Umm… Betty’s father?
I am sorry, but something has gone on there.
As I mentioned recently, I had predicted that incest might be in Betty’s history.
Now if I know Matt’s writing, we may never know more than what we saw tonight.
So let’s recap what we saw tonight:
1) Gene started talking to Betty as though she was his late wife, Ruth.
2) We find out that he’s had a stroke that no one called Betty about.
3) Gene lashed out at Don; really attacked him. For not being good enough for Betty, for not being trustworthy, for having too much, for coming from nothing. “My daughter’s a princess, you know that?!”
4) THEN Gene gropes Betty in front of everyone. As Basketcase Ellelleque pointed out, that was outrageous behavior, even for Alzheimers patients. Inappropriate behavior even if she was the wife he was mistaking her for.
So, #1? Understandable in his state.
#2? I’ll get back to that.
#3? This is when I started to get suspicious. It just felt… wrong.
And #4? I just threw up a little in my mouth again, just thinking about it.
Now, no, I don’t have any hard evidence. And yes, I’ve suspected that this storyline was coming, so yes I’m looking for it.
But this is also an episode, like Marriage of Figaro, full of polarities and echoes. I haven’t begun to examine it closely enough to figure it out, but… William referred to hiding in the playhouse (or treehouse), later we see Glen living in the playhouse. Was it William who mentioned Don could build another house in the backyard? The Gene/Betty thing, then the Betty/Glen thing? Don’s silent entrance into Harry’s party. Harry in a baby bonnet. There’s a whole lot of strange that I haven’t been able to tease out yet. But this twisted relationship fits into all of it.
As for #2, I suspect that Gloria suspects Gene’s… affections for Betty. And wants to keep her as far away as possible.
October 6th, 2008 at 6:07 am
Well, let me be the first to say ‘wow’.
I hadn’t picked up on that but I think it rings plausible on a number of levels. I couldn’t understand Gene’s comment “you have no people” until your explanation (he comes from nothing).
I’ll need to rewatch to check out the parallels between what William said about the treehouse and the Glen connection. Too much happening in those scenes to pick up on that first time around. Wow.
October 6th, 2008 at 8:19 am
I think the Dad-grope was the writer’s way of throwing cold water all over Betty’s wanting to pretend that everything’s ok. Now she has be a mature adult who sees and accepts reality as she did when she sent Don and Glenn packing. I think this episode is more about her growing up than some dark secret in the past.
October 6th, 2008 at 8:33 am
Once AD patients get to that stage, they weave in and out of reality. Betty clearly looks like her mom (just check out the portrait) and it isn’t that far a stretch to think he’d give her a little squeeze. Nowadays, a man in that condition would be in assisted living, but back then there not only was no description for his disease, the only option would be a state or a private institution.
I think the Don/Betty resolution will take at least to the end of the season, and it might just remain part of the story line going forward. People back then lived for years apart without getting a divorce, and if Roger is breaking up with Mona, Cooper won’t stand for another divorce at SC right now. This reminds me a little of when Carmela threw Tony out of the house: that dragged into another season.
October 6th, 2008 at 8:49 am
Yes, I wouldn’t be surprised if Betty’s childhood held a dark secret or two. But she was raised to ignore distressing realities & act all “Nordic.” I was about 14 at the time of the episode–& down in Texas, not up in Yankeeland. However, I can state that Betty’s not just being a “Typical 50’s/60’s Repressed Woman”–it’s a pity she didn’t have a better shrink.
Her relationship with Glen is borderline sick. But perhaps she can learn something from Helen. Damn–she needs to wake up!
October 6th, 2008 at 9:45 am
The actor that plays her father is a dead ringer for John McCain. It was weird. I doubt this got him any votes (not that he would get any from this crowd).
October 6th, 2008 at 9:47 am
Good to know I’m not the only one who thought that Gene’s breast grope was sign of something more. And you’re right about the episode as a whole, it felt so thickly planted with clues and parent/child motifs that you almost want to re-examine it line by line.
October 6th, 2008 at 9:48 am
Actually, sometimes a stroke can remove a person’s inhibitions—depending on what part of the brain has been affected by the stroke, so I certainly wouldn’t consider it “outrageous behavior” for a stroke patient. Shocking to the family, yes….but not uncommon after a stroke. My stepfather acted in a similar way to Betty’s father after his stroke; he tried to grope any female that came into his room.
Therefore, I don’t read too much into his behavior, and although it COULD be that he sexually abused his daughter, I don’t think his actions necessarily point to that. To me, the main point of that scene was that Betty could no longer count on her father; she’s been having to grow up, and the end of the ep and the interaction with Glenn showed how she’s in the process of becoming an adult.
October 6th, 2008 at 10:17 am
I agree with Femme1. I didn’t see it as a sign of molestation or incest. The whole episode served to demonstrate that Betty is losing all the reliable men in her life. She’s kicked Don out, her father is no longer himself, and her brother is turning out to be pretty useless. When Glen comes along with the intent to “rescue” her, she’s clearly tempted by the concept of being rescued from her present life, if not by the twelve-year-old hero in question. Self-reliance is a hard lesson for Betty to have to learn. I hope that she and Helen Bishop can help each other through it.
I do think it was an interesting parallel between William and Glen’s respective hiding places, though. Not sure quite what it means yet.
October 6th, 2008 at 10:23 am
I think the incest stuff will end up being another “Don’s Jewish” kind of red herring. They’re telegraphing it too strongly for it to be true. (This show is weird like that.)
The whole Glenn thing is really, really creepy to me. Acting inappropriately with children is a sign you were molested, so there’s another clue for the incest theory. I understand what they’re trying to tell us about Betty’s character with those scenes (she still wants to playact at life, rather than be a grownup) but it doesn’t ring true somehow. It’s even more creepy that it’s Matt Weiner’s own kid playing Glenn. Ick.
This epi was chock full of inappropriateness, from Daddy’s grope, to Glen, to Bert saying Happy Birthday, to Pete trying to vent his spleen at Peggy, to Paul on the bus. Just lots & lots of cluelessness and antisocial behaviour.
I feel like I need a shower.
October 6th, 2008 at 10:40 am
The only reason I thought there might be a dark secret behind Gene’s grope was Betty’s reaction to it – she flinched so strongly and nearly ran from the room. That could have been a big tell – or it could be a huge red herring, who the Hell knows with this show. I did love that Gene’s true feelings for Don broke through the upper-middle-class repressive atmosphere. I assume the “He has no people” comment was both about Don’s lack of clear pedigree as much as his lack of actual relatives. Certainly the Don/Betty wedding likely had a pretty sparse groom’s side audience. It could be that the strokes have begun to allow Gene to express real feelings or he really did just mistake Betty for her mother.
October 6th, 2008 at 10:55 am
I think Betty’s reaction to Gene’s grope points away from a history of incest; it’s not a touch she’s accustomed to.
