One of the very first things that struck me about Mad Men, from the pilot, was our view of Salvatore. I’ve written about it many times; on other boards (pre-BoK) and in here as well. The idea that here is this man that is so obviously gay to us, but no one around him recognizes it. There is not one person in that office that can identify his homosexuality (at least at that stage). Trust me, if that guy worked in my office, we’d be all over it.
Our knowledge that Sal is gay is an active component of the story that is being told. The fact that we know what they don’t know, and that we know that we know and that they don’t know. It’s part of it. Not in a cute, “oh, if only there were some kind of directive, a prime directive, if you will”, way. This goes way beyond just a wink to the viewers. How informed we, the 21st century participant in this collaborative art form (because TV is still, at its roots, theatre), fills in the missing pieces.
And it is the same thing with Joan’s rape.
She doesn’t know. It was talked about in here, oh, if only Roger were there, he would have saved her. Nuh-uh. Joan does not know she was being raped. If someone had walked in on them, she would not have asked for help. She doesn’t know, her bastard rapist fiancée doesn’t know, Roger doesn’t know.
Just us.
We know.
And it devastated us, knowing that we know and the she doesn’t know.
To me, the transparency of the fourth wall is a vital part of Mad Men and its impact.
79 Responses to “The Fourth Veil”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I’m not saying the pilot is gospel, but if you look at the rest of the season it’s still mainly played for broader comedy with Sal.
Everything from his comment on colors in the second ep to Joan’s “WTF was that?” face after he he kisses her in Kinsey’s play to the comments he makes during the episode where the operator overhears his “Ciao, ciao,” on the phone. It’s too jokey and over the top to have the characters be that stupid and not just doing it for propriety, especially when movies these people would have seen were saying the same thing.
Tom, I just don’t see it quite the same way. I don’t think Sal is played for broad comedy, but for irony. Some of it is funny, but I don’t think it’s at the sacrifice of real character. I think it was carefully written and brilliantly played. And I’m pretty sure Bryan was exactly who Matt was looking for, because he was encouraged to audition (or come back, or something) when he almost didn’t.
Everything about the pilot was slightly broader. Or something. The use of music–it doesn’t 100% match the rest of the season. But Tom, as you know, a pilot can never be (nor should it be) a perfect match. It has its own job to do, and certainly Smoke achieves that.
Also what Matt has said about the pilot, (maybe to us in our first interview? or at our party?) was that ‘it’s all there’. And he said that as far as the Sopranos went along, almost all of it could be traced back to that pilot. It may be true that he wasn’t in love with the Sopranos from the pilot, but he now holds it in the highest regard.
I didn’t say broad comedy. I used broader, specifically because it’s not sitcom wild, but it is played more jokingly than almost any other character’s traits.
How do we italicize here?
Tom, message boards tend to use UBB code, which uses square brackets. Blogs (like this one) use HTML, which uses angle brackets. I fixed it for you.
Also, the fact that there were jokes about it in movies of the period does not mean that everyone got those jokes in their fullest sense, any more than everyone gets it when Roger asks Joan if she liked the pearl necklace he gave her in “Babylon.”
OK, 3d time:
Make the brackets the “less than” and “greater than.”
Everyone knew what being “lavender” meant. Paul Lynde in Send Me No Flowers saying, “I’ll slip out the back door,”? Some people wouldn’t get it. But pointing out a flamboyant man’s use of lavender? No question.
I think it’s always dangerous to talk about what “everyone” knew. But certainly most of the characters of MM might be expected to get the more obvious stuff. But Sal does put in an effort to look hetero at times. And absent some of the more heavy-handed comedic references, I don’t think the CH kiss in “NvK” (among other signals) would have come across as heavy-handed to viewers, let alone anyone else in the room.
Also, your left bracket should be the “less than,” your right bracket should be the “greater than” and you still need the slash when you’re closing. (Examples.)
Well, are we talking citizens of Manhattan in a business all about being up on the latest trends? They would not be at a loss to know what Lavender means regarding a man, especially since the association comes from way before the ’60s–like, Victorian-era before.
The bottom line is the Salvatore gay references are too over the top for at least some of the Sterling-Cooper people not to get them, especially since their own entertainment world is joking about the same issues, even the same people they deal with everyday.
