Peggy did her best to react “like a man;” she is more comfortable expressing her feelings in a business context. While women wept, Peggy saw the business implication and mentioned the Playtex account.
What is truly driving Betty’s depression now is the one secret she can’t unlock: The desk drawer. It will become a Damn Spot for her, she will not be able to let it go. It is all of Don’s secrecy embodied. Notice how she observed the lie Don created for Betty to tell Sally; all it is, for Betty, is more evidence of his skill at lying.
Pete was right again. Pete is a dick and everyone hates his vile suggestions, but they are right. Freddy cannot keep his job. He cannot be allowed to drink and fall apart as a Sterling Cooper employee. He can go to rehab or he can go. Pete is truly the wave of the future again, just in the slimiest form possible.
88 Responses to “Stray thoughts on Six Months Leave”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
What did Duck do that was so horrible, regarding Freddie? Freddie wasn’t a personal threat to him. He screwed up. Pete told Duck, who is his boss. Duck told Roger. And Roger . . . was the one who got rid of Freddie. In my opinion, the real blame falls on Roger’s shoulders.
Freddie is/was a copywriter. Therefore, Don Draper, as head of Creative, is his boss. Pete told Duck–who should have discussed it with Don. But he went over his head to Roger.
Peggy told Pete they should let Don know about Freddie but Pete refused. Sal suggested Peggy do the presentation & she aced it (after explaining the matter to Freddie's secretary). But Pete took credit for "saving" the situation–since he told Duck his version of the story & they both "explained" it to Roger.
At which point, Don was called in. Later, he was cold to Peggy–who still has a lot to learn about office politics. But he also promoted her–he knows she won't cry. And she'll catch on–she's smart.
So it was basically a chain of command thing. (Although the Creepy Dog Abandoner should have spoken to Freddie earlier about Getting Help. But they didn't do things that way in those days.)
Hola, Hullaballoo! Como estas?
Last season, Don was powerful at work but not terribly powerful or in control at home in his relationship with Betty.
This season, Don's power at work is slipping and slipping even further with Betty. And he doesn't seem as enthused about work like he used to be–running off to watch a French film in the afternoon; Joan, when taking over as temporary secretary, has to practically collar him to make him fill out his correspondence. On some days, it seems as though Don is ready to move on.
The conversation with Roger at the clandestine gambling club: is Don almost ready to move on from Betty?
The whole firing of Freddy Rumsen, for Don, was about being out of the loop, and therefore out of control of the situation. Interesting how Freddy's alcoholism (and he's not the only alkie at SterlingCooper) was tolerated and covered for as long as he had some control over it. Pissing himself was the perfect symbol for no longer being in control–that, and passing out at his desk a second later. That kind of thing freaks out Duck because of his dry drunk temptations and Don because of the loss of control he's threatened with via Duck, Pete, Bobbie, and a bit by Roger.
By the way, I think Pete allying himself with Duck is stooopid. Mostly because Duck doesn't know a trend from a hole in the ground.
Self correcting #51. That's Freddy Rumsen, not Freddie. Just like it's Bobbie Barrett versus Bobby Draper. Gender boundaries were less fluid back then. (Has anybody ever called Sal "Salamander"?) And a "Bobbi" dots the "i" in her name with a heart or a daisy; definitely not Our Bobbie's style.
Narrative correction: I didn't emphasize enough that Peggy should have told Don about the screw up. Not immediately–since she handled it. But as a warning, since Sneaky Pete & Duck might take advantage of the sad situation.
I think Sal would love it if someone, the right someone, were to call him Salamander.
Sal puts the 'man' in 'Salamander'!
"Freddie is/was a copywriter. Therefore, Don Draper, as head of Creative, is his boss. Pete told Duck–who should have discussed it with Don. But he went over his head to Roger."
It doesn't matter whether Duck told Roger or Don. The final decision rested in Roger's hands. Instead of giving Freddie another chance, Roger got rid of him. And yet, Duck is vilified for telling Roger. I don't get it. I didn't realize that letting one's dog loose onto the streets of Manhattan would make a guy so hated.