Gene doesn’t have Alzheimer’s, he’s had two strokes. Disinhibition combined with failing to recognize Betty can explain his behavior. (Disinhibition because he wouldn’t have groped his wife like that, unless he thought no one else was around, which was also possible.)
Betty is looking for solace in non-sexual relationships, because adult, sexual relationships are too demanding for her. She was so relaxed with Glen; smiling and lovely. But her non-sexual relationships are not staying non-sexual: Dad gropes her, and Glen fantasizes about her. Even if she denies there’s anything wrong with her relationship with Glen, she has matured enough by the end of the episode to acknowledge that Helen has good reason to think otherwise. And this somehow frees her to talk about Don.
Helen nailed it; Betty doesn’t want to be in charge. She was positively subservient with Glen.
October 6th, 2008 at 10:58 am
Betty’s turning into Don.
“I’m an orphan.”
She’ll have “no people” … except a brother.
Pete also, is losing connection with his family.
October 6th, 2008 at 11:04 am
We don’t know that he doesn’t have AD. He could have what’s called TIA, or trans-ischemic attacks, which are mini-strokes that bring on dementia. But the symptons he’s displaying are AD-like symptoms, so he could have both.
I agree with others that Betty’s carefully crafted world is turning upside down. So is Don’s, for that matter, but in his case, he’s conflicted. He wants his homelife back, but not if it’s going to be another angst filled homelife like he had growing up. This is all fascinating.
October 6th, 2008 at 11:57 am
Betty’s dad, to me, clearly was showing signs of Alzheimer’s. My grandfather died of this disease. He also had many strokes, some small ones and many greater ones near the end. Not only did he mistake all of us for other people, but he would run away from home on some “mission” and become violent when caught. It’s a horrible disease that can turn a person into someone completely different. Gene seems to be going down the same path, in my opinion.
October 6th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
I dont think Betty was molested by her father. When he first calls her by her mother’s name Ruth, you see Betty tear up a bit, and she says no Daddy its me Betty. When she sits on the couch with her brother and Don, Don tries to console and she accepts it. I mean really at the moment she knew her world was coming apart, hence the sex romp that occured later that evening with Don. She needed him, and I think he needed her. Both are miserable without each other, but Betty is making a point. Either be honest with me and confess and we will work it out, or get the hell out! I think now Don truly feels he loves her. If he didnt love her, he would have said I will take care of the kids while you go visit, and when they had sex, I am sure he must have felt relieved that they were close again, but turns out it wasnt, so what does Don do…he leaves! I do think the relationship with Glenn is creepy, but once Betty realized that she had to be an adult and call his mother, she betrayed him, and she knew it. When Helen came back and discussed with her that she has been a shitty Parent, I think she opened up Betty’s eyes as to how divorce can affect a child. Betty doesnt want that for her kids. Another interesting detail in Don wanting to make it work is when Betty tells Helen, Don takes the children out to dinner, and then she says, He never really showed any interest at them all until now. My guess is that Don is truly realizing that he misses the kids, and he misses Betty. Whenever he f-ed up on something he knew if he went home, none of them would judge him. But now with his continuous lying to BETTY, she is putting her foot down and wont stand for it anymore. In a way I am sort of glad she is because she is becoming more of an adult everyday, but also because Don needs to be taught a lesson. He truly needs to see what he loves the most could be taken away from him, because of his foul play and dishonesty with them. I think he is going to whore it up in LA, but he will come to realize that its Betty and the kids he wants, and will finally open up to her. Call me crazy, I know, or call me a romanticist, but I do hope Don and Betty get back together. Like I said earlier, they need each other more now than ever!
October 6th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Roberta, Mo Ryan agrees with you: http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/entertainment_tv/2008/10/mad-men-episode.html
October 6th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
I agree with Donny, Deborah and Russen. I don’t see Gene’s actions as a sign that Betty had been molested in the past. I think he is losing it, due to his health problems.
October 6th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
I’m not 100% sold on the incest. It is possible, hence Betty’s loss of innocence, and why as an adult she’s so childlike (when she let herself indulge with being a kid with Glenn for a bit until her own kids came home and she quickly remembered she was the mom).
But as far as the grope, that was disturbing, but that’s happened to me before. My grandparents used to be part of an retirement home, and i’d go and help out with their functions once in a while, and i can’t count the pats on my ass i received (this was when i was about 14 too mind you), or wrong names i’ve been called, or “lingering” full body hugs i’ve received from the men in that establishment. Many of them stroke/dementia/alzheimers victims. It was outrageous behaviour, but some people behave outrageously. And to add, if he did think she was his wife, he may have done someting completely outrageous like that to his own past wife when she was alive, to “embarass” her, just as Don embarassed Betty. My thoughts are that Betty has married her father. Her father was probably a womanizer too. Hence those thoughts instilled into Bettys mind from her mother “you must be young and pretty for men to like you”. etc. Cause maybe her husband cheated on her with younger women all the time. Another reason for Betty to have been stunned with the fact that Bobbie was “so old”.
Maybe Gloria doens’t want Betty around because she reminds Gene too much of her competition, his late wife Ruth? Who knows? maybe i’m making excuses at this point for incestuous behaviour?
Although, i want to add also, Betty is really losing all her “rocks” like the men in her life she looked up too. And the episode was tied off with Helen telling her that the hardest part was realizing that you’re the one in charge. And Betty needs to realize that pretty soon.
On a side note, on one of the dvds from season 1 with commentary, January Jones had stated that her character wasn’t supposed to be a main character at all when the pilot came out, and Vicent Kartheiser said something along the lines of “thats crazy, cause you’re one of the main characters now”, i agree with Vincent. Betty is a very integral character to the show, and they just keep building with her. Very interesting!
October 6th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
I want Don and Betty together too. This episode shows he realizes that he really truly cares for her. He offered to drop everything and come pick her up immediately. He showed concern that she eat and his gestures were very kind, and you could see that he understood her discomfort and wanted to support her. But she believes he’s only pretending. She is more than angry; she thinks her whole marriage has been a fake and that he’s been pretending since Day 1, and she feels like a fool. I’m not at all surprised that she reached out to him in the middle of the night; Betty always seems attracted to Don in that way. She has never declined sex w/Don, even when she’s on the phone, and often initiates as well; it is HE who sometimes couldn’t or wouldn’t (Valentine’s Day; the heat wave.) He doesn’t cheat on her because she’s not willing, obviously . . . he’s attracted to emotionally strong women and the stronger Betty gets, the more he will appreciate and respect her.
What Betty wants is for Don to say “I messed up and I’m sorry and I want to be here because I love you and the kids,” but instead he says, “You need me here,” and that’s not good enough. So in the middle of this, why is she watching a cartoon while sipping through a straw? Give me more of Betty with a shotgun in the back yard . . .
