The title: I take it as a reference to Pete.
Paul’s party
Love all the references to Jersey where we lock our cars, “this is America”, “I took my purse,” It’s Montclair, folks.
Peggy: “I work with these stuffed shirts.”
Paul Kinsey’s not the only one with a beard. Kitty’s definitely a scream. You can tell. Wait for that plot to heat up.
If I wanted to find a non-verbal indicator that a character is becoming a douchbag, the male scarf would be my go-to.
South Orange is in the house!!!
Okay. Joan. What a yotch.
I’ve read most of the remarks about her and Sheila, and all I can say is that Joan has no right to make a stranger “ any stranger “ feel uncomfortable because she’s black. I say this because we know that’s not Joan’s M.O. But casual racism can sting more deeply than the hard-core stuff.
If she wanted to get a little catty about being Paul’s ex and be a little aloof or whatever, fine. But to basically say “I’m surprised Paul would date a black person,” seems way over the line “ even for the early sixties.
Paul’s hallway
I so love Peggy, but I think she’s falling into a bit of a trap about the line between work and life. Someone on the big thread mentioned the theme of this episode is Don’s line “there’s life, and there’s work.” I think that’s a good observation.
She doesn’t just blow the guy off, she relates it to the fact she’s a writer, which comes off pompous (and yes, it would be pompous if a guy said it too).
Peggy’s room
I don’t think anyone knows who’s calling “ it doesn’t matter, plot-wise. It simply reveals that a) her baby doesn’t live with her, and b) she’s still a young lady that likes to go to parties and make out with guys and fall asleep in her dress. No big whoop.
Great shot, though.
Elevator
Love how Roger hates John Glenn. I think we’re starting to see him separate further from what would be considered “mainstream.”
S-C office
I thought they were all standing around looking at Hildy.
Hey Peggy, nice Hoover.
My office
I love ketchup. Hoping Robert Morse’s shakes are for some dramatic effect of some kind
Don’s office
Such amazing writing. First of all, all we know about Pete’s relationship with his dad is from about 5 minutes together in S1E4. We never see them together, or the dad at all, again.
That shrug is heartbreaking. That first reaction “ “make arrangements, I guess,” “ speaks volumes about that relationship.
And then Don. Oh, these two empty, bankrupt people “Go home and be with your family.” “Why?” “Because that’s what people do.”
How about: “To comfort your family,” or “To help find out what happened.”
My office
Cooper loves Don.
“I’d do anything for a foothold.” Someone’s gonna win here, and I don’t think it will be Duck “ something’s gonna make him flame out at S-C, just like he did in London.
The Widow Campbell’s house
Someone commented about the “the elephant in the room” “ soooooo great. I think the elephant in the room was the old man’s money. Everyone thinks there is some.
“I like to offer a nice bouquet of thoughts” “ hoo-fah.
The brother “ here’s a guy that’s spent the better part of a lifetime dealing with his parents’ bullshit. You can tell. Like all great shows, MM gets the best walk-ons and 1-scene actors.
Guess which one was pepper.
Drapers’ house
I didn’t notice until all the comments on the board, but Betty’s definitely more assertive “ less a supplicant.
I hope they washed that fat suit after Peggy was done with it.
Olsens’ house
She brightens up when her mom mentions the brassiere ads. Everything is work with Peggy. Every comment is work-related.
Drapers’ house
Oooh, Betty catches another man cheating. Only it’s Bobby taking candy.
“When I was a child I would have been way more afraid of my father than of going to sleep.” “ whoa.
” all that praise he accepted for something he didn’t do,” “I don’t need a book to know what little boys do.” And then she wins the hand. The look from Don.
Prediction: If it turns out that Don doesn’t already know that Betty knows about his affairs, and we witness him learning that she does “ his reaction will be to cheat more. He’s too used to the double standard “ it’s okay for him to talk with her therapist, but not okay for her to be dishonest in any way. He’ll feel burned and act out.
For now, it looks like he’s kinda turned on by her comments. Not sure if he’s on to her yet.
Olsen’s house
“Aren’t you gonna say goodnight?” Here’s the big reveal that crib, that blue one-piece here it comes a beautiful baby boy!
“I want Don Draper’s office!!” Cut.
Draper’s house
Betty smoking outside alone – she looks strong, and pissed just not an image we would have seen last season.
Pete & Trudy’s house
Can’t see this scene without thinking about the earlier comment about the pink elephant and Trudy’s get-up.
S-C office
Look, Joan nails him “ 100%. But I think this says more about Joan and how she treats people than it says about Paul or their relationship. Queen B, indeed.
Pete’s office
Anyone else think Duck sort of looks like a younger Dick Clark?
Peggy’s office
Someone mentioned that they thought Peggy was being supportive of Joan and that’s why she vented to Peggy.
But when Peggy says she didn’t see who did it, it looked like “I wouldn’t tell you if I did, but I sure looked at what they posted.” Either way
Japanese restaurant
“You fooled me ” loaded line.
Smoky back room
“Hi, I’m Pete Campbell. I’m here to sell my soul and stick it to my prick of a dead father. Damn glad to meet you.” Flight #1 indeed.
“Anyone in the mood for another pound of flesh? I put our name in.” Gotta love Duck
Japanese restaurant
Don turns down the only happy ending he’s likely to see
Peggy’s church
Great call on the truck driver/date in the background.
