Aug 312009
Don said Roger doesn’t look happy, he looks foolish. He didn’t suggest that Roger isn’t happy, he was only focused on appearances.
Don almost ran away with the woman he loved in Season 1. Now granted, Rachel is a more appropriate match in terms of age and intelligence. But Don wanted to abandon his wife for her, just as Roger abandoned Mona. The difference is that Don would have disappeared; probably even changed his name again, whereas Roger is standing up and doing it in front of people. That’s what’s foolish to Don.
94 Responses to “"You look foolish"”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Don's scene with Roger near the end of the episode is certainly parallel to Joan vs Jane at the start — with Don voicing what Joan didn't say: "they think you're foolish." We're hearing Don's inner voice. Jane outed him to Betty with her "I knew you'd get back together comment" and Don thinks others can see through him. He doesn't belong at the country club. "They think you're foolish."
If Joan sees Jane as a ridiculous figure then, on some level, she must sense that she looked equally foolish as Roger's previous pet. Jane is a "college girl" who is now using class weapons unavailable to Joan's toolbox. How this influences Joan's ideas about being married is, of course, unknown. But Mrs. Chief of Surgery has added some perspective to the life of a doctor's wife.
I get the sense Joan's childhood was as troubled as Don's. Neither one had much mothering, I suspect. While Don was parking cars, Joan was … what … playing bar mitzvahs? To us, there's no shame in that. But shame is one of the things motivating Don and, I believe, Joan.
Like you, Phil, I wonder if Joan feels some shame about her past. I am reminded of the pilot when Joan advised a brand-new Peggy that if she made "all the right moves" she'd eventually be out in the country and not working at all. Years later Peggy's got a door, and though Joan is married, she is definitely not living the life she envisioned for herself. Married to Dr. Rapist (who is apparently not as professionally accomplished as he would have us believe) and still in a small city apartment, Joan is forced to confront an alternative version of her life when she encounters Mrs. Sterling 2.0. Does Joan believe she's made "all the right moves"?
Really? I thought Don's point is that a.) a man Roger's age looks like a moon struck adolescent chasing after lost youth b.) Jane is a golddigger and everyone at Sterling-Cooper knows it and c.) you should never get involved with anyone you work with everyday because it looks like you don't take your job seriously. Oh, sure, Jane doesn't have to work now but we all know that Roger treats his office like a playground. It won't be long until he finds a new target.
One thing you can say for Don is that he keeps his professional life separate from his escapades. Yes, he slept with Rachel and Bobbi but they weren't his co-workers.
Part of Don's anger with Roger might also be due to the fact that Don forces himself to reconcile with Betty because he realizes he values his family even if he doesn't quite get what's going on between himself and his wife. So, Don's in an uncomfortable relationship, trying to work it out, while Roger, having no sense of self-control, is dancing with a new young wife who is old enough to be his daughter.
Lots of stuff going on here.
Love what happened to Betty at the party. But until she starts acting like an adult, instead of someone who needs to constantly defer to a man, any of her relationships will be disasters. She needs to be a Rachel. Or a Midge. Or a Bobbi. Or a Peggy.
Do we know if Jane is Jewish? Her last name (Siegel, Siegle?) might indicate something. If so, that's another 'thorn' to the members of the 'jet set' at the country club – not just the divorce and marriage, but perhaps to a non-WASP? I wonder if this will create issues in future 'episodes'…
Jane is certainly nothing like Rachel Menken.
Judy, it was never mentioned one way or the other, but Roger has made anti-Semitic remarks on more than one occasion, so it seems unlikely.
It's a tribute to John Slattery's mad skillz that he can make Roger so fascinating to watch even when I hate what he's doing.
I may not have approved if Roger had left Mona for Joan instead of jane, but I don't think it would have been quite the same. Roger and Joan knew each other for a long time. They had more in common. I can imagine them having a conversation that goes beyong her reading schoolgirl poetry and him saying how young she makes him feel. And although she was the other woman, Joan always seemed sympathetic to Mona and Margaret, even taking their side when Roger complained about them. I can't imagine Joan going along with any plans that would make them feel worse, the way Jane is.
Elaine, I agree. For all his failings, when it comes down to it Don does have a moral code. I am not sure that Roger does. I keep thinking back to the Mohawk Airlines episode where Roger let Don know that he did not prize loyalty, he sa it as a handicap. At his core Don is very loyal.
Was Don really that loyal? He's in the advertising business, after all. And he's a fraud. Or was he unwilling to take chances, unless forced to do so?
Roger and Joan knew each other for a long time. They had more in common. I can imagine them having a conversation that goes beyong her reading schoolgirl poetry and him saying how young she makes him feel. And although she was the other woman, Joan always seemed sympathetic to Mona and Margaret, even taking their side when Roger complained about them.
But Joan would still be guilty of the very thing that many fans are now castigating Jane about. She's already guilty of having an affair with Roger in the past.
Rosie @60 —
Was Don really that loyal? He’s in the advertising business, after all…
Rosie, you've mentioned this before. And it angered me then. You frequently insult not only the characters on the show (and yes, I recognize that they are characters on a TV show, but we are here discussing them), but the opinions of many of the other Basketcases, and those of the writers.
I work in a field very closely associated with advertising. I have an advertising background, and could cross back over at any time. And you are saying that in all likelihood that makes me a liar.
You need to just stop it.
I am going to chime in here. We do not allow ad hominem attacks or insults. Basketcases can disagree all you want. Please disagree! And you can politely argue. But just as racism and sexism aren't allowed in comments, I will say that insulting entire groups of people is not okay. Oh, sure, if the entire group is "murderers," go ahead. But to continually say that "advertising people" are inherently immoral is out of line.
@ 26 (Rosie):
Yet . . . Jane was not the one who ended up marrying some guy who had raped her at her workplace. For that act alone – marrying Greg – I cannot help but feel some kind of contempt toward Joan for doing something that stupid and desperate.
This really drives me nuts. Yes, through the lens of 2009, most people (though by NO means all) can see that Greg's actions in the office bordered on rape–but this was 1962, people. Spousal/date rape was not even a term. Rape was something that happened when a stranger pulled you off the street at night. Joan, in her eyes and in the eyes of that time period, was not raped. Her fiancee was just being an aggressive asshole.
Didn't we discuss this to death last season? I have a feeling there will be many reasons to dislike Greg as the season wears on–the office scene from S2 may be a prelude to mental/physical abuse to come, perhaps even causing Joan to miscarry–but let's not fault Joan for accepting something