October 6th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
As long as we’re playing armchair psychiatrist, I think the theory is worth evaluating based on the limited evidence.
Recall Betty’s underlying anger towards her mother. I’ve heard of incest and abuse victims harboring enormous anger towards the “other” parent (assuming both weren’t abusive), for their failure to protect them from the abusive/incestuous parent. Especially if the “other” parent knew about the abuse and did not intervene.
So all we have is Betty’s anger and Gene’s grope. We’ve made more with less around here …
October 6th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
If there was incest, it could also somewhat explain her marrying a man she knew nothing about. Kind of like the adult version of a teenager hooking up with the sleazy dude in the Camaro and running away. I’m sure she would have had her choice of “appropriate” suitors.
October 6th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Donnybrook—
Weiner’s child plays Glen? I didn’t know that! My mind is just spinning because there were comments before on otherabout Weiner not being full-figured friendly . Wonder how they handle a borderline husky child in the Weiner household.
(I’m the mother to an 8 year-old who looks like Glenn. No mean spirit intended on my part.)
October 6th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
I think young Master Weiner is utterly adorable. I love how much more mature he looks.
And yet, curled up in that dollhouse, an odd sight.
October 6th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Let me clarify, I think they are totally telegraphing incest with this episode (and others) but it’ll turn out to be a red herring just like they did with the “is Don Jewish?” clues in S1. It could go either way; for instance, Peggy really was pregnant.
Ambiguity is the bread & butter of this show. Perhaps the “truth” isn’t as important as the speculation. Again, like all good fiction, it all gets thrown back upon the watcher/reader.
October 6th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
But doesn’t anyone else think it’s creepy to cast your own son as a creepy kid who is the victim of emotional incest? Again, I say ick.
October 6th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
I want Don and Betty together too. This episode shows he realizes that he really truly cares for her.
I think that too, and assume that was what the final shot was all about – Don’s realization he actually loves his kids, his wife and his life, beyond the fairy tale both he and Betty have been living (aside: sometimes the metaphors are a bit heavy-handed, like this one – Don’s face being lit up by the sun through the plane window while Pete literally is blinded). The one thing that makes me doubt the incest line is Betty’s comfort with, and known hunger for, sex with Don. She is clearly physically turned on by Don and when he is attentive (i. e., when he is not obviously making love to her using someone else’s favorite moves) is into their sex life. Most incest survivors have issues with sex, although Betty’s may be manifested by her issues with her kids.
October 6th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Donny Brook: I think Matt Weiner’s ability to go a little “creepy” is one of the reasons why MM is so good. It takes some balls to press the boundaries of what people think of as “normal” like that. He just might lose some viewers because they think it’s too weird.
October 6th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
About Martin Weiner (Jr. Master Weiner, hehe), he’s SO adorable! and so talented. I don’t think he’s chubby, he’s at that pre-puberty stage, and for most boys, like my own brother was the same, he hasn’t hit the growth spurt yet. I predict tall, dark and handsome myself.
Saying that….does anyone think that Glenn Bishop is like a little Don Draper? The dark hair, the bowl-ish cut (not as bad), and the loneliness, the feeling that he’s being raised by “two sorry people”, and the mention of a mean stepmother? And Betty is identifying with him. Kinda the child version of Don. Anyways, thought it was worth mentioning.
October 6th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
@10 CPT_Doom,
“I assume the “He has no people” comment was both about Don’s lack of clear pedigree as much as his lack of actual relatives. Certainly the Don/Betty wedding likely had a pretty sparse groom’s side audience.”
What an understatement!
That image is SO funny…
October 6th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Femme, I agree that part of what is compelling about MM is its ability to “go creepy,” I just couldn’t get out of my head that it was Matt Weiner’s own son who was being asked to not only lay on the creep factor, but to play the receipent of it.
October 6th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
JungleRed wrote:
Saying that….does anyone think that Glenn Bishop is like a little Don Draper? The dark hair, the bowl-ish cut (not as bad), and the loneliness, the feeling that he’s being raised by “two sorry people”, and the mention of a mean stepmother? And Betty is identifying with him. Kinda the child version of Don. Anyways, thought it was worth mentioning.
Thank you. I thought it was just me that saw the similarities between Glenn and Don. I got this very wierd Mary Kay LeTourneau vibe from watching Glenn and Betty interacting with each other (especially the hand holding on the couch).
I know that Betty’s looking for someone/something to keep her grounded, but she has to look within to find out that SHE has to be the one to keep herself together, grounded and sane.
October 6th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
I think the incest angle is wrong here but I’ve been wrong before (I was a real holdout on the Peggy pregnancy story line.)
As for Gene, his behavior is typical of a dementia and it’s important to note that Alzheimer’s Disease is just one of many conditions that fall under the umbrella of dementia, many of which have similar symptoms and behaviors.
With Alzheimer’s there is more of a textbook progression of symptoms that don’t come out of nowhere. TIA’s (like Gene’s) alone can cause a dementia that can start abruptly. Gene’s behavior appears to be a typical dementia exhibited by anger, inappropriate behavior, forgetfulness, confusion, lack of inhibition and aggression.
As someone experienced with Alzheimer’s, it disturbs me how little people know about it. Labeling all memory loss as Alzheimer’s is wrong and most dramatic portrayals of individuals with Alzheimer’s are usually off base and offensive. People afflicted with Alzheimer’s don’t go in and out of it like an “awakening” as portrayed in “The Notebook.” The only accurate portrayal I’ve ever seen is in the Academy Award nominated, humorous but sensitive documentary originally presented by PBS in 1994 in their POV series. It is entitled “Complaints of a Dutiful Daughter,” by filmaker Deborah Hoffman. The late Chicago Tribune film critic Gene Siskel said, “Complaints of a Dutiful Daughter is the best film about Alzheimer’s disease that I’ve seen.”
It may turn out that Gene molested Betty as a child but let’s not trivialize the disease by attributing his symptoms to something that has to be sordid and by over dramatizing it.
October 6th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
I don’t think its weird that Glen is played by Weiner’s son. Why would that be more strange than any other kid. In fact, one would think Matt could judge better with his own son whether he could handle it. And I think it looks creepier in the finished product than it probably was to shoot the scene, as many have said about love scenes, its not that hot on set with all the crew around.
October 6th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Coop, I think Betty has lots of reason to be angry at her mother, who warned about getting “stout” and told her she was a “prostitute” for modeling. I don’t think we need to spin any additional theories to understand it.
October 6th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
I think there was definitely an intent to link Glenn with Don … especially by putting the boy in the man’s shirt!
This is sooooo a 3-watch episode … I’m barely commenting because I know I’ve missed a ton.
October 6th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
#33 Well, it added to the creep factor for me. Part of me is glad I appear to be the only one. Maybe this is why I think it’s all a red herring.