"But as a warning, since Sneaky Pete & Duck might take advantage of the sad situation."
What advantage would Sneaky Pete and Duck have over Freddie . . . or Freddy's dismissal? Yes, Pete got a raise. How did Duck benefitted? Made Don look bad? The only one who looked bad was Freddy.
How did Duck become labeled as a villain for Don to overcome?
One last thing . . .
"As someone said earlier, Pete is amoral. He doesn’t know how to be human, so he’s mimicking the human behavior around him.
Trust me. Pete is acting VERY MUCH like a human being.
Pete reminds me of Matt Damon in The Departed.
It doesn’t matter whether Duck told Roger or Don. The final decision rested in Roger’s hands. Instead of giving Freddie another chance, Roger got rid of him. And yet, Duck is vilified for telling Roger. I don’t get it. I didn’t realize that letting one’s dog loose onto the streets of Manhattan would make a guy so hated.
Freddy worked for Don. Pete works for Duck. Don & Duck report to Roger–although Don, as a partner, does outrank Duck. (In fact, Don was in favor of hiring Duck–even with his damaged reputation.)
Duck should have gone to Don with the distressing (if slightly inaccurate) story he'd heard from Pete. "For the good of the agency"–they could have then approached Roger. The outcome for Freddy might not have been any different. In a later decade, he might have been encouraged into meaningful Rehab earlier–although there's still no sure cure for alcoholism.
Instead, Don walked in to find Duck & Pete (with his SE grin) already deep in discussion with Roger–who was probably too distracted about his love life to give much thought to the matter at hand, anyway. And it appeared that Duck had complained to Roger about one of "Don's people."
Roger still likes Don as a drinking buddy. Depending on how well that "advice" he thought Don gave him works out, that is. The next shows promise more interesting developments.
Perhaps we'll get to see Peggy tell Pete that, no, she did not go to a fat farm.
Yeah I don't see why this is causing confusion. It was disrespectful to Don. At one time, 'Don Draper was Sterling Cooper.
Freddy needed to be fired. No one here is doubting that. But it's everyone's agendas that are suspect… Pete is looking to score points with Duck and to move up the food chain, and Duck is playing out his own self-hatred by exercising power over a drunk, when he couldn't exercise power over his own life, neither when he was an active alcoholic, nor sober, making mistakes at work and watching his ex-wife remarry and his kids allegiance shift more to their mother and her new husband. And in the meantime, both were happy to not-too-passively usurp Don.
It just didn't have much to do with Freddy.
I'm sorry, but I refuse to label Duck and Pete as villains of the piece. I don't think there were any villains. Regardless of who told Roger . . . in the end, the latter got rid of Freddie. Considering that we're talking about the early 1960s, Freddie was bound to be forced to leave SC sooner or later. I feel sorry for the guy, but I'm not going to label Duck and Pete as villains over this, because they were "disrespectful" to Don. Don barely – if at all – suffered over the whole incident.
And nce more I have to ask . . . why have many fans of the show began labeling Duck as some kind of moustache-twirling villain, whom Don has to defeat in order to emerge victorious. Don's only real enemy is himself.
Moustache-twirling villain doesn't sound at all like what people are describing.
The dog thing was really upsetting to people. Not as much to me… I don't know, I saw it as more metaphorical, plus–I mean the dog was a really good actor and all, but I never really felt like the dog was abandoned. It just didn't affect me that much.
Pete actually comes closer to that than anyone on the show. Last season those were mostly ineffectual, so really he was more the 'curses! foiled again!' version.
But Duck had definitely made a couple of dick moves. And again, those moves have been opposing Don, who is, again we'll mention, the protagonist in the series. The guy whose silhouette represents the show. So we notice, because, as was pointed out, we are Don. In many ways, though certainly not exclusively, we are watching this world through his eyes.
