I am a part of the latter category when it comes to “Mad Men.” For those of you out of the loop, “Mad Men” is an AMC drama that centers on the lives of Ad Execs on Madison Avenue in the early sixties. “Mad Men’s” overarching theme is “appearances can be deceiving.” The characters behave accordingly. Their lives are governed by image, similar to the carefully crafted product campaigns they create. Behind tailored suits and declarations of wholesome propriety exists a whirl pool of repressed sexuality, addiction, highbrow racism and gender inequality.
The show is an honest, smart look at what is perceived to be one of America’s most evolving decades to date. Although, sometimes being asked to remember disparaging bits about our social history is not perceived as entertaining. In fact, it is considered downright unpleasant. I was reminded of this while speaking with a Friend’s Mom about the return of “Mad Men” to AMC in August. After politely listening to my enthusiastic rant on plot developments, she informed me that she herself did not enjoy the show. Curious, I asked why. She replied that she was bothered by the way women were portrayed.
Prior to my Friend’s Mom’s assessment, I felt bloated yet confident in my new favorite TV show pick. I had gorged on all three seasons earlier in summer, eager to be up to date. However, it was quite possible that said binging had left me without a legitimate taste for “Mad Men’s” true flavor. Her comment got me thinking – why didn’t I feel bothered by the women of “Mad Men”?
The types chicks found in “Mad Men” fall into three categories: Secretaries, Wives and Single Girls. Secretaries are working women who cater to the needs of Sterling Cooper’s male employees, filing or otherwise. Wives are beautiful, chain-smoking visions of crinoline who fix casseroles for dinner and put the kids to bed. Single Girls are impressionable young things who sip cocktails and bat their lashes for the Right Guy.
A part of me validates these one-dimensional waifs via contextual reasoning. These personas were not invented by the writers of “Mad Men” – most already existed. Furthermore, they were reinforced by the ideologies of the time. I don’t believe it is correct to ignore ignorance – isn’t that what got us in trouble in the first place? Still, another line of analysis validates the notion that entertainment often inadvertently reinforces as opposed to changes ideas.
What should be noted is the difference between character and identity. Amidst an abundance of classically vapid females, “Man Men” tosses in a handful of individuals that break away from the heel-clad pack. One example is Peggy. Through the course of her development, Peggy evolves from a meek Assistant to a respected Copy Editor – a herculean promotion for a woman in a male-dominated profession. Another is Joan, an Office Manager. Joan holds the subtle upper hand when it comes to business dynamics. She draws you in, all curves and smiles, and then whispers in your ear exactly what she is after – the epitome of charm with an agenda.
Such women are not the majority. Yet, their effect on “Mad Men” is all the more profound because they are outnumbered, because (for now) they are not understood. As for the standard Secretary-Wife-Single, none are immune. All feel restless in one way or another, hunched behind their typewriters, blotting their lipstick. As for me, my fan anxiety has become null. Each Sunday, I am no longer drawn to the couch for the sake of suspense. I already know what is going to happen. I am just waiting for it to be realized.
No comments:
Post a Comment