Mad Men II: A Man For All Seasons

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't think being cynical about it is being simple about it. I think it has more to do with how you view the Don character. I have never liked Don's character in the way that, say, Laz has, so I think I was less inclined to look for a positive spin on the ending.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
I think there's a knowing smirk to the ending because it is, after all, the co-opting of the counterculture to push product to the straight world, but I don't think "insidious" is the right word. I don't see McCann as "winning" or that Don somehow lost his freedom by returning to his medium. There is a symbiotic relationship here between creativity and commerce, but it's one that I believe Don is ultimately aware of.

I tend to err on the side of the ending being a happy one, albeit somewhat bittersweet. It wouldn't be Mad Men if the ending were that simple.

I've seen this idea of "co-opting" the counterculture several times now, and I'm not sure I buy it. IMO the show never romanticized the counterculture; it was often portrayed as just as self-serving and contrived as the world of Don, Roger, etc. So Don might use it as ad fodder, but he's not besmirching or corrupting it in any way.
 
Then pick a less sinister verb, I suppose. Whatever Don's intentions, a political movement's ideals and associated imagery were evoked by McCann to sell Coke.
 
I've seen this idea of "co-opting" the counterculture several times now, and I'm not sure I buy it. IMO the show never romanticized the counterculture; it was often portrayed as just as self-serving and contrived as the world of Don, Roger, etc. So Don might use it as ad fodder, but he's not besmirching or corrupting it in any way.



Say what you will about the show; that commercial absolutely co-opted the counterculture.

It doesn't have to be bad, but that is what it did. It used simplified hippie values to sell Coke.
 
Then pick a less sinister verb, I suppose. Whatever Don's intentions, a political movement's ideals and associated imagery were evoked by McCann to sell Coke.


"Insidious" -- which, I agree, may have been too strong, but forgive me for typing on a phone on the metro commuting to work -- had nothing to do with Don himself and everything to do with the product itself.

I think we can agree that the marketing of cigarettes is/was insidious. Remember Joe Camel? "It's toasted." Etc.

Is Coke, with its 12 teaspoons of sugar, that much worse?
 
I don't think being cynical about it is being simple about it. I think it has more to do with how you view the Don character. I have never liked Don's character in the way that, say, Laz has, so I think I was less inclined to look for a positive spin on the ending.

The show's creator and main writer disagrees with you and pretty clearly said what he meant. Not a lot of room for argument here at this point.
 
I disagree with him, but his interpretation is just as valid as Weiner's. It's allowed to have a different point of view than what the creator intended.
 
Had he left it more ambiguous, maybe. But when he comes right out and says what his intentions are re: the character, no, it's not "just as valid".

Weiner himself is cynical to a degree about the ad industry, so it's not like his ending is meant to be taken as some rose-colored glasses view, and he acknowledges the irony present in the Coke ad. And of course, his characters certainly have the potential to have problems and disappointments in the future that continues past the end of what's seen on the show. But to sit here and go "Don's an asshole and he's co-opting the counter-culture for his own professional gain" is flat-out wrong because Weiner is saying that's not what he wrote or depicted.
 
Pointing cynicism toward Don is a total misreading of the ending. McCann has earned the cynicism, but Don is merely a creative individual in a fucked up industry. The idea that one man's moment of inspiration can be appropriated to sell product is certainly bittersweet, but that's not something Don can change and I look positively on his intentions.
 
If we would be looking at all opinions as more right or wrong when opposing them with the exact stance of the creator - this would be very conservative. When an artist puts out his or her work out there, and the work sends an ambiguous message (this ending is without a doubt still ambiguous), it's up to the viewer/reader to decide on his own how he feels about it. Yes, some interpretations may be off, but it can be a legitimate interpretation if it's well-argued. I see no problem if someone has a more cynical outlook at the ending - even if I disagree with it. I for one think that looking at the health risks of Coke as opposed to the message of the ending is really reaching it.

Not to mention that not everybody watches the interviews a writer makes afterwards. All things considered, he made his ultimate statement with the episode itself. Everything else is ultimately irrelevant.
 
As far as health effects, if we have to go there, Coke may not be fantastic but it's not like Don's spending the rest of his life advertising napalm or something.

Personally I take that whole ending on a more symbolic or meta level and could see Don never returning to New York (if they'd even have him back). I'm not saying that's how it is, but I feel it could be read that way despite the obvious hints otherwise (red ribbon in girl's hair etc etc etc)...
 
I see no problem if someone has a more cynical outlook at the ending - even if I disagree with it. I for one think that looking at the health risks of Coke as opposed to the message of the ending is really reaching it.

Again, a certain amount of cynicism is intended. But not with Don's character, which is where I take issue with readings like Peef's.

Pointing cynicism toward Don is a total misreading of the ending. McCann has earned the cynicism, but Don is merely a creative individual in a fucked up industry. The idea that one man's moment of inspiration can be appropriated to sell product is certainly bittersweet, but that's not something Don can change and I look positively on his intentions.

Exactly. And again, if you consider the scene during the discussion group with Don hugging the stranger, it is clear he has had a significant breakthrough. How someone goes from that to seeing Don meditating and having the idea come to him and merely thinking "Oh he's totally going to exploit this stupid shit!" is beyond a cynical take. It's incongruous with what we've just seen happen before this, and flies in the face of what Weiner clearly constructed over this whole final season--that the road to (at least some measure of) redemption is a long and rocky one, but it can be navigated successfully.
 
Best Pete Campbell moment ever: the time when he has to come and sign off on the estate stuff with Buddy and their increasingly senile mother, and she lays down the law about the unacceptability of adoption.

Buddy: It just... came up.

Pete: How is that possible!
 
Of many great Pete moments:

1. The fisticuffs with Lane.
2. Don claims the golf partners will love that he played with his tie thrown over his shoulder and his sleeves rolled up. Pete, indignantly: "They probably will!"
 
I had a nice dream about Jon Hamm last night.

Wasn't sure where else to put this, but I wanted to put it on the internet somewhere.
 
I liked the last season, and the ending, and pretty much everything about the show. I can't go and say top whatever number tv show of all time for me when it doesn't have too much competition from many other shows critically and fan-ly considered great, based on how little tv I actually watch. But I really liked it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom