have shown us how the women made in roads; look now at Betty, Peggy, Joan.

How about how awful it was to get a divorce in NY in the 60's?

 

i believe that is all true, yes, my people?

 

Maybe, the back story is either so awful it has to be true or not so awful because Draper filled in the gaps he didn't know and now believes them to be true even though they may not but it is his justification for creating a whole new life out of fiction.
Best as I recall, the born to a whore who died in childbirth, came to light during a booze and/or drug binge flashback on Draper's part.
Seemed odd at the time, for Don to remember back to his birth.
I've swung around to the line of thinking that even "Dick Whitman" might be a fake, in some ways.

 

You're either wrong or a genius. I read a lot of commentary and analysis of the show, and no one's ever posited that reading of it. IIRC, Don's dream sequence isn't at all the only reason we "know" those details of his backstory.

 

Pretty sure that flashback came while he was sober, warming milk on the kitchen stove.

 

POW/MIA?

DVR'd it last night. Was too busy watching the Yankees and Giants. Can't wait to see the episode.

 

Until 1967 or so, adultery was the only reason a divorce was granted in NY and naturally, it had to be proven. The innocent spouse would have to hire a PI or stuff like that to gather evidence.

Now, there are several ways for a divorce to be granted, including cruel and inhuman treatment, abandonment (for over a year), constructive abandonment (one spouse shuts the other one out of sex for one year), and one other reason that escapes me at this moment.

I've watched bits and pieces of Mad Men through the three years. It usually was on when I worked, so I missed it. Caught the Betty confronting Don/Dick scene in between watching the ALCS and Giants/Cards, and it looked fantastic.

 

Jay, all due respect, but you're confusing the show's storytelling technique with how we came to understand the facts about Don. He's always know that stuff. Those weren't hallucinations, per se. That's how he was told it happened by his horrible stepmother. His backstory really isn't in question. He's not making any of that up. Sepinwall has discussed this with Mathew Weiner. It was a little confusing, especially because of the way dream sequences were played in The Sopranos where Weiner earned his stripes, but the question of the first season, the narrative engine, is "Who is Don Draper?" and we see that unfold as it goes on. It's not him imagining how it might have happened. It's Weiner revealing a little piece at a time, letting us sink our teeth into the mystery of who this guy is, and what identity means.

I also want to add that I've loved January Jones performance the last few episodes. It's amazing how Weiner found not just one but two C-list actors and let them shine in ways no director or writer ever imagined was possible before this. Hamm's skills have been obvious from the beginning, but Jones -- who people dismissed as the weak link early on -- has really proven to be wonderfully adept at walking that razor thin line between being sympathetic and totally unlikeable.

Also, ever episode with John Slattery involved in a major plotline raises it another level for me. I just love the way he plays off other actors. Weiner writes such great dialog for him. Maybe it's unfair to compare three seasons to essentially 6.5, but I think this show has pulled ahead of The Sopranos for me, trailing only The Wire.

 

Fair enough DD. I haven't spent anytime looking at Sepinwall.
The beauty of this show is it gives it viewers something to chew on.
Something to think about as they watch the show and watch it again.
The show assumes a level of intelligence from its viewers that is rare in television.
The very best shows, like the Wire, assumed the same thing. That people would keep track of the backstory and the details and the characters relationships with each other.
What's said on Mad Men is important, what's hinted at, but not said, is just as important.
And why you, as the viewer, thinks it is important.
For example, a couple of episodes back, were Roger and Bert were talking about the old days and Roger holds up the picture of the secretary and says, "remember her" and Bert's little hrumphf spoke volumes, enough to build an entire show around, if they wanted.
Instead, for now, they left it at that.
Last night was unusual that they filled in so much backstory. Roger boxing his way across Europe before WWII and searching for Hemingway.

I guess that's why I don't obsess over Sepinwall, I'd rather watch, then watch again and toss out my little ideas about the show here and interact with others who watch for the details.

 

I'm going to throw this out there, but do we like Betty better after last night?

I really felt like they had her on a path where she was going to be totally unlikable -- the stuff with the brother, the stuff with Don -- but even in confronting Don last night, the viewer couldn't help but gain respect for her. She was still there in the morning. She didn't throw him out.

Of course, that's undercut by the advice the lawyer gave her, but I really couldn't blame her for seeking that advice.

The other thought I was having... What do Don's affairs tell us about who is winning in the internal battle between Dick Whitman and Don Draper? And who, actually, fell in love with Betty, Dick or Don?