Mad Men: The dispersal of Quality TV and Complex Narrative

It’s not (just) HBO: The dispersal of Quality TV and Complex Narrative

Over the last couple of weeks, and subsequent blog posts, there’s been a preoccupation with how the HBO network has established a particular brand of quality TV, one focused on blurring genres and creating rich televisual universes and complex narratives. However, with this week’s focus on Mad Men, it’s clear that quality television can exist outside of the HBO stable.

Mad Men is one of my favourite series, an original drama created by Matthew Weiner (who had been schooled in quality TV by his work on The Sopranos) for AMC, a cable network that had recently undergone a major shift in programming. Now regarded as a home for acclaimed television (as well as Mad Men, AMC is responsible for Breaking Bad and The Walking Dead), AMC was originally created with the purpose of displaying classic American films – Mad Men was the first of its original, scripted television content. This transition mirrors HBO’s own beginnings, while Showtime has also crossed into quality original content in the last decade.

Mad Men’s initial appeal lies in its 1960’s setting. It is a period drama with high production values – its lavish sets and costumes, all period appropriate, dominated much of the show’s early write-ups. However, as Brian noted in the lecture, what is truly engrossing about Mad Men is how it functions as a comparison between their world, and ours. While Don, Sterling and Pete all consider themselves a vital part of the modern world, in control of themselves and their surroundings, we are aware of what’s to come. We understand that the 60’s are a time of incredible social upheaval, and that their views and values are set to be thoroughly challenged in the coming decade.

We, the audience, are similarly challenged. The world of Mad Men is, for lack of a better word, cool. The style, the advertising world, the rampant alcoholism – it all works to create a sleek, glossy image. However, the series refrains from lingering on the superficial, instead delving beneath the surface to objectively highlight the misogyny, racism and emptiness of many of these character’s lives. No character personifies this contrast more than Don Draper. In ‘The Wheel’, Mad Men’s first season finale, Don is tasked with creating a campaign for a slide projector, and does so by focusing on nostalgia. His spiel affects him, as Don realizes his own nostalgia for a life he’s left behind – warm, loving moments with his wife and children. He rushes home, and we’re treated with a heart-warming sequence as Betty realizes that her husband truly cares about his family. Then we’re given the truth. Don arrives to an empty home, his family long gone. This is his reality, and no amount of nostalgia can wash away his philandering and casual cruelty.

Something else I picked up on from the lecture was Jason Mittel’s thoughts on the show, and his dislike for it, based on its unlikeable characters. Mittel argues that “serial television is ultimately a character-centered form”, which I agree with. Mad Men is probably more character-centered than most. It doesn’t have a central crime to investigate, or a drug empire to maintain – it is a bunch of people in a workplace, dealing with their relationships and job as best they can. I would agree with Mittel that the vast majority of the show’s characters are deeply, deeply flawed. However, I would disagree that their flaws impede our engagement with the series. Let’s Don Draper as an example, as the show is built around him. Don habitually cheats on his wife. He shows signs of misogyny, homophobia and alcoholism. However, he also possesses a strong code of ethics (that seemingly don’t relate to monogamy) and fairness. He mentors and promotes Peggy Olsen, a woman, to become a copywriter, to the chagrin of his male employees. He keeps a colleague’s homosexuality under wraps for the sake of the man’s career (though later expresses his disgust with him), and treats the black workers in the building with respect and dignity. He is a fascinating, flawed human being. Much of Mad Men’s appeal lies in the series unveiling the various layers of his personality and discovering who he truly is.

I am of course, deeply biased, because I love the show, and think it’s a sterling (geddit?*) example of modern quality television.

*Because he’s a character … on the show … Sterling? It was a pun? Forget it, I’ll be in the corner.