October 6th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Boo hoo poor Betty struggling with becoming a responsible woman! At this point, doesn’t anyone but me feel that she’s really over the top in her treatment of Don? She calls him to come rescue her when daddy’s sick, and Don comes running — stand-up, take-charge fellow that he is. She makes him sleep on the floor at daddy’s house, then uses him for sex. Then, back at home, she tells him to leave and that nothing’s changed. If she keeps this up, she’s going to lose that guy. And that would be a sore loss.
I’m glad that Don’s giving himself a break by going to L.A.
October 6th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
@Elizabeth: I don’t think Betty is ready to forgive Don. I think she wants to stew in her anger for a little while longer. What will wake her up is when Don moves his things out of the house, stops the pretense that he’s on an everlasting business trip and tells the kids that “Mommy and Daddy love each other but we can’t live together any more.”
I don’t think Don particularly loves Betty, in the way that he may have loved Rachel, but he loves what he has with Betty: stability. He knows that advertising is all about image, and with Betty he has the image of a perfect home. Likewise, Betty has the same thing with Don, and she just learned (although she surely knew) that she can’t leave him and go back to the same thing.
October 6th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
I have some (recent) experience with dementia. My best friend and I are both dealing with this now, in our parents. My best friend’s mom has a worse case of it than my dad does, but they are both right there.
And yes, people with Alzheimer’s can forget who their relatives are. Another friend of mine learned some of the juicy family secrets when her grandma mistook her for her daughter, and started spilling the dirt on an old family murder/suicide. Seriously. Turns out these things happened with greater frequency, in those bad old days.
But I still contend that a mother knows her husband from her son, and a father knows his wife from his daughter. One thing I have never seen a dementia patient do — and I’ve seen one or two in extremis — is try to plant one on (or grope) his or her own kid. What happens far more often is that the patient believes that the child is his or her own mother or father, and regresses to dependent or bratty behavior.
No. I side with those who see something, even slightly, amiss with the interactions between Betty and her father. I think even the script leads in that direction. Remember Viola trying to sooth Betty, the wounded child, upstairs (”I can’t take it anymore”; “as soon as you leave this house, you’ll remember him as he was”). Everyone’s relief when Gene picked up on Betty’s “Daddy” cue. The echo effect of Betty in Gene lashing out. (Gene attacking Don could have reminded him of a more unstable version of what he got after the ill-fated Heineken dinner party.)
Come on. What Gene did was shocking. If my dad did that, I think I would leave the house and never, ever come back. The only place in which I can imagine Gene’s behavior not resulting in a rift of this magnitude is a house in which it had happened before.
I mean, please. Creep factor times ten. This at least might indicate why Betty would prefer the company of boys over that of men.
October 6th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
THANK YOU for saying that you think there was a little incest going on in that family. My father had both dementia and Alzheimers and never did anything like that – but on the AMC board, it appears everyone there believes that once you have either, you’re a groping fool.
Yeah, I’m sure one or two slip through, but to generalize ALL dementia/Alz patients doing that, no way.
Plus, why would Betty be having her own inappropriate relationship with Glen, and why would she “know” that he hates her if she hadn’t been there herself?
October 6th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
I think this would be a great thing to ask MW about when he comes to BoK for the post-season chat. If that’s where he’s going, he’ll be mysterious about it, but we could also be way off base.
I don’t think that the storyline points to incest, I think its about her father having dementia and brain damage from his stroke. The groping was more to drive home the point that Betty really is totally cut off from her family now, just as she is totally cut off from her husband and in some ways isolated from her children. When her father groped her, that was the ultimate divorce from the past, the ultimate thing that her father in his right mind would never, ever, ever do to his princess. You can see it in her eyes, the pain and loss and alienation and confusion. I don’t think it’s because of a history, but because it is so lacking in history and precedent, proving that her father is a completely different person, being cared for by this stranger, with her brother and sister in-law being like people she doesn’t even know. And on top of that her husband is no longer part of her life.
It’s like Helen said, the hardest part is realizing that she’s in charge. She’s no longer anyone’s wife or little girl or even sister, she is now the sole decision maker.
October 6th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Excellent episode (5th Oct)!
Love the intrigue & mysteries & keeping me surprised.
Brilliant writing Mr. Weiner & Staff.
“Bets” is becomming hugely absorbing ~ fascinating to witness (her)
emotional roller coaster: anger, resentment, grief, interest & on.
Wanna see more asserting how tuff she really is, confronting Don’s bad
behavior until he comes clean. Betty’s primed for 60’s Women’s Lib.
Even a Don melt-down where he fully gets what he’s done to the only
folks who love & care about him.
Can’t break them up; they’re riveting together.
October 6th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
I still dont understand why people say Don loves Rachel more. I mean c’mon he just wanted to runaway with her, just like he wanted to runaway with Midge. Yes okay I will admit he told Rachel some of his past as Dick Whitman, but he told Betty also. Doesnt that make them equal. Also as Rachel put it “This was a dalliance, a cheap affair, you dont want to runaway with me you just want to runaway” and its true! Yes ok, Don must have been hurt that Rachel moved on, and got married, but that is what normal people do Don. They tend to get over their dalliances. I think now with Betty becoming more mature and more strong, Don will fall in love with her again. Remember Betty was a high fashion model who refused Don a couple of times, before he won her over an expensive fox coat. She was independent once, and like Don career oriented first. But now, I think she is starting to get it back, and it might threaten Don, but I think he likes it also.
October 6th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
I think it’s possible that there wasn’t any “actual” incest but that there was “emotional” incest, if you will. There are all sorts of inappropriate sexual bonds that don’t necessarily involve actual sex. The Glenn/Betty angle is a perfect example of that… So, maybe Betty is replaying her own weird inappropriate relationship with her father with Glen. She hasn’t done anything wrong, really, and yet it’s totally wrong, kwim? And then her father groping her would bring all that to the surface. I definitely think there was something weird about Betty’s relationship with her Dad, though.
October 6th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
I’d have to agree MarlyK, and the only reason I truly suspect incest is the creepy Glen connection. Where would Betty have learned her behavior was “appropriate”? Her dad.
October 6th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
If there is/was something with Betty and her dad, that sh*t better be addressed and not put on the back burner for 6 episodes like Peggy’s baby has been.
October 6th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
I think it’s possible that there wasn’t any “actual” incest but that there was “emotional” incest, if you will. There are all sorts of inappropriate sexual bonds that don’t necessarily involve actual sex. The Glenn/Betty angle is a perfect example of that…
That could fit with the image we have of Betty’s mother, forever harping on what it takes to snare and keep a man – the comments about Betty’s weight, her being a “prostitute” for being a model (and perhaps having gotten wind of Betty’s relationship with the Italian designer, who I am betting was her first) – perhaps Betty’s mother saw her as a rival for her father, w/out any actual incest going on. It does seem sort of pat to have an incest storyline, like something out of another show. MM does not seem to be conventional in any form, so a strange, but not completely repugnant, relationship between Gene and Betty might fit better into the show’s format. Gene’s action could be part of a lifetime of womanizing.