As the Jewish boyfriend that was frequently brought to church, I totally identify with Peggy staying put during Communion. And, yes, I think the message here is that she hasn’t been to confession, so no body of Christ for her.
This scene is nearly Scorsese-like in all the symbolism and portrayal of the ritual of the Curch.
77 Responses to “Not-So-Live Blogging as I Rewatch "Flight 1"”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Long-winded response. You can count on it. Your summaries are rich, and give me much to work with.
The title: I take it as a reference to Pete.
You might be right. I’d been wondering.
Kitty’s definitely a scream. You can tell. Wait for that plot to heat up.
She’s lovely. He chose well. Too bad neither of them are familiar with the <d>faghag</d> camp-follower/gay man dynamic. They seem perfect BFFs; too bad it is will end tragically.
I so love Peggy, but I think she’s falling into a bit of a trap about the line between work and life. Someone on the big thread mentioned the theme of this episode is Don’s line “there’s life, and there’s work.†I think that’s a good observation.
That be me :- ) I'm all proud because I rarely suss out a theme.
And that make-out scene fascinates me. He was pretty much lovely. I mean, for a guy picking you up at a party, he was doing just fine. Not too nerdy (love that his name is Eugene) not too aggressive. And the making out was hot. I had more to add, but I think it just turned into a post, so I’ll stop.
I don’t think anyone knows who’s calling – it doesn’t matter, plot-wise. It simply reveals that a) her baby doesn’t live with her, and b) she’s still a young lady that likes to go to parties and make out with guys and fall asleep in her dress. No big whoop.
Agreed. Weiner is still grounding us, so that is the whoop… establishing the current context. I think it’s her mother or sister calling to bug her about the vacuum, but I agree the ringing phone is no mystery.
I thought they were all standing around looking at Hildy.
Ahh, you are among her many admirers. We do love Hildy.
Oh, these two empty, bankrupt people …
Beautiful. The part I struggled with was Pete’s questioning him, (I paraphrase), Really, that’s what you would do? That was just one hint odder than everything else.
Kartheiser = Emmy ’09. I hope. At least the nomination this time.
The brother—someone commented on how he didn’t so much as blink when he said of course Pete won’t be in the will. But more importantly, neither did Pete.
“When I was a child I would have been way more afraid of my father than of going to sleep.â€
More on this as it develops, I’ve suspected for awhile.
No other comments. You just have it all perfect.
Except agreed, way to call it, kites!
Great write ups!!
Still my favorite line from S2 is from Don Draper:
'What do you want me to do, hang a pepsi out the window and see if I can hook a stroller…' (paraphrasing). Still makes me laugh out loud when I hear it.
I'm dismayed at all the anti-male scarf rhetoric on this blog. I for one am a fan of scarves, and just might wear one in a casual context if it was socially acceptable today. Such a thing would not have been out of place in 1962, however. Cary Grant and Fred Astaire were both admirers of the silk scarf. But Paul didn't carry himself like Cary Grant or Fred Astaire would have. Paul is a douche, scarf or no scarf.
Peggy turning down the boy at the party was about power. She doesn't have to say yes. In her mind, she has other options. She's not desperate. Don also rejects someone in this episode. He could have had sex with the waitress, but turns her down. It's an interesting link.
I wonder what happened to the TV they rolled out for the election night party? It would have been useful to gather around for the crash news.
It's in Paul's living room.
Thurdays, I don't know why your comments got spammed. I restored one and deleted the other.
Regarding Peggy's put down. It was much more about her than him. And she has some clear conflicts of interest. She wants to be found desirable, flirt, have fun, etc. but she will be dealing with the results of that so she cannot take it too far. And as RetroGirl said, she is not desperate. Therefore she gives an unambiguous put down and leaves. Besides, she knows she has to spend the next night at her families so, while drunk, she is also looking ahead.
Did anyone notice her friend was watching both of them make out and then after she rejected him, she left with Peggy? It's almost like Peggy was staging the whole thing. Honestly, what weirdo(especially a woman) stands in a doorway, watching a couple make out? Especially if she's a friend or your ride or whatever…
Good job as usual!
Does Peggy's mother go to confession and tell the priest that she lies about where Peggy goes to church?
Peggy turning down the boy at the party was about power. She doesn’t have to say yes. In her mind, she has other options. She’s not desperate. Don also rejects someone in this episode. He could have had sex with the waitress, but turns her down. It’s an interesting link.
Hmmm, that reminds me of the post a few weeks ago about the parallel construction of "The Marriage of Figaro," with incidents in the first half being mirrored in the same order in the second half. Since Peggy's rejection hapens almost at the beginning of the episode, and Don's almost at the end, could this episode have been constructed "accordion" style, ala Hitchcock's "Notorious?" Anyone want to map it?
[I can't help but note here that the most remarkable thing about Don's encounter with the Asian woman in the restaurant is that it didn't seem outrageous or even unexpected that she would approach him. In any other circumstance, a woman that beautiful walking up and making such a barely-veiled proposition would prompt thoughts of "oh, come on, as if that could really happen," but with Don Draper (or maybe Jon Hamm), we assume it must happen all the time.]
Good job, B. Coop!
