Basket of Kisses

Last news before the season premiere!

New York Magazine’s Culture Vulture, which has been Mad Men crazy lately, explores Don Draper’s bookshelf.

Metromix of South Florida reviews Season 2. Still! Not! Reading! But the headline calls it the “best drama on TV,” so that’s something. The Houston Chronicle has another review I refuse to read. As does the Rocky Mountain News.

The Courier-Journal of Louisville, KY and Southern Indiana loves Mad Men and calls Jon Hamm “a delicious mix of Clark Kent, Steve Carell and Hank Azaria.” My head just exploded.

Progrrl alerted me to Judd Apatow‘s great love of Mad Men (see 7:05).

Ad Rants has an interview with Matt Weiner that, not surprisingly, focuses on advertising. Weiner is at his best, offering great tidbits such as this (but truly, read the whole thing):

MK: Speaking of cancer, have you received a lot of complaints about the amount of smoking characters do onscreen?

MW: I do and I’m kind of disturbed by the fact that people do not have problems with child murderers and people eating each other’s entrails and yet they’re still so disturbed by the smoking, which is destructive, a personal habit and shouldn’t be encouraged. To tell the story without it is ridiculous. I grew up in this world in 1985. People can pretend like it didn’t exist and they can be disgusted by it, repulsed by it. Why don’t we do a movie about the Civil War, but not mention slavery.

Mad Men is Columbus (Ohio) Alive!‘s #1 pick for what to do this weekend.

The Fresno Bee points out that Mad Men is “an unlikely hit.” (Although it isn’t exactly a hit. Except among critics. But we’re working to change that!)

The Vancouver Sun uses Mad Men as a jumping off point to talk about various TV shows that have gone back in time.

Via Whedonesque, I learn that Salon’s “Critic’s Picks” single out Vincent Kartheiser’s portrayal of Pete.

The Chicago Sun-Times drew me in with a review that opens It doesn’t spoil anything to say a change is coming to the 1960s ad men (and woman) of AMC’s hit show “Mad Men.” I felt safe, and there is a very small spoiler, but it was a good review, because it compared what we actually know about the changing times of 1962 to the show. And it stated something that I hadn’t really known:

…that newfangled copier all the secretaries are cooing about? It’s probably going to put at least half of the typing pool out of jobs before the so-called pink-collar workforce nearly disappears altogether.

The destruction of the “pink-collar workforce” by technology is something I hadn’t thought about, and it’s very meaningful here.

The LA Times style blog, All the Rage, is re-running a profile of Janie Bryant in honor of tonight’s season premiere. This is the second article I’ve seen stating that Bryant got the Emmy nomination for Mad Men (she already has an Emmy, for Deadwood). I think Bryant is a real rising star and the fact that she was overlooked by the Emmys for Mad Men is not touching her.

The Dallas News has an interesting article on serial television versus stand-alone shows, and how networks and cable stations view them differently. Mad Men is prominently mentioned.

I’m amused by this mini-profile of Christina Hendricks in the Boston Herald. It’s nothing I haven’t read before (but then, my job is to read everything), but since this is the same paper that panned Mad Men, it’s kind of cute to see it there.

The review in the Salt Lake Tribune is just about the show in general, and doesn’t have season 2 spoilers.

Basketcase simone pointed me to this cute Parade Magazine article on Jon Hamm.

We’ve quoted Tim Goodman of the SF Gate before. He’s back with a review of season 2 that looks spoilery. Hat tip to Basketcase John Rotschild.

CBS News‘s take on Mad Men is smart and thoughtful.

Alan Sepinwall has been blogging about Mad Men for a long time. I am afraid to read his Season 2 Preview, but I’m sure it’s smart.

And this just in, Eschaton, one of the largest liberal blogs on the ‘net, is promoting Mad Men!