In "For Those Who Think Young" we were presented with a conflict between Don & Duck. Duck wanted Don's Creative to hire younger talent–with Freddy as the prime example of "too old." Ken (I believe) noticed the conflict & said Don had "a rope under his desk with Duck's name on it." Roger has gotten tired of Duck's complaints & hoped Duck & Don could work things out between them. He's got stuff to think about–like, maybe an XKE will suit his swingin' divorcee life!
Now, here's Duck again, running to Roger! Pee-gate was a good excuse to get rid of Freddy, but his clients went to Peggy. Who is actually young–but she's definitely on Don's side. And Duck, as a "Teetotaller," can't interact with Roger on a Man To Man basis. Will Don get out his rope?
Is Pete even old enough to grow a mustache? (Horrible thought: Will we see our Mad Men into the era of mustaches, sideburns & leisure suits?)
Horrible thought: Will we see our Mad Men into the era of mustaches, sideburns & leisure suits?
Not if they keep smoking . . .
Remember "New Amsterdam"? In that Season 1 episode, Pete nearly jeopardized the Bethlehem Steel account. Pissed off by Pete's actions, Don – who was NOT a Sterling Cooper partner at the time – immediately fired Pete. The interesting thing is that he did not simply tell Roger – who as Head of Accounts was Pete's immediate boss at the time – what Pete had done. He told Roger that he had fired Pete. Instead of being upset that Don may have superceeded his authority, Roger backed up Don's actions. It was Bert Cooper who insisted that Pete remain with the firm.
If Duck had committed such a horrible act of telling Roger about Freddy's incident, instead of Don , why didn't Roger take him to task for failing to use the chain of authority? Why was it okay for Don to fire Pete without Roger even being around in Season 1, and not okay for Duck to tell Roger what Freddy had done?
When it comes to Don vs Duck and Pete. Don hasnt liked Pete since early season 1. As for Duck, Don couldnt even go to lunch with , they just managed to make a truce "for the good of SC". For Don its all about the power trip and your place in the heirarchy (for Pete n Duck also) He's a control freat to Don even said "im usually in the meetings befor the meetings" and Roger even got a shot in " your loyalty to may be becoming a liability) Plus Don has his morals, which are screwy, he's still pissed at having to dump Mohawk airlines for a slim chance at United. Don wants complete control at work if only cuz he has no control anywhere else
Whoops! not the best grammar Ive ever seen. Sorry I had lunch with Rumsen
I'm sorry, I see Don as a lot of things, but control freak is not among them.
Sorry, hit 'submit' too soon.
He is experiencing loss of power at work, and is reacting against it. He was a very powerful man in that office, and we watched him get even more power, and by 1962 it has been drained from him.
Don was right to fire Pete in the way he fired him. Roger backed him on it, and Cooper presented a different agenda.
When Pete told Duck about Freddy it was after the fact. And they should have gone to Don. Absolutely. And by absolutely I am saying that this is an absolute. Do I think Duck is evil for doing it this way? No. I don't hear anyone saying that, though you (Rosie) keep hearing it that way. But I do understand why Don perceives him as such, because it was he who was slighted.
In "New Amsterdam" Don did not fire Pete & go complain to Bert. He went directly to Roger, who agreed with him. Freddy's screwup certainly indicated he was trouble but hadn't caused an immediate problem. Pete sabotaged Don's work with a client–because HE wanted to be creative.
Bert told Don & Roger that Pete was valuable for his family connections, despite any deficiencies in talent or character. So Roger lied to Pete & said Don had supported him against Roger & Bert. The big guys worked together for the outcome they wanted.
Nowadays, most places have more complex termination procedures. At Sterling Cooper, you apparently aren't "really" fired until you've left with your box. Jane figured that out!
(Special cases get one last boozefest.)
Control freak may b a little strong. With corperate America today, I dont know about62, its all about pissing matches, who is ahead of who. Those at the top, like Don, never, ever, voluntarily at least, relinquish any of that power.