This is ThursdaysChild. What happened w/ my log in info? It says my password is incorrect and when I ask for my 'forgotten' password, it asks for me to reset. I tried to re-register w/ a different name, and email addy, but for some reason I'm having no luck. Help!!!
@Melville
Don Draper's been written as a man's man and ladies' man, with swagger to spare. Last season the man was beating women off with a stick…the twin in Long Weekend, very pregnant Francine wanting to shower with him, the 2 chicks at the bar in RITF. So it's like a given that some beautiful woman would approach Don. There are other great-looking Mad Men, but there's only one cock-of-the-walk, Don!
I miss Don the Slut so much!:(
**I miss Don the Slut so much!:( **
Me too!
LOL @ the TV in Paul's living room!
Retro, I think Peggy turning down the guy was about power/choice, but also about fear of pregnancy, because Hello? Last time she was on the Pill, and that worked out so well!
And also, maybe about her going back to a more girlish way of expressing desire; making out rather than screwing. Reclaiming a pre-motherhood form of sexuality.
Tracy, I got nothing. Email me with your old registration info and I'll see if I can fix it.
Emailed you Deborah…thanks.
Great writeup of Sunday’s ep. Mine is here (http://feinsodville.tumblr.com/post/44736934/last-night).
Did anybody else catch Peggy’s blind date from season 1 (the truck driver) in the row behind her at church? Great background casting, I thought.
Ha HA!
That douchy scarf was funny! The second i saw him in view with that on lyrics of a song came in my head…
"You walked into the party
Like you were walking onto a yacht
Your hat strategically dipped below one eye
Your scarf it was apricot…"
Ha, it wasn't apricot, and he didn't have a hat, but you get the picture!
ok. thats enough.
That song was from the 70's, so i guess douchy Paul was a douche ahead of his time, a pioneer in douchbaggery
LOL! Jungle Red
…And you're so vain, you probably think your name is Don Draper, don't you? *Don't You?*
(But it's Paul.)
Seriously, when he was walking around with that Rhone Gallager, and resembling Orson Wells, it reminded me of the Paul Masson commercials: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpj0t2ozPWY
Mad Men is influencing fashion. But I pray men don't start wearing whatever the hell that was around Paul's neck!
As for Sheila’s lack of response… she works in a supermarket in 1962. She has to be polite to insensitive white women every day.
Right! Good call.
Yes … Douchy Paul could have made a better choice than that scarf. But really, the sartorial is just the beginning with him. (Introduce two women to each other at a party and then tell them NOT to talk? Oh, Paul.)
Replace that scarf with a live python. There's a start.
Re one of the scenes in your recap, B. …
"Aren't you gonna say goodnight?" Hands down, that was the most chilling line of the episode.
I knew what was coming after that — and I swear I almost bolted from the room. There are some things I have a hard time watching; since the birth of my niece, now a toddler (a couple of months older than that child in the scene), neglect on this level is one of them.
But you saved the scene for me with that line of yours. "I want Don Draper's office!"
Classic. Thank you. I need a good laugh, most days — and I'll admit that I'm still really thrown by this part of "Flight 1". Much obliged.
The weird thing is that I didn't expect the waitress in the Asian restaurant to speak in broken English or anything. This is what I've been pondering about that scene. The waitress wore a dress that's traditionally a Chinese garment, cheongsam (sp?) but a Japanese song played in the background. I'm sure it's not a "accidentaly on purpose" mixture of Asian cultures…..
*an accidentally on purpose
and how about paul almost hitting trudy in the face with his pipe? do i need to go on?
Poor Trudy. She could use a good pipe.
Unfortunately, Paul was the one smoking it
I don't feel that there's enough information yet to assume that the child in the crib is Peggy's.
It was implied that Peggy had regularly attended church before the birth of her child. So that means that Peggy's mother would have seen her through out the pregnancy. I wonder if Peggy's mother is also the denying type . It seems that the mother feels the need to lie as to why Peggy is not attending church, a new unexpected child in the family might just be too much for her to be comfortable with lying about.
Wouldn't it be much more poignant if the price of Peggy's job at S-C and the continued contact/support of her family is the giving her child up for adoption?
That quiet held-in quality of Peggy could be major sadness-anger-rage.
That would be quite a red herring if the baby was not Peggy's. Eh, I don't know it would be poignant for Peggy to give her child up for adoption, because Peggy has spent her pregnancy in denial, making the baby go away would be the preferred/easier way. She didn't hesitate to turn away from the child. For all we know, the only reason her family found out is because of the negative psych. evaluation.
I think the tough part for Peggy would be to have the baby around as a constant reminder. And to have still not bonded with him. She can go to parties and neck in the hallway and sleep sprawled in her big bed, but she's given birth, and she will never really be carefree again.
I was not thinking of the Asian woman's accent, or whether her dress was culturally accurate.
I'll be in my bunk.
Ms. Darkly,
The realization of the poignancy of the actions of one's youth sometimes takes years.
I was also floored that she did not have an accent. Her eye make up also really surprised me after seeing Joan's and Betty's for so long. It was quite expressive.
Ok, maybe I'm stupid, but it terms of Peggy getting pregnant again, what about condoms? Weren't people using condoms for quite some time? I read that soldiers did during World War II. Was there just an expectation that now (in '60/'62) that the pill is around, men were no longer expected to use condoms? Or is this just a pre AIDS thing?