What no one really looks at though, is the implications. Everyone is so busy defending these characters (“No, no, they’re not stupid. People back then didn’t know these things like we do!” “What about the fact that their average-Joe comedies dealt with these issues?” “Hey, don’t start using evidence to prove me wrong now!”) that they ignore what this means for a man like Salvatore.
What kind of a world is it when people will leave him alone if he’s gay just as long as they don’t have to know about it? What does it say when someone not only is thinking they are hiding from their friends and family, but the kind of deep-seated emotions he has when he can’t even let himself in on the fact that he is different? He denies himself to the point of turning down the secret trist with the Belle Jolie salesman–something no one else would know of and something that no one else but he, himself, takes away.
So the bigger question, instead of do his co-workers know (which some do if they aren’t a bunch of dunderheads) is why is he a good guy when he conforms, even to himself (down to getting himself buried in a marriage), and becomes a pariah if he doesn’t? That’s the big point. To us, who see Sal’s struggle, it becomes even sadder, because we know many openly gay people in our time. Some of us know people who even came out of the closet–and those people didn’t suddenly change. They were the same people we always knew, now with just a little more information. But the people in Mad Men don’t look at their friends the same way. They exist with an idea of, “I liked you till I found out that you…”
We see the treatment of Kurt, with Ken, one of the more artistic (and presumably, therefore, enlightened) of the group, the one who, in fact, had Sal read his manuscript, doing much of the insulting, and then we see Sal, realizing what the other one of his co-worker’s two faces actually looks like. And where does this lead? We see him lock himself away even tighter.
It’s a good point. And the truth is, when we suppress something, we imagine it is much bigger than it is. We fear the floodgates. This is why the far-right anti-gay crowd is so terrified of the gays having constant gay sex in the street and blocking traffic; that’s their own suppression talking. And that’s what Sal’s afraid of when he turns down Elliot; once he starts, he’s afraid he won’t be able to stop. He’ll be OUT OUT OUT and everyone will know.
And you’re right, it’s a tragedy.
Roberta @ #42 says
“…Paul Lynde and Charles Nelson Reilly, and I think Sal is comparable to these guys, but a bit smoother, darker.”
I think Sal’s more like Clifton Webb, but younger and more dashing. Actually, I’ve been watching the old Perry Mason episodes online, and Raymond Burr’s portrayal of the attorney reminds me a little of Bryan Batt’s characterization of Salvatore, although Bryan’s mannerisms are more pronounced. I imagine that’s more for the benefit of the audience — a wink, if you will — rather than an indication of who his character is. The time period’s correct, too. All Sal needs is a “business partner/friend” similar to Robert Benevides, Burr’s longtime lover.
I had no idea Raymond Burr was gay.
Whereas Raymond Burr’s gayness was a running gag on some Chcago radio shows going back decades. So perceptions differ. And as I joked in #48, MM is a show that is about denial. It’s not theat Sal’s S-C colleagues are dumb, anymore than Betty was dumb when it came to Don’s affairs. Or that Joan never figured out her roommate was in love with her. Or that Peggy was dumb about being pregnant. There are things these characters block out to avoid having to deal with them, until forced. Thus, but for Joan’s roomie coming out to her, I think CH would have played Joan’s reaction to Sal’s kiss differently, more confused.
And in #74, DL gets atwhat I’m saying about pilots. Obvsly, a good writer does his or her best in the pilot (and the next couple of eps) to establish the world of the show and the major characters, lay out some plot points that show the direction and tone of the show, should it get picked up. But TV is inherently a group effort, even one as driven by an auteur as MM is. And while they still give Sal some over-the-top stuff, I think the general trend has been to rein it in from what it was in the pilot and “Ladies’ Room.” And I would guess that part of the reason why is that MW figured out pretty quickly that BB gives him more options than he might have thought he would have when he wrote the pilot. So when I am measuring the magnitude of the denial going on at S-C, I do mentally discount a bit from those first two eps. They’re still in denial, but on a lesser scale than what you would take away from just the first two eps.
“And as I joked in #48, MM is a show that is about denial. It’s not theat Sal’s S-C colleagues are dumb, anymore than Betty was dumb when it came to Don’s affairs. Or that Joan never figured out her roommate was in love with her. Or that Peggy was dumb about being pregnant. There are things these characters block out to avoid having to deal with them, until forced.”
So you’re saying these people are treating Sal as if he’s straight, while believing something else? I don’t buy it.