Greg, agreed. I think that most of Don's actions at the office have been culturally appropriate.
'most'.
Maybe not so much the BBBJ (Bobbie Barrett Blowjob).
Remember “New Amsterdamâ€? In that Season 1 episode, Pete nearly jeopardized the Bethlehem Steel account. Pissed off by Pete’s actions, Don – who was NOT a Sterling Cooper partner at the time – immediately fired Pete. The interesting thing is that he did not simply tell Roger – who as Head of Accounts was Pete’s immediate boss at the time – what Pete had done. He told Roger that he had fired Pete. Instead of being upset that Don may have superceeded his authority, Roger backed up Don’s actions.
Actually, in season 1 Don was both Head of Accounts and Creative Director, which means he was Pete's immediate boss at the time. The protocol and chain of command in agencies is that account people DO NOT bring their own creative ideas to the client. Their job is to sell the client on the ideas that the creatives have developed, but they don't make creative decisions, and they certainly don't have the authority to fire creatives. Duck and Pete going directly to Roger without first consulting Don was a big no no, because Freddy was creative. They should have talked to Don first, and let Don approach Roger about what needed to be done about it. Even though Duck and Pete's concerns were justified, they were completely out of line in their approach, which left Don out of the loop.
I don't think that Don was Head of Accounts… I think Roger was. Duck was replacing Roger in that capacity. But that is a lateral position to head of accounts… on that level, Roger and Don were equals, though Roger was also a partner, and now Don is.
But Pete was a junior freaking executive, and someone as senior as Don had every right to fire him the way he did. Again, today it's a different environment and would have been handled differently.
Fred was a long-term high ranking employee. And Don should not have been left out of the equation. Roger should have handled it differently, but by the time it was brought to him, it was already in motion, and Roger was just moving with it.
I never said that Don complained about Pete to Bert Cooper.
No, I didn't say that you did. I was trying to describe a situation similar to Duck & Sneaky Pete going over Don's head to complain to Roger about Freddy. We're not talking about abstract morality here, but about the rules of the agency. Like the military concept of Chain of Command. And like sports, where your position on the team might mean you pass the ball to someone else so he can score.
These business rules were set up by guys, which is not to say that smart women can't learn them AND upgrade their wardrobes at the same time. Peggy has learned a lot & will be earning more money. (Although the effing bangs may not grow out until next season.)
And there's nothing wrong with a healthy ego. I even have hopes that Joan will learn to speak up. Although nobody will EVER mistake her for a man.
"No, I didn’t say that you did. I was trying to describe a situation similar to Duck & Sneaky Pete going over Don’s head to complain to Roger about Freddy. We’re not talking about abstract morality here, but about the rules of the agency. Like the military concept of Chain of Command. And like sports, where your position on the team might mean you pass the ball to someone else so he can score. "
But if that was the case, then shouldn't Don have told Roger about how Pete had nearly troubled the Bethlehem Steel account . . . and allowed Roger, who was head of Accounts, fire him?
And why didn't Roger say anything about Duck telling him about Freddy, instead of Don?
Bored now.
I believe Pete, Harry and Ken all reported directly to Don last season, not to Roger. Roger's role was more of "managing partner," responsible for the meta management of the firm (and all the accounts), while Don seemed to take on some of the more mundane aspects of account management. For example, in Don's staff meetings last year, Harry, Pete or Ken were usually involved, as well as Sal and Paul or Freddy. This year, that doesn't seem to be the case. This year, Don's staff meetings (the smaller ones, in his office) consist primarily of creative, until they're ready to go to the client, in which case accounts is also included.
Presumably, the firm has grown, so having a dedicated accounts person makes sense. The management structure seems to be as follows: Bert Cooper, Sr. Partner; Roger Sterling, Managing Partner; Don Draper, Jr. Partner and Creative Director; Duck Phillips, Head of Accounts.