True, John.
However, like many of the things in this show much of the poignancy is meant more to be realized by the audience than the characters. I don't know that they realize how sad and desperate they seem at times.
I can honestly say it took me getting beyond a few sad situations to allow myself to realize how dingy and depressing things really were — it's one of my coping mechanisms.
"Did anybody else catch Peggy’s blind date from season 1 (the truck driver) in the row behind her at church? Great background casting, I thought."
I've watched this four times on iTunes and on OnDemand and I don't see the truck driver. There's someone who looks a little like him on first glance, but it's definitely not the same guy.
Coming late to this party (because I just watched the episode tonight) to say I liked Paul's scarf! I enjoyed his whole pretentious yet experimental, boho, wannabe-writer aesthetic. It looked like a fun party.
Chuck from Gossip Girl is also a master of the douchy scarf at least early in season, though his was knit and technically functional had he not worn it in such a manner.
The other interesting thing about the Asian woman… was I the only one who expected her to have an accent? The fact that she didn’t was a bit surprising and disarming. Weiner is going for our collective racist jugular.
As for Sheila’s lack of response… she works in a supermarket in 1962. She has to be polite to insensitive white women every day.
Pete and Don have one similarity, both are trying to figure out how to act in any given situation. Pete looks up to Don but at the same time resents the man. Last season Pete told Cooper what he found out about Don and Cooper said "who cares" but he also said something after Pete left the room.
Cooper: "Don, fire him if you want. But, Id keep an eye on him. One never knows how loyalty is born."
I think that Cooper could have easily added the word lost to the end of that statement. Pete looked to Don for support on how to deal with the death of his father and Don got wrapped up in his anger over Mohawk air. This gave Duck the opportunity to use Pete and perhaps change Pete's growing loyalty to Don.
Another similarity: Both of their fathers died in accidents.
The definition of "poser" has never interested me because I didn't find Paul to be that. He was just a jerk–not for his party or choice of friends–for mentioning how well he "got along with Negroes" and ripping Ken's short to shreds in front of a gaggle of girls. That was just really an asshole-y thing he did! Plus, that piece of cloth around his neck irked the hell outta me!
His dating a sista, no matter the motivations, was cool in my opinion. That interracial coupling faced serious violence at that point in the USA. Not to mention jailtime in some states.
Paul was not "Paul" in episode one; the original script and the DVD commentaries confirm that Michael Gladis was playing a character named "Dick," who was "one of the guys" and little more. Note that "Dick" (whose name is never mentioned) smokes cigarettes. Paul smokes a pipe. Michael Gladis was asked to come back as a different character.
A "poser" is someone who is striking a pose, simple as that. If Paul's pose is as a gentleman, then buying lunch does not make him not a poser, it can as easily be part of his pose.
Most of us loved the moment with Joan in NvK. But Paul is a poser. It's a shame for him to be so revealed, because he is so likable, but Matt Weiner's characters are complex and multifaceted. Paul Kinsey is a thoroughbred asshole, pretending he's a writer of substance to justify stealing and endangering the job of a secretary.
Paul isn't Midge, he isn't Roy. He is adapting a persona, not living a lifestyle. And Joan sees through him.
Not that he doesn't have good qualities—he does—but bulletpoints do not convince me that the character should be whitewashed.
Condoms: Nice girls didn't. I mean, Peggy could certainly use condoms…IF the guy had them. But guys were more reluctant to use them pre-AIDS, and a girl wouldn't buy them herself.
Besides, as I've said, the Pill, which is much more reliable than condoms, didn't work for Peggy; it's doubtful anyone has explained why. So why should she trust another method?
Yeah, sorry Peter G… I could actually argue that bullet point by bullet point there are flaws, but I'm way too tired and Deb summed it up well.
Condoms… good call also, Deb. I'm thinking that sailors and soldiers bought condoms. But certainly not women.
And no way is that not Peggy's baby. You can mark that I said it here. Weiner's not playing us that way.
The pill only works when you've been on it a full cycle. Didn't Peggy get it on with Pete (the first time, when he showed up at her apt.) when she had just been given her prescription? She may have only taken one or two pills at that point.
Thank you Deborah – you are correct – Michael Gladis' character "Dick" in S1E1 was changed to our "Paul" starting with S1E2 – point well taken. That eliminates bullet #3.
I think your comment about him …"adapting a persona, not living a lifestyle" is very interesting – and certainly supports the poser view. My thoughts are that perhaps Paul is the first main character to be actually moving toward that different lifestyle – although I agree – he is adapting and is at a minimum insecure now.
Paul Kinsey is indeed a flawed character – the thievery was inexcusable, wanting to drop his pants in front of the 2-way mirror was juvenile – and more… and my comments were in no way intended to "whitewash" the character and his many flaws. But as you so correctly pointed out, Matt Weiner's characters are complex and multi-faceted – and I was positing that Paul may be more "real" than he appears in that the decisions he has made are often challenging of the status quo, and in some areas career-threatening.
The language of my post was intended to generate some thoughtful dialogue on the subject – have some fun discussing the character. I am not in any way suggesting that those who label Paul as a "poser", a "douch", an "asshole" are not honestly convinced he is – I know there's a real good chance I am the one who is off the mark with my analysis. But I also think those characterizations may over-simplify the dramatic and thematic content Matt has in store for him. Again, IMHO. Thanks.