And what about Viola? How great was that? Once again we see how there must have been a huge gulf between Betty and her bio-mother, with Viola playing the part of the emotional mother. Even Gloria knew that Viola was important to Betty, and I loved Viola’s “are you going to give me your temper?” line. Put Betty right in her place.
October 6th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
@37, Fan o’ Don: At this point, doesn’t anyone but me feel that she’s really over the top in her treatment of Don?
Sounds like ‘no’.
@38, Brenda, I do think he loves Betty. Maybe not deeply, but there is love there, and their history contributes to his feelings of tenderness (when he has them). What’s interesting is that in A Night to Remember, there was all that back and forth between them about how well they know the other (and I think Duck even said something about Don really knowing his wife), but Betty’s chief complaint, or at least in the top 10, is that he’s a stranger. And now Don is looking at Betty in total wonder, because, perhaps for the first time, he doesn’t recognize what he sees.
Anne B, I just adore you. The only place in which I can imagine Gene’s behavior not resulting in a rift of this magnitude is a house in which it had happened before. Everyone went back to their place and tried to act normal. Don was the most resistant to that noise. Don was my hero in that moment. He followed Betty’s lead to not make a scene, but the very protective way he hovered over her; I found it quite stirring.
@43, Russen, I don’t get why you keep getting bunched up over this. Just because you don’t like that Don has any affairs, doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be able to distinguish each from the other. Don went to Rachel in a panic and asked her to run away, and she got freaked out and decided that their whole relationship was a lie. She was mistaken. Doesn’t mean she was wrong to end it, but Rachel was not a dalliance for Don, any more than Don was a dalliance for Rachel. Midge was a mutually respectful dalliance, and Bobbie… well, Bobbie was a nasty dalliance.
Don loves Rachel. We’ve written about it here: http://www.lippsisters.com/2008/07/03/marriage-of-rachel/, and here: http://madmenmad.wordpress.com/2008/03/13/don-loves-rachel/. Don loves Rachel. I’ve decided.
But also, I don’t think it means he doesn’t love Betty. It’s just not the same love. Obviously.
MarlyK, emotional incest is undeniable in this case. Set the groping aside (as if you could!) the rest of it still fits the bill. And emotional incest can be highly damaging.
@46 jess LOL!
But I want to add that I really don’t think we’re going to see any more about this. I think it’s for us to work out for ourselves. And as for storylines… this isn’t something that will come to any kind of light, or that Betty will be working through. There was absolutely no cultural vocabulary for this. Bad, dirty, nasty, drunks did this. No one nice did it. No one would no for like 30 years how common it is. Women today still aren’t believed. So I really wouldn’t expect any resolution on this one. It just adds another layer.
I want to really thank everyone for their diverse opinions. I was nervous posting this; I really thought I’d just get blasted.
October 6th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
“Doesn’t mean she was wrong to end it, but Rachel was not a dalliance for Don, any more than Don was a dalliance for Rachel. Midge was a mutually respectful dalliance, and Bobbie… well, Bobbie was a nasty dalliance.”
I feel that Don made the affair nasty in the end.
“MarlyK, emotional incest is undeniable in this case. Set the groping aside (as if you could!) the rest of it still fits the bill. And emotional incest can be highly damaging.”
Why do so many peopole want to believe that incest was involved in the relationship between Betty and her father? The man groped her when his mental facilities wasnt’ all there, due to bad health.
October 6th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
Why do so many peopole want to believe that incest was involved in the relationship between Betty and her father?
I believe if you read the post, and people’s reactions to it, you’ll get a good sense of why people believe, as well as don’t believe, that a history of incest existed, or didn’t.
October 6th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
“I was nervous posting this; I really thought I’d just get blasted.”
You deserve a kiss and a hug for being so brave. I mean it. I know what it’s like to be afraid to express oneself honestly. So thank you!
October 6th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
I think Pete’s Mom should hook up with Bette’s Dad. Shes lost most of her money, hes lost most of his faculties and they both produced some really F-ed up kids. Then Glenn could go live with them, and Gene can tell him how he honked Bettes boobs in front of his whole family
October 6th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
Or maybe not
October 6th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
Quite an effort though, Greg. Commendable.
Or maybe not ; )
Marly, thank you!
October 6th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
I once read that parents who call their children “angel” are not interested in them as people. Betty’s father called her “angel” and “princess.” For all the devotion neither he nor almost any one in her life is interested in her as a person.
The scenes with Viola and Helen were the only time anyone was treating her like a human.
And what is with the “no small talk”?! No wonder Betty cannot communicate. I bet the Hofstads like Wagner. Not talking about the antisemiticism that was so virulet in his personal life, I mean, the only gestures that are worth making a big, serious and needs a special festival to do. And enchanted by their own Nordic heritage.
October 6th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Roberta, I would never blast you. Blasting you means blasting the Basket. And this is my favorite Basket in the whole world.
I also tried to start parts of the same statement you made, myself. Not just that Don loved Rachel (because, among other things, he tried her husband’s name on himself last week — as a prayer? A talisman?), but that Rachel loved Don.
Yes. She did. She never would have called their affair “cheap”, because that’s not what it was to her. For a woman like her, to have an affair with a married man … it took something bigger than her will to make that happen. It took love.
Rachel was not a woman who impulsively leaped into and out of things. She was smart and deliberate and kind. She thought things through. She had a business to run, a real future, and a family she loved deeply. Rachel put all of that at risk in her affair with Don. Which is why, when it ended, she went away for a while … not just because she could afford to go, but because she needed the distance. She needed not to see the man she loved for a while.
I also want to say that yes, people do move on and get married after affairs. Sometimes they marry each other. Bogie and Bacall did this, and June Carter and Johnny Cash, and Paul Newman and Joanne Woodward. Sometimes people meet “the one” when they are already with someone else. It happens. I wouldn’t call it the best thing that can happen, nor would I call it the worst. What I would call it is life.
Another note in the key of life: sad to say, I agree with Roberta. The family matter between Betty and her dad reared its head this week, and will not be seen again … because that’s how these things went. No one was ever supposed to see the incident between them. We can tell because of the look on Don’s face: Don, who had seen so much abuse in his life, was shocked by what he saw at that breakfast table.
Our fearless moderator is right. Te darker the thing, the more likely it will stay hidden. Even now.
And by the way, Ms. Roberta … you are a goddess.
