Backwards and Forwards to MAD MEN

Last night, I went to a talk at The Strand about Mad Men Carousel, critic Matt Zoller Seitz's new book, which is a critical companion to the television series Mad Men. The book contains recaps and analysis for each episode of the series, and provides extensive footnotes for each episode. Every episode of Mad Men is jam-packed with references and allusions - the footnotes begin that work of breaking those down, though one book is certainly not enough to do that.

 


Seitz spoke on a panel with fellow critics who love Mad Men and contributed to the book. They talked about when they first started to watch the show, what made them keep watching, spoke generally and specifically about themes in the series, and took audience questions. It was a really fantastic talk, and I just wanted to note a few interesting points made throughout the night. And if you haven't watched Mad Men, please do! Yes it is another show (mainly) about privileged sad white people problems, but the show is so humane and brilliant in that the characters in the show are so fully realized. The subjectivity of each is believable. And the structure and composition of the show is unparalleled, in my opinion. It is one of those few experiences where I have felt like I am watching a novel happen on the screen (if you couldn't already tell, novels are IT for me - there is no other medium as beautiful and profound to me). But Mad Men is also a very good example of what the medium of television can do.

Anyway! Here are some things from the talk:

• Seitz and Co. talked a lot about how many think Mad Men can be very 'on the nose' about its themes, about how it goes about connecting the lives of the characters to the various historic events of the 1960s. Seitz and crew disagreed, and Seitz said, 'Mad Men is smarter than anyone who thinks they're smarter than Mad Men.' I think at first glance, Mad Men can seem very on-the-nose, or it can be dismissed because come on, do we really need another show about white people? We really don't, but I think there is so much in Mad Men that is still valuable to consider, and can be revisited over and over again to mine for new meanings and connections.
• [Slight spoilers for the finale] Seitz and Co. were asked about how they felt about the ending of the finale, which, like any series finale, was contentious among fans. They specifically addressed the point as to whether or not the ending was meant to be read as highly cynical, suggesting that our protagonist Don Draper has made no progress. Seitz argued against this by pointing out the very first shot in the pilot vs. the very last shot of the finale. At the beginning of the pilot, we get a close-up of Don, but it is a close-up of the back of his head. When we first meet him, we do not actually see his face, meaning that he is closed off from us and others around him, as he is in a restaurant. While the last shot in the series finale is a close-up of his face; he is meditating with others, and smiling, suggesting a new openness. How much of a better person Don is, despite the fact that he goes back to McCann and commodifies the hippie movement for a Coca-Cola ad, there is still growth, or at least an awareness of who he is and what he's doing. Wow.

I really love going to talks, because they remind me a bit of college, in that you are with others who are (hopefully) just as excited about something as you are, and the conversation and insights that derive from that kind of enthusiasm are always so interesting. It's also nice to be in conversation with others because they will reveal things and spark thoughts that you could never have on your own, which is why it is so important to me to talk about books. And I haven't re-watched any Mad Men since the finale in April, but it might be time...

Signatures from MZS and contributors!