†Don was right to fire Pete in the way he fired him. Roger backed him on it, and Cooper presented a different agenda. When Pete told Duck about Freddy it was after the fact. And they should have gone to Don. Absolutely.
This does not sound right to me. Don, who was NOT a partner in the firm at the time and NOT Pete’s direct supervisor (Roger was) had a right to fire Pete . . . yet, Duck was supposed to go to Don and not Roger about Freddy. This does not sound right at all.
I don’t recall Roger protesting when Duck revealed Freddy’s accident during the meeting. Again . . . why should we judge Duck’s actions as wrong and Don’s actions in “New Amsterdam†as right?
â€Do I think Duck is evil for doing it this way? No. I don’t hear anyone saying that, though you (Rosie) keep hearing it that way. But I do understand why Don perceives him as such, because it was he who was slighted.â€
If Roger had no problems with Don firing Pete back in Season, yet Don had a problem with Duck telling Roger about Freddy in the recent episode . . . then the problem lies with Don, not Duck. I think he has an ego problem.
Actually, in season 1 Don was both Head of Accounts and Creative Director, which means he was Pete’s immediate boss at the time.
No, he wasn’t. Roger was Head of Accounts in Season 1 . . . until his second heart attack. Don briefly held the position, until he hired Duck in “Nixon vs. Kennedyâ€. When Don fired Pete, he was only Creative Director.
But Pete was a junior freaking executive, and someone as senior as Don had every right to fire him the way he did. Again, today it’s a different environment and would have been handled differently.
Fred was a long-term high ranking employee. And Don should not have been left out of the equation. Roger should have handled it differently, but by the time it was brought to him, it was already in motion, and Roger was just moving with it.
You’re saying that it was okay for Don to fire Pete without Roger’s consent because Pete was a junior executive, whereas it wasn’t all right for Duck to tell Roger about Freddy, because the latter was a long time employee? I’m sorry, but I find that hard to accept. At all.
â€In “New Amsterdam†Don did not fire Pete & go complain to Bert. He went directly to Roger, who agreed with him.
I never said that Don complained about Pete to Bert Cooper.
The real issue is that accounts don't make creative decisions. That includes the hiring and firing of creative people. Duck going directly to the managing partner of the firm to have a creative individual fired was overstepping his boundaries. No way he should have done that without consulting the Creative Director first.
The primary difference between Freddy being fired this year, and Pete being fired last year was that Don had the authority to discipline Pete, whereas Duck didn't have the same authority over Freddy.
"The real issue is that accounts don’t make creative decisions. That includes the hiring and firing of creative people. Duck going directly to the managing partner of the firm to have a creative individual fired was overstepping his boundaries. No way he should have done that without consulting the Creative Director first."
Really? Roger didn't have a problem with Duck telling him about Freddy. And he seemed very eager to get rid of the latter.
" The primary difference between Freddy being fired this year, and Pete being fired last year was that Don had the authority to discipline Pete, whereas Duck didn’t have the same authority over Freddy."
How is it that Don, who was Creative Director and not a partner, had the authority to discipline Pete last year, and Duck, who is now Accounts Director, did NOT have the same authority to discipline Freddy? Because I find that a contradiction.
By the way, Duck did not discipline Freddy. Roger did.
I give up.
1.Look, Don is indispensable to the firm, not only a partner but as Freddy said VERY talented. Its all in how much of that power he chooses to exert. He wasnt willing to lock horns with Roger for a losing cause. You gotta pick your battles as they say.
2.None of this matters cuz Don is goin to f-up somebody this week Duck, Pete, Roger somebody cuz the tension on the show has been tourqed up tighter then a guitar string
3.As for what Don and Bobby did in Don's office its only inappropriate if he didnt return the favor
As for what Don and Bobby did in Don’s office its only inappropriate if he didnt return the favor
Hah!
3.As for what Don and Bobby did in Don’s office its only inappropriate if he didnt return the favor
Yes!!! A male voice who gets it! Thank you Greg!
It would be my pleasure, literally