October 6th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
Well Ms R any other musings on the latest Ep? I am very curious as to which direction both Drapers wil be headed next week. Especially with Don in LA. Hes a man of many facets
“Some men rise by sin and others by virtue fall”
October 7th, 2008 at 2:17 am
It would funny if the boob grab turned out to be a red herring, and that Betty’s dad w simply suffereing from dementia of some kind, considering that he had earlier mistaken Betty for her mom.
I still recall how many thought that Don as Jewish back in S1.
October 7th, 2008 at 3:28 am
I’m not willing to accept incest… yet. Fully able to believe there was some psychological line crossing in the past.
October 7th, 2008 at 8:12 am
#42. I agree. Much as Don & Rachel were passionate, I am drawn to the idea that Don & Betty may, in the end, be a better fit. They’re both clearly evolving and sometimes, in a marriage, two people torn asunder do end up growing together. Like I said before, it just gets messy before clarity sets in.
October 7th, 2008 at 10:28 am
jw, there’s something about marriage as an institution that matters. Betty is, “for better or worse,” the woman Don chose to marry. His ideas about marriage were distorted, but a lot of his ideas are distorted.
Had he run off with Rachel, he’d have had to find a way to make it work. If he’s going to do that work, doing it with Betty is a good choice to make.
October 7th, 2008 at 10:40 am
I think it is too late to expect for S2, but I think the interest is clear on this line of comments. We need a “Hobo Code” episode that goes back into Betty’s past. Maybe they can call it the “Nordic Niceties”
The sets are built, we’ve been introduced to all the principal characters, except Betty’s mom.
In the Hobo Code, we saw why Dick/Don wanted to get so far away from his biological family, especially his father.
Maybe if we get a look back into Betty’s childhood, a lot of these questions will get answered. Just an early holiday gift wish.
October 7th, 2008 at 11:36 am
I hope Roberta is right and they don’t resolve the incest stuff. It would make sense that it would be reburied.
If they ever get to the ’80’s they could have Betty undergo regression therapy and recall repressed memories of Daddy being bad.
October 7th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Donny Brook, re: your comment “If they ever get to the ’80’s they could have Betty undergo regression therapy and recall repressed memories of Daddy being bad.”
For sure! And then in the 90s, Betty realizes that her psychologist led her down the incest garden path and sues him for malpractice, after she’s cut of all contact with her family. (This actually happened in many cases of regression therapy, where therapists unconsciously “implanted” false memories of incest.)
October 7th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
#25 Donny – I think it is very creepy. I watched this episode twice to catch what I missed the first time. This is one episode I will not watch again. I had the same reation as Roberta in her opening essay -
“And #4? I just threw up a little in my mouth again, just thinking about it.”
My similar reaction was not just about the groping, it was also the creepy kid.
I hope we get back to Don’s story in the next episodes. Isn’t anyone looking for the real Don Draper, except for the woman at the car dealership?
October 7th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Oh right, the woman at the car dealership. I like the way the story unfolds s-l-o-w-l-y but I completely forgot about that one. I know MM doesn’t continue a story line from one week to another but perhaps the lapses stretch too far. But then again there are many unknowns and they usually get tied up eventually. I guess that’s the fun of it.
October 7th, 2008 at 11:59 pm
As I watched the debate tonight, and watched McCain kinda invade personal body spaces and give that unnerving smile, it seemed to be remind me of something — then it occurred to me where I’d seen it before.
I now know why he made me shudder even more than usual.
October 8th, 2008 at 12:21 am
When people were talking about how much Gene resembles McCain, I just didn’t see it. I’m mostly struck, when I look at McCain, by his strange posture, his hunched shoulders that make his arms appear too short for his body, and the way his lips appear not to move as he speaks. I guess the face itself doesn’t leave that much of an impression.
But as I watched the debates tonight, boy HOWDY! I was like, THAT’S GENE!
October 8th, 2008 at 12:42 am
#62
The mention of Don’s past always brings up in me a great ambivalence.
Don SAID his father died as a result of horse kicking him in the head.
BUT,
Don also said his father treated badly and all this made him want to do is kill him.
A horse kick is blunt force trauma, but so could be an object held by a human hand…
If no one other than Dick Whitman saw the event, who would know the difference?
Don/Dick lies so easily, I wonder if this has been a life-long trait for him.
October 8th, 2008 at 8:50 am
Honk honk!
October 8th, 2008 at 9:01 am
“The mention of Don’s past always brings up in me a great ambivalence.
Don SAID his father died as a result of horse kicking him in the head.
BUT….”
I’ve got suspicions about that death, but they run in another direction. Don was still quite young when his father died–when his brother Adam was born–when the “Uncle” entered his life. Could the Uncle be Adam’s father? Don’s father looked “like me, only bigger”–which we saw; they were both very dark. Adam had light hair.
Could he have hated his stepmother even more because she was an adulterous accessory to murder–while still piously quoting the Bible? Even if he sometimes imagined killing his father, he would not love somebody who actually did it. And he could have felt no brotherly bond with poor Adam. Guilt, yes–can’t blame that poor, not too bright guy for his parents. But that was too late.
Oh–and could Betty have found a hobby that Don would dislike more than riding? (Even if we ignore that “kicked in the face” bit.) He probably remembers many hours in the stable. With a shovel. No upper middle class fantasies of riding to hounds for him.
October 8th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
I’m sorry, but the Archibald Whitman murder plot sounds like crazy talk.
I just don’t see that as the direction of Mad Men. To me, Mad Men is like Hitchcock except Weiner shows us that what lurks behind that door is just… y’know, us.
He (Weiner) did say that S2 wouldn’t have a mystery revealed the way that Dick Whitman was revealed in S1; he’s not a one-trick-pony. (or, one-trick-drunk-kicking-horse.)
The mystery of this show is, Who knows why people do what they do?
October 8th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
“I hope Roberta is right and they don’t resolve the incest stuff. It would make sense that it would be reburied.
If they ever get to the ’80’s they could have Betty undergo regression therapy and recall repressed memories of Daddy being bad.”
Resolved what incest stuff? Has it been established that Betty was a victim of incest?
October 8th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
@# 60 jw
i read: They’re both clearly evolving and sometimes, in a marriage, two people torn asunder do end up growing together. Like I said before, it just gets messy before *charity* sets in.
wow.
(
i see so much of my family in the drapers, it’s scary. the show can be a strange distancing/coping tool, but MW really & truly hit a nerve. not in a bad way, just amazing how honest and truthful it is.
October 8th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
“I hope Roberta is right and they don’t resolve the incest stuff. It would make sense that it would be reburied.
If they ever get to the ’80’s they could have Betty undergo regression therapy and recall repressed memories of Daddy being bad.”
Resolved what incest stuff? Has it been established that Betty was a victim of incest?
The question of incest. That is what this post, and the bulk of responses, is focused on. The question is out there, hmm, did something happen? There is not a definitive answer (so no, it has not been established) and my feeling is, to repeat myself, that Weiner will not come in and resolve it; ie, provide a definitive answer. I don’t think there will be a sexual abuse storyline. I think we’ve seen what we’ve seen, and it is up to each viewer to decide for them/ourselves.
October 8th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
#64 Totally. So it would be resolved and then unresolved again. So MM!
October 8th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
@ #75 Roberta:
Yepp, you’re right. It will never be revisited, it will never be resolved. It’s just out there. It’s another MacGuffin.
October 8th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Hull, I don’t think that’s a MacGuffin, because it matters very much, and we, the audience, care very much.
I was first taught “MacGuffin” in relation to one of my favorite Hitchcocks: Notorious. A MacGuffin is something the characters care about very much, but doesn’t matter to the audience. The uranium sand in the wine bottles in Notorious—that’s a MacGuffin. It’s a plot device around which the characters can whirl.
Gene possibly being sexually abusive? That’s subtext.
The reason that people complain so much about Mad Men being slow is that it has very few MacGuffins. We’re accustomed to characters making a lot of busy motion around some device or another, furthering the subtext through busyness.
Virtually every demon in Buffy and Angel is a MacGuffin. Do we care about the ancient Aztec curse or the robot step-father or this week’s world-ending spell? Not so much. We care about what our characters do in response.
That’s conventional entertainment, something to care about plus something to make a fuss over equals an episode or a film.
Mad Men eliminates an enormous amount of fuss. So it’s “slow,” or “smart” depending upon how you watch.
October 8th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Hey, now, the robot boyfriend/potential stepfather/Ted was played by John Ritter and he made cookies and mini-pizzas — I cared deeply.
Of course, I tend to fixate on whether or not characters actually eat when in restaurants or at the dinner table. I hate when people meet at a restaurant, order, and then leave before eating — okay, meet me to tell me you want a divorce, but I WILL be eating my shrimp cocktail.
October 8th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Roberta, that question — who knows why people do what they do? — is the question of the series. When Don answered Betty’s cramped line of attack with that question last season, it was not what she wanted to hear. But what made it infuriating was also what made it such a perfect comment on his status.
And hers. And that of every other person on this show that we find interesting.
Including, I might add, that father of hers. Who does look like John McCain, now that you mention it. They both have that same calcifying rapid-decline thing going on. Not that their multiple apologists will mention this.
Rosie, I am not sure that Gene and Betty’s story is one of incest. I do know that Gene is protected, and has been for some time: by all the women in his life, by his son, and of course by the fact that he is a certain type of man of means, in a time when those men were protected at all costs. No matter how badly they behaved: and they did behave badly. Yes, they did.
The subtext of who gets cared for in that home was clear to me in the scene between Viola and Betty. Viola was telling Betty, at the end, to separate herself from that house and the man in it. To hang in there, because after all, she’d get clear of the place soon. “It’s all good outside that door.”
I watched the debate last night. Noticed the resemblance. And this is the last month in a long season, which is probably why my patience on this subject is short. But last night, old-guy-who-looks-like-Gene pointed at my candidate — probably the future President — and called him “that one”.
It really took me back. That was a derogatory term, reminding me of the days when older people used to sit for hours in smoky rooms that I (a child; a girl) had no choice but to cross through to get to important things — chores, food, bed.
“That one,” they’d say of me, along with things like looks like her mother or always running around or work’s never done. I never knew what any of those things meant. I was outside their conversation, but a topic of it. An object. That’s what that term is from: the days of being seen and not heard.
I don’t know about anyone else here, but I am done protecting those people. It is time to be seen and heard. So says This One.
October 8th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
I’ve been watching this MacGuffin discussion and I think Deb hit it right on the head. The only MacGuffins I can think of in MM are the ads they write. The detail in the sets/costumes/props etc. feels MacGuffiny, but is usually not important to the plot. In fact, there’s not a whole lot of plot in MM, it’s a character driven story. As such, who needs a MacGuffin?
October 8th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
As for Marten Weiner standing in for a cameo for Matt, I would say that casting Marten was right out of Hitch’s playbook. He liked to cast his daughter Pat, for instance in Psycho, Strangers on a Train, and several episodes of his TV show.
October 8th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
@ #80 Anne B.
This one agrees with your entire post. Thank you for saying it so eloquently.
October 8th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
#80
Whoo Hoo! Wonderfully said.
Also, can’t remember who said it above, but I also am discovering that by watching this series that my childhood was not so different from that of anyone else who grew up in that period. Therapy, indeed.
October 8th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
::Ovates for Anne B::
DB; #82: Heeey, that’s what I said!
Virtually every demon in Buffy and Angel is a MacGuffin. Do we care about the ancient Aztec curse or the robot step-father or this week’s world-ending spell? Not so much. We care about what our characters do in response.
HAH! The Zeppo is all about the MacGuffin!
October 8th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
I’m coming late to this discussion, but I absolutely agree with you, Roberta. And also, along the lines of what others are saying, it’s actually possible that the Betty’s father’s grope in the present is an unusual response to his stroke/AD and he also molested his daughter when she was a child.
It’s highly unusual for an abuser to act so blatantly inappropriately in front of others; it’s unlikely that if he did abuse Betty that he’d have openly groped her in front of her mother or brother. However, it doesn’t negate the fact that he may have done so in private.
Whether his grope in the present is abuse or just confusion is irrelevant. It’s Betty’s reaction that’s relevant. And there are a number of things Betty’s done, both in this episode and in the series that haven’t been mentioned here that re indicative of an abuse victim.
In this episode, for instance…When she is in her family’s house, she acts out sexually–sneaking into Don’s “bed” to seduce him in the middle of the night when he’s asleep, even as she’s not sleeping with him by her own “rules.” She breaks the rules and wakes someone in her childhood bedroom out of their sleep to have sex with them, despite not being “supposed” to sleep with them. And in the morning he wakes up, and she’s goneand he’s alone like no one’s been there. Hello?!?!?
Her family’s maid says, “He’s very very sick.” And Betty starts to cry and says, “You don’t know how nice it is to hear someone say that.” Two meanings to that, obviously. But it seemed pretty clear to me.
And her total confusion around her relationship with Glen; unable to set boundaries between adult and child relationships, particularly when the child is sexually inappropriate. Remember, her connection to Glen is forged RIGHT AFTER Glen deliberately walks in on her on the toilet–where she’s totally exposed.
Then in the greater scheme of things…she’s deliberately married a man who’s job keeps her from having to visit too often; she says as much in the episode. And she chooses someone with “no people”–no family. Deliberate? Probably.
And there’s her complete anger at most males in her life, particularly those she loves. Her anger at Don for deceiving her about the beer/affair–she has tagged men as deceivers. Don may deserve her anger due to his behavior, but how about her constant anger toward her son; calling him a “little liar” repeatedly, etc.
Mistrust of the motives of the gender who victimized you and/or expectation of deception from them is quite common in childhood sexual assault victims.
