Mad Men in The Atlantic

There's a great article in the November edition of The Atlantic on Mad Men: 

Some elements of Mad Men’s appeal have been nicely explained by Charlie Rose (who can always be counted on to embrace the conventional wisdom) in that inimitably sycophantic, answering-his-own-question-that-isn’t-even-a-question way of his: “Why has this so resonated, especially with critics and people who like smart writing and tightly drawn characters?” he pronounced in an interview with the show’s creator, Matthew Weiner, and two of its male stars, Jon Hamm and John Slattery. The writing—and the direction, photography, and (with one important exception) acting—is superlative, the show is dramatically compelling. Moreover, as Rose’s customarily reverential invocation of the critics suggests, not just Rose but also Mad Men’s affluent, with-it target audience are particularly susceptible to liking whatTheNew York Times’ Arts and Style sections tell them to like (30-plus articles in two years!). Add to this the meticulous, lush styling and art direction, which make the series eye candy for its (again) target audience, already in thrall to the so-called mid-century-modern aesthetic—an appeal that’s now further fueled by the slimline suit/pencil skirt marketing tie-in with Banana Republic, that canny purveyor of upper-mass-market urbanity. Then there is the miraculous Hamm, playing the lead character, Don Draper. Here is an actor who at once projects sexual mastery and ironic intelligence, poise and vulnerability. That alchemy has created the greatest male stars, from Gable to Grant to Bogart to McQueen to Clooney, because it wins for them both the desire of women and the fondness of men. So the show’s white-hotness was all but predetermined.

Comments

[Eric]

Schwartz is pretty brutal, not so much about the show, but about the viewers. He seems to feel a deep disdain for people who like the show: "Mad Men is those shows grown up, grown hard, and—in ways that flatter its writers’ and viewers’ images of themselves—grown wise."

and

"We all like to congratulate ourselves, and as a group, Mad Men’s audience is probably particularly prone to the temptation."

Being a fan of the show, I have to say: Boy, Benjamin Schwarz nailed me. NAILED me. I do so like to congratulate myself. Bravo, Benjamin Schwarz, for pointing out what a philistine I am.

[Arie]

If Schwartz is going to slam Charlie Rose for a verbal miscue, he and his editors need to look more closely at sentences like this,

"Add to this the meticulous, lush styling and art direction, which make the series eye candy for its (again) target audience, already in thrall to the so-called mid-century-modern aesthetic—an appeal that’s now further fueled by the slimline suit/pencil skirt marketing tie-in with Banana Republic, that canny purveyor of upper-mass-market urbanity. "

Yes, that's one sentence. He is no disciple of Hemmingway. It includes 4 commas, a long dash, 6-short-dashes, a forward slash and a set of parenthesis. It think that qualifies as hitting for the cycle.

Perhaps he seems himself as a meticulously lush, canny purveyor of aesthetic literary style. Now I have to pony up and get Netflix again so I can catch the show, I may end up agreeing with him. :)

[MC]

Hmmm...you guys touched on things that I kind of glossed over on my first reading. I thought Schwartz balanced some criticism with some praise for the show. But don't get me wrong it's my favorite TV show of the moment, but I sometimes think it's a bit too right on the nose, but other than that great production values, acting, and writing.

Anyway, Arie I think you'll like it.

By the way there were two short stories embedded in the story-I read Mailer's "The Language of Men" from Esquire and liked it. I haven't gotten to John O'Hara's story "Graven Image" yet though.