Main character? In an ensemble cast that seems to be two-tiered, he is not upper-echelon.
And Weiner called him a douche. And Weiner gets to be right.
Geez Roberta – I never suggested Paul was upper-echelon. Paul is a member of the permanent "main" ensemble cast.
I thought the wording of my posts were very open and friendly. Just trying to suggest an alternate view and see if participants would enjoy responding with their ideas (pro or con mine).
You seem sharp and angry in your responses to me – have I done/said something wrong? If so, I apologize. I think this is one of the highest quality, best run and moderated BLOGS I have ever visited – and one of the many reasons I feel that is your and Deborah's willingness to have opposing thoughtful views and ideas expressed. Thanks. – Peter G.
Peter,
I can't speak for Roberta, but I don't think she's angry. Dunno, that's for her to say, but the nature of the conversation here tends to be opinionated and blunt with the assumption that people take it all in the spirit of debate.
When I was asked to come up with a post now and again, I was told that I could write what I wanted and disagree when I wanted.
So I do.
Paul as multi-faceted, criticizing his phoniness at the party doesn't mean he doesn't have good qualities. In fact, being a big fake is more annoying than, I don't know, evil. When someone is pretending to be someone they're not, or putting on a show, you just want to confront them with the truth — that you see through them.
Hey, people "sin" on a weekly basis, and wearing a scarf and being a pretentious barf face is way down on the list. In moderation it could be endearing as it indicates a certain insecurity.
The only issue I have with him is that I think he should have known better than to throw Sheila to the wolves — I'm not saying that was his agenda, but he works with these people, and knows that Pete Campbell alone could ignorantly say something rotten enough to wreck her night. So, if she was there to show how progressive he was more than because he cares, that's reall ass-holery.
But just being a show-off does not a villain make.
LippSisters, I’d like to propose a new topic – perhaps to have some fun by challenging my esteemed fellow BasketCases here, who provide the most thoughtful and intelligent TV BLOG commentary I’ve ever seen (in keeping with the intelligence and creativity of MAD MEN…), with a different viewpoint on Paul Kinsey.
Almost universally here, the character Paul Kinsey has been described as a “poserâ€. But my challenge to this august group (especially since we are in August!) is this: Paul Kinsey may actually be the most honest, open person in this group – and the greatest risk-taker.
Let me give my premise a shot:
First, a “poser†is generally defined as a person whose motives are not clear. You may wonder whether they really are who they say they are, and if they really believe what they say they do. Posers are often really good at hiding their true identity. A poser tends to go over the top to make sure everyone believes that he/she belongs. Posers will try hard to blend in. They often will never step outside of their comfort zone. A poser is great at pretending but is often caught when it comes to specifics. And perhaps most importantly to my premise: if you want to spot a poser, just look for the person who is quick to label others as posers. Most are insecure and try to pass the blame to anyone else.
In support of my thesis, I put forth my following interpretations of Paul Kinsey – whom I am suggesting is the LEAST poser of the entire group:
• He is one of the few characters who will admit his faults, e.g. to Joan after she says he has a big mouth, Paul says “you’re rightâ€. A poser would have defended his foolish actions.
• In that same scene, he showed genuine affection for Joan in holding his hand out to her to simply dance “cha cha chaâ€. Very sweet, very real – not poser-like at all (and one of my very favorite scenes of S1)
• In S1 EP 1, right off the elevator, Paul strongly chided Cosgrove for the ugly comments he made while Peggy was in the elevator – a poser would have chimed right in with Ken.
• Although still “a guy†who took a shot at kissing the “new girl†Peggy, his interest in Peggy was kind and genuine – Peggy’s tour of S-C was done voluntarily and in fact sweetly and with authentic friendship. And backed off right away when she said there was someone else.
• He was a gentleman when he refused to let Peggy pay for her lunch – not a poser move.
• His excitement about The Twilight Zone showed he really DID like unusual and edgy things – he was probably the only lover of Rod Serling in the group – that makes him interesting and different – not a poser.
• High quality or not, he actually did write a play (didn’t “pose†that he had) – and took their little performance of it in NvsK very seriously.
• Smoking a pipe was a statement he was making that he was different than the others in the organization – is he to be ostracized because he is different? Not very enlightened.
• Wearing a beard to the office in those days was a great risk – it showed courage and that Paul really WAS willing to be different – regardless of the consequences. A poser would not do that.
• Stealing an office typewriter – although an awful and bad thing to do – is not a poser move. Although bad, it was bold and risky. Not what a poser would do.
In fact, what I think many BasketCases are inadvertently guilty of… is exactly what that era of the 60s rebelled against – that is, the stereotype that anyone who is different is weird, off-beat, a fake, bogus, counterfeit – a â€poserâ€. It appears Paul is being labeled because he is different, when in fact, I propose that he is the only uniquely honest person in the group – willing to risk his career and relationships to live his life on his terms – not as defined by those around him.
So… dating a black woman makes him a poser? Or is he actually one of the only open-minded people in the company? And isn’t it a tad, shall we say, racist to assume that the only reason Paul would date a BLACK girl is because he is a poser? In that day and age – and in that industry – dating a black woman was a VERY risky move – a poser would not put himself on the line like that.
