A voice of his own
Daniel Mendelsohn has written a rather harsh critic (although it isn't a rant but a three page analysis) on Mad Men in the New York Reviews of Books. I don't agree with everything he said - in my opinion the writing is more uneven than weak, and there are moments of great acting here and there (Vincent Kartheiser above all is really good)-, but I don't quite disagree either; he does provide interesting insights and I'm glad that he too considers Mad Men to be nothing but a sophisticated soap!
I do enjoy the show, and there are a few episodes that I loved, but the soapish side has always prevented me from subscribing to the general "Mad Men is brilliant" claim.
I've said it more than once in here, Breaking Bad is AMC's gem, not Mad Men. The Emmys are so in the wrong about that (and they try to make it up by rewarding Bryan Cranston year after year!)...
Sadly, beloved Daniel doesn't seem to know Breaking Bad.
On the other hand, he praises Battlestar Galactica and The Wire so I still have the biggest crush on him. :- )
If only I could make him watch OZ and Breaking Bad, and Buffy of course. The specialist in Greek tragedy in him cannot not like those shows!
What I have always loved about Daniel Mandelsohn, besides his writing style, is that he doesn't play by the group rule. He is non-conformist and hates what we call here, communautarisme. It's true of his way of being a Jew, of being gay, of being a critic and of being a novelist. He doesn't necessarily look for dissidence or deviance, it's just that he is a man who thinks and a free man.
Anyway, it's good to read him again.
ETA: Daniel's critique caused reactions! You can read this blog and the comments on it for instance.
ETA2: I forgot to say that, the acting aside, there's another point on which I disagree with Mendelsohn. It's about Sal Romano:
"At the beginning of the show I thought there was going to be some story line that shed some interesting light on the repressive sexual mores of the time, but apart from a few semicomic suggestions that Sal’s wife is frustrated and that he’s attracted to one of his younger colleagues-and a moment when Don catches him making out with a bellhop when they’re both on a business trip, a revelation that, weirdly, had no repercussions-the little story line that Sal is finally given isn’t really about the closet at all. In the end, he is fired after rebuffing the advances of the firm’s most important client, a tobacco heir who consequently insists to the partners that Sal be fired. (Naturally he gives them a phony reason.) The partners, caving in to their big client, do as he says. But that’s not a story about gayness in the 1960s, about the closet; it’s a story about caving in to power, a story about business ethics."
I think it was actually bold and good writing from Mad Men not to go the "closet route" and to have Sal losing his job like that, and before that to choose the elliptical mode after the business trip episode. But I guess I don't have Mendelsohn's expectations and bagages on that matter...
I do enjoy the show, and there are a few episodes that I loved, but the soapish side has always prevented me from subscribing to the general "Mad Men is brilliant" claim.
I've said it more than once in here, Breaking Bad is AMC's gem, not Mad Men. The Emmys are so in the wrong about that (and they try to make it up by rewarding Bryan Cranston year after year!)...
Sadly, beloved Daniel doesn't seem to know Breaking Bad.
On the other hand, he praises Battlestar Galactica and The Wire so I still have the biggest crush on him. :- )
If only I could make him watch OZ and Breaking Bad, and Buffy of course. The specialist in Greek tragedy in him cannot not like those shows!
What I have always loved about Daniel Mandelsohn, besides his writing style, is that he doesn't play by the group rule. He is non-conformist and hates what we call here, communautarisme. It's true of his way of being a Jew, of being gay, of being a critic and of being a novelist. He doesn't necessarily look for dissidence or deviance, it's just that he is a man who thinks and a free man.
Anyway, it's good to read him again.
ETA: Daniel's critique caused reactions! You can read this blog and the comments on it for instance.
ETA2: I forgot to say that, the acting aside, there's another point on which I disagree with Mendelsohn. It's about Sal Romano:
"At the beginning of the show I thought there was going to be some story line that shed some interesting light on the repressive sexual mores of the time, but apart from a few semicomic suggestions that Sal’s wife is frustrated and that he’s attracted to one of his younger colleagues-and a moment when Don catches him making out with a bellhop when they’re both on a business trip, a revelation that, weirdly, had no repercussions-the little story line that Sal is finally given isn’t really about the closet at all. In the end, he is fired after rebuffing the advances of the firm’s most important client, a tobacco heir who consequently insists to the partners that Sal be fired. (Naturally he gives them a phony reason.) The partners, caving in to their big client, do as he says. But that’s not a story about gayness in the 1960s, about the closet; it’s a story about caving in to power, a story about business ethics."
I think it was actually bold and good writing from Mad Men not to go the "closet route" and to have Sal losing his job like that, and before that to choose the elliptical mode after the business trip episode. But I guess I don't have Mendelsohn's expectations and bagages on that matter...