And also, her completely inexplicable anger at that horse-riding-guy (forgetting his name) before she even knew anything about him–although I’ll point out that he looks quite a lot like her brother William, and if her brother takes after her dad…well then…
But THEN, she does start entertaining horse-guy’s friendship. When? AFTER he is completely inappropriately sexually aggressive toward her. Even though she stops him of her own power, suddenly her anger dissipates and she is inviting him for lunch dates…
And I agree with a previous poster that said the fact the family had absolutely no reaction to it and only Don showed any major upset is a high indicator that the family’s primed to cover up inappropriate behavior, and collude together to keep normalcy.
Let’s not forget Mad Men’s constant theme is advertising–that means what you’re selling is not what the real product is; it’s an image to cover up the reality of the product And all the characters epitomize this theme in various ways. Betty’s no exception. Nor is her family.
I mean, doesn’t anyone think it’s telling that the episode is called The Inheritance? It seems obvious to me–many things get passed down in families, not just estates. The title, I’m willing to bet, isn’t really about Pete’s situation at all. That’s just a red herring.
October 8th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
@ Deborah #78
I was first taught “MacGuffin” in relation to one of my favorite Hitchcocks: Notorious. A MacGuffin is something the characters care about very much, but doesn’t matter to the audience. The uranium sand in the wine bottles in Notorious—that’s a MacGuffin. It’s a plot device around which the characters can whirl.
Thanks, excellent definition of a MacGuffin. I absolutely agree that what makes Mad Men so different is that there are so few MacGuffins. Even what seem like incidental bits, like the references to Jackie Kennedy and Marilyn Monroe, gather more symbolic weight as the show develops. So do the ad campaigns e.g. The Kodak Wheel, which ended up incarnating the shattering metaphor that ended Season 1, or the Nixon vs Kennedy political campaign (what a wonderfully significant perversity to realize that Don was Nixon and Pete was Kennedy) , or Maidenform (paying off with the final shot of the red welt left by Joan’s bra strap), or the pitch for Israel tourism that reflected onto the Don and Rachel relationship.
[I'm also tempted here to go off on a Buffy tangent, saying how the monster-of-the-week was often a metaphorical representation of whatever emotional traumas the characters were going through. RobotTed/John Ritter was a sci-fi monster, yes, but also a monsterized version of Buffy's anxieties about her mother's possibly bringing a new man into their lives. But I'm restraining myself.
]
October 8th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
@ Roberta # 85
HAH! The Zeppo is all about the MacGuffin!
O.K., I’ll give you that one.
October 8th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
(Actually ‘Ted’ is perhaps Deborah’s favorite example of the brilliance of the Buffy monsters-as-metaphors.)
October 8th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Roberta is right.
But again, it’s not the monster, it’s how the characters react and interact based on the presence of the monsters. Ted is unimportant. Buffy experiencing Ted is important.
October 8th, 2008 at 11:38 pm
My great uncle had severe Alzheimers for many years before he died. He would do things like walk out in the middle of a family visit, completely naked, and cursing like a sailor. People with Alzheimers do and say scandalous things that they would never do normally – Betty’s father groping her and calling her Ruth is hardly unrealistic.
October 9th, 2008 at 10:09 am
Beep beep!
October 9th, 2008 at 10:29 am
Jorge, you need to cut that out!
October 9th, 2008 at 11:31 am
Is Jorge the Roadrunner? WTF?
October 9th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
You don’t even want to know what beep beep means. But I’m sure if you look at Greg #52’s comment, you can figure it out.
October 9th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
this has been a very interesting thread to read. im catching up on the posts here on BOK……
and jorge, please dont detract from the threads….some of us really look forward to reading intelligent adult discourse that Roberta and Deborah facilitate.
October 9th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
I don’t know whether Betty was actually molested but can see that we were meant to consider the possibility. Something in her upbringing was not right; her flattened affect is NOT simply the way all women were back then. Perhaps Don will learn that, as bad as it was being a whore’s bastard brought up by yokels, nobody’s background was perfect. Meeting Pete’s Gorgon Mother would certainly emphasize the lesson.
Dad’s grope may have been the meaningless symptom of whatever sort of dementia has him in its grip. But what about his tirade about Don’s lack of “people”? I’ll bet he’d been thinking that a long time, but avoided saying it. Around Don, that is….
Despite all the Hitchcockian elements in MM, I agree that McGuffins are lacking. But Buffy didn’t have McGuffins so much as Phlebotinum!
October 9th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
I read in another blog about this episode (can’t remember which blog) that the camera angles are looking up at the characters for much of the episode. I don’t have a copy of the episode so I can’t rewatch it myself, but maybe someone can watch it again and verify this. This would I think explain some of the discomfort many of us felt during the episode.
Particularly, I’m thinking about the breakfast table scene. If my memory serves me I think we were looking up from the table as if we were a child seated there when Betty’s Dad reached for her.
I have felt really uncomfortable about this scene and not just about the content. I think it was the camera angle. It’s like when you return to the house you grew up in and everything looks smaller and out of proportion to your memories. It’s because you are bigger of course, but also your point of view is physically higher in the room than when you were a child. For an adult, it can be a disorienting experience.
I think the camera put us back in the child’s perspective. Also, when Glen was in the playhouse, we looked up at Betty from his point of view and she seemed like a huge Alice in Wonderland looking into the tiny house. You know, one pill makes you larger and one pill makes you small.
Did anyone else get this feeling?
October 10th, 2008 at 12:44 am
Camera angles = another homage to Hitchcock. Hitch loved playing around with extreme camera angles — either very low, so people and objects appear ominous or threatening in some way, or very high (the bird’s eye view), in which people seem more vulnerable or somehow insignificant. Low angles also add to a feeling of claustrophobia, since we feel closed in by the ceilings, walls and corners, which are more evident in these types of shots, and people’s silhouettes seem more out of proportion in relation to them.
October 11th, 2008 at 8:23 am
My father never molested me. In the last week of his life I believe he began having mini-strokes because very suddenly his behavior got weird. He had a big surgery and, for the next two days in the hospital, he began to say and do some very strange things, including talking about my boobs in a worshipping way. We had NEVER gone there before in my life, and I was having a very Betty moment, except there was no Don to protect me. I handled it by letting it go by with no reaction, but I realized that wasn’t my dad anymore, and I was on my own, like Betty.
October 11th, 2008 at 10:19 am
Low camera angles were also a staple of film noir (although they were begun by . There were some scenes in this episode at Betty’s parents’ house that reminded me of The Maltese Falcon. Incidentally, the first use of this technique was in Citizen Kane, which was post-Rebecca.
October 11th, 2008 at 10:22 am
Pink, thank you for sharing that. Wow.
Totally aside, I was just referencing the pink elephant in Flight 1. Like, twenty minutes ago.