And maybe, just maybe, the scarf, the cognac, the music, the funky apartment represent what the 60s were to become – a decade of experimentation, of risk-taking, of daring to be different. If so, Paul is leading the edge – maybe he should be viewed as an explorer, a voyager, and adventurer – bringing the new era to this staid S-C world.
Could it be that those MM characters who think of Paul Kinsey as a poser – are simply jealous that he has the guts to be different at a time when conformity was paramount?
What do you think? Do I have any supporters in the group here? I know I will have some (probably many) honest and thoughtful dissenters. Let’s have some fun with this…
I think it's possible that Paul is both a douche and someone who is consciously trying to understand and embrace some of the societal changes that were happening at that time. He's always been pretentious, but that doesn't mean his feelings for Sheila are disingenuous. And despite the scarf and brandy snifter, his party looked fun, with a good mix of people, including professionals, intellectuals, and bohemians. I know I would have enjoyed it.
In 1962, it was daring for an Ivy Leaguer with a good job on Madison Avenue to openly date a Black woman. It might have jeopardized his career, his family and social ties, and in some instances and locales, his life. It's still a bit risky today. I know a few guys who work for conservative firms (in law, accounting and consulting), and the minute it's discovered that their significant other is a sista, their assignments change–they're moved off the more prestigious accounts, onto ones that are more…well, let's just say challenging. Never mind that these women have impeccable credentials that include prep school or ivy league educations as well as graduate degrees, but they're also beautiful, elegant and sophisticated–primo in every way imaginable. Think what that scenario might have been in 1962. It doesn't even make sense for Paul to go there merely to strike a pose or to appear more interesting.
Do you think Paul would invite Sheila to an event with Roger or upper management? I mean, I assume they'll hear about it, but there is a difference between that and asking her to the Christmas party.
I see Paul as making a statement in dress and where he lives that he believes or is trying to become part of the counterculture that may have started in the late 50's with the beatnicks and progressed in the 60's with the Hippies. Joan called him a 'poor little rich boy' and I wonder if that is a comment on his current economic status or if she is refering to the fact he may have money in his background. Joan is calling him on his affectations and saying that he is a phoney. I also think they still have very strong feelings for each other that will possibly play out in more negative ways as they try to deny their feelings.
Peter G, you prefaced your thoughts, by 'proposing a new topic' and 'challenging'. Which is fine and welcome. And you hoped it would be fun. But a lot of your arguments within your 'thesis' (your word) were kind of thin, and biased towards a character and an actor that you're consistently focused on, and a bit insulting to the intelligence of the basket collective. Everyone's got their favorites (if we don't get Don naked and with a brunette soon, our BC Kay is gonna blow!) but you seem a little heavy handed with your agenda to convince us that Paul's kind of a golden god. And up until this episode, I was a big Paul fan, but you are not gonna sell me on the notion that stealing a typewriter and watching someone (a girl, of course) get suspected of it has any kind of nobility in it. Honestly, that was as ugly a thing as I've ever seen on the show. 'Cause no way would he have stepped up if she'd gotten fired, and it would have been too late by then anyway.
And you also more than implied that most of the Basketcases couldn't see Paul as the sphere of light that he is because we are narrow-minded; when we see anyone different or challenging the norm, we call him a poser. I think that you know better than that; if you really look at that statement, and look at the conversations in here, the ones you have been reading and participating in, you'll see what a ridiculous accusation that is. There is no one here (or none that have surfaced or stayed long) who see any one thing, event, lifestyle, or especially a character, as one-dimensional. As Deb pointed out, Midge and Roy are good examples of the counter-culture, and no one here has accused them of being phonies. And Deb and I? Damn hippies. Countering whatever culture is left to counter.
From the moment Paul came onscreen in Flight 1, it was obvious that this was a guy hyped up and hopped up on him. At first I thought he was drunk (which he may well have been) and then I thought it was just the excitement of hosting a big party (I get a little nuts sometimes when I host) but there was this added layer of Look How Fucking Cool I Am, Cooler Than Any Of You.
He has a new girlfriend? He's in love? But he never told anyone she's black. He waited to show off his super-hipness in one fell swoop. To not mention to anyone in advance of this night that his girlfriend is black means either A) he is so incredibly evolved and colorblind that he honestly didn't find it noteworthy or B) he's full of shit and just pretending to be the former. And we already know, based on his story about the night with the negroes in Newark that it ain't A; that he is a guy impressed with his bad self.
So if I came off as abrupt–I do that sometimes. It was nearly 1 am and I'd worked a 14 hour day and really should have been asleep. But I admit this conversation is starting to leave me a little short on patience.
Countering whatever culture is left to counter.
That needs to be the epigraph on someone's blog. Indeed, I may quote Roberta in the sidebar of my blog, duly credited, of course.
I know Weiner called him a douche, and I take the point about the stolen typewriter, but I still don't think that all of Paul's affectations are insincere…even though I just called them affectations. Indeed, Roy rubbed me the wrong way more than Paul does.
I interpreted a lot of what Paul was doing–living in New Jersey (right? I'm not great with NYC-area geography), wearing the scarf, smoking a pipe, drinking from a brandy snifter–as trying on things that he believed were "hip" and "writerly," sure, and trying to impress his friends, but also as trying to cultivate certain tastes that might actually stick. I imagine the character is in his 20s, and I did a lot of that kind of thing in my 20s. Was I a poser? Maybe, sometimes. But I was trying to feel my way to an authentic self. (Still am.)
Dating Sheila is different. If dating Sheila merely fell into the above description–as trying on something new, as experimenting–that would be douchey, racist, etc. But, as others have said, there may well be genuine affection mixed with Paul's posing. I want to give Paul the benefit of the doubt (perhaps in part because I'd really like to see more of Sheila). Maybe the risk (and attendant excitement) Paul feels in dating Sheila is similar to the risk and excitement Don felt in dating Midge. But I don't question Don's genuine affection for Midge. Also, Don loves Betty but married her (I believe) because he thought she fit the part of the wife for the man Don was trying to be. Is that so different from what Paul is doing dating Sheila? Not noble, to be sure, but understandable and perhaps somewhat sympathetic.
What's cool about the show–and what makes the show not sexist despite its portrayal of sexism–is that we get to see Midge and Betty as fully developed people, not just as objects in Don's life. (And there are plenty of shows on tv and plenty of movies–the vast majority, I would argue–where women serve as nothing more than foils, ideals, and objects for the central men.) I would hope we get to see the same for Sheila, even though her connection to the show–Paul–isn't central like Don is. The show needs fully developed African American characters. The show has done a nice job of showing us sexism and anti-Semitism while including fully developed female and Jewish characters, but the show could also still be accused of "racism by omission" because we don't get fully developed African-American characters. Yet. (I hope.)
I think Peter G should just out himself as what he really is … Michael G trying desperately to bolster fan support for his douchbag character.
Really though, Peter, I think the spirit of your post was well in keeping with the site: zigging while everyone zags. Let's put this up and see if we can change the tide with a few well reasoned arguments. I cannot resist being contrarian when the mood strikes (**everyday**).
However, if I may suggest, your choice of topics out the gate could have been better contemplated. When we have Matt Weiner calling him a douch ON VIDEO, you're starting with two strikes against you. Not to mention that this is a tough room to begin with – MM fans are freaks by nature, so you gotta have your shit together.
That said, please keep at it. It sounds like you follow the show closely enough that a few barbs shouldn't bother you.
And as a rule, sparring with Roberta past midnight is a fool's errand.
Good luck -b
@Inanna…
You expressed exactly why I gave Paul, an asshat, a lot of leeway. I want to see more of Sheila!! Hell, I'd like to see more of Carla, the housekeeper, and elevator operator, Hollis. I'm sure there were more Asians in 1962 NYC than flirty waitresses. Have any Latinos been on the show thus far? Mad Men is "coloring up" the cast this season, slowly but surely. I also hope the characters become fully-developed.
Great inputs B. Cooper – well said – and good points made. And no, I am not Michael – I'm a 61 year old fan who was 17 in 1962 and just loves this show (and this Blog). I joined the business world as a Marketing and Sales person in 1969 (industrial equipment, not advertising) – and am still in Marketing at a management level. But even though my business experiences began several years later than MM – I saw (and at times experienced) many similar cultural and behavioral situations as shown in MM – really fascinating.
And no, I don't have a thin skin – on the other hand, I respect all of you and the LippSisters enough that I want to be thought of in a positive way regardless if what I say is agreed with or not. Thanks again for your insights.
Whoops, I can't add – I was 15 in 1962, 13 in 1960 – born in 1947 (see what I meant by the brain & the fingers…?)
Rondi—you are correct about the Pill. In fact, my very first post when we started Basket of Kisses was an examination of the Pill, because we got questions right away. But we (the audience) have no reason to believe that the nasty, smarmy doctor told Peggy this, and in her mental state upon giving birth, I kinda doubt she said "Hey, but I was on the Pill!" So no one would have expained to her then.
Roberta—The party with the "Negroes" was in Jersey City, not Newark.
Inanna—Montclair is indeed in New Jersey. It is considered very hip and up-and-coming now (has been for about 10 years) and I have no idea what it was like in 1962. I'll have to do some research (in my copious free time).
Maybe the risk (and attendant excitement) Paul feels in dating Sheila is similar to the risk and excitement Don felt in dating Midge.
Amazingly interesting thought, that. I am going to chew on it.
And as a rule, sparring with Roberta past midnight is a fool’s errand.
B. Cooper, I am officially in love with you.
And here’s the real test: name one solid campaign he’s been shown to have written? Going back to last season, their “big guns have been silent.â€
I think Paul's only strong campaign was the Liberty Banking.
Although still “a guy†who took a shot at kissing the “new girl†Peggy, his interest in Peggy was kind and genuine – Peggy’s tour of S-C was done voluntarily and in fact sweetly and with authentic friendship.
This was bothering me in the shower this morning. There was no friendship there at all. Freddy Rumsen championed Peggy's talent, Ken Cosgrove was supportive in teaching her the ropes, Don helped her write. Even Peter, scumbag that he is, was honest enough to tell her he hadn't read her copy.
Where was Paul? As soon as he couldn't get her into bed, he lost interest.
How do you guys get italics in your replies? I can do it in original posts, but not in the reply box …
Angle brackets. These things: <>.
Use < em > (without spaces) for italics meant as emphasis. Use < i > for italics meant as a title or quote. They look the same, but text readers used by the blind distinguish between the two. Any html opened in angle brackets is closed with a slash. That is, open italics with < em > and close them with .
< strong > and < b > are bold (the < b > is for titles).
< blockquote> is a quotation that looks like the quotes in the posts.
thx.
IMDb.com said that there was a goof, because Flight 1 crashed in 62, two years after the show takes place! Obviously this is not an avid viewer, how else could they think MW would make such a mistake?!
Have no fear, I already told them it was wrong and needed deleted!
ACD is on the case.
I don't even think you have to be an avid viewer to get that time has elapsed on the show. This isn't The Family Circus — people age and time goes by, and the passing of time is constantly being brought to the viewer's attention.
It would be like the watching the Tudors and protesting Ann Boleyn's death at the end of season 2 because we see the Field of The Cloth of Gold early in season one and that was 1520, but she didn't die until 1536. Now if they want to complain about Henry being two effin' svelte…
Re. Peggy and the Pill: I am reminded that last year, when I was first watching the show, I made a reference to Peggy's icky gyno in a column I wrote about Gardasil. FYI, it's here (the MM reference is in the last paragraph): http://www.thestar.com/News/Ideas/article/258051
Plus ca change!
Thank you Roberta – I respect your thoughts here – and I apologize if my choice of words came off in any way inappropriate, insulting, or condescending. They were not meant to be in any way. Sometimes my brain and my fingers don’t always “connect”. I appreciate the tremendous committment you and Deborah have made to BoK, and as I mentioned earlier, this is by far the highest quality, best moderated discussion Blog I have ever participated in. I will work hard to make any further inputs I make clearer and without any (unintended) suggestion that disagreements with me mean anything more than just that. Thank you for taking the time to respond.
As for Paul’s motives, he seems as if he lives his life based on what he read in a magazine somewhere – as if he really cares about all that stuff about Montclaire.
Contrasted with Roy and Midge – who seem committed to their movement and beliefs – Paul is trying to have it both ways … “I’m a beatnik but I’ll still sell you lipstick.”
And here’s the real test: name one solid campaign he’s been shown to have written? Going back to last season, their “big guns have been silent.”
Another great summary. I had to risk my job and sneak on the Internet during my shift to get my MadMen fix.
The whole Peggy thing just made me want to cry. I know it sounds sick, but I hope that something happens so that Peggy has to get custody. (Her brother-in-law puts his foot down) I sense somne forshadowing on her Mama's health. I just wnt to see Peggy take responsibility.
Maybe it happens and Peggy stumbles about it, Don sets her down and talks her through it. I think Don has to know. Peggy would have had to have one ally to be able to miss work right after getting a promotion.
I just want there to be a day that Pete finds out. I just have to see his face. I also really want to see Peggy become a little more loving (not just strange men in the hall). I hate that they are turning her into the career obsesses shrew.
PS I absolutely love this board. I usually obsess on The Office, but this gave me a new obsession on TV.
Whoahh…
I wonder if Joan knows.
That would be unexpected, but not impossible. Up until that day, Joan was her boss.
You know, now that you mention it. Joan did send her to the Doc for the BC pills. I can imagine if she new that she would probably have chided her for her not taking the right precautions in time. I don't think she would use it, but she would mentally file it awy in case it needed to be used.
I would think that maybe Joan might have some sympathy for Peggy because of it. But I think Joan does not abide ignorance. So she may take a hard edge about a girl getting herself knocked up.
Yes, Joan could know. but I think Don would have the power to give her the time off. She was technically working for him when she found out.
It would be interesting if Joan knew. If Don knew, and he knew who the fahter was, I suspect he would be even harder on Pete, since he warned him about screwing with the office staff on the first episode.
But, I think Peggy is taking the secret of Pete's daddyhood to her grave. Until Matt finds out some other way for it to get out.
“… all that praise he accepted for something he didn’t do,†I wonder if Betty knows that Don is a fake and isn't the war hero he pretends to be but a deserter. Even if she doesn't know it's an interesting reference
I don't think Betty knows, but I also think her comment was about her dissatisfaction with Don. He's homes every night, but Betty knows that isn't praiseworthy, because he's effin' miserable — not Carlton-Eating-Himself-Into-A Grave-Miserable — but miserable enough that he can't hide it. She probably thinks he doesn't deserve praise or credit for it.
Montclair…Didn't Roger refer to Mona as the "Montclair Heiress?"
"Most of us loved the moment with Joan in NvK. But Paul is a poser. It’s a shame for him to be so revealed, because he is so likable, but Matt Weiner’s characters are complex and multifaceted. Paul Kinsey is a thoroughbred asshole, pretending he’s a writer of substance to justify stealing and endangering the job of a secretary."
So, Joan was right to bash him for dating Sheila, because he stole a typewriter and got a secretary in trouble?
Never mind Paul's reasons for dating Sheila. I'm curious about Joan's reactions. Why did she react? She was familiar with Paul's pretentiousness. He did react to the news of Ken's article being published in "The Atlantic Monthly". Joan and Sal performed Paul's little play in "Nixon vs. Kennedy". Why did it take Paul's romance with a black woman for Joan to finally accuse Paul of being a "poseur"? Personally? I think she was upset that an old boyfriend would move on with someone who is considered a social inferior by society. For me, that seems to hint that Joan is guilty of a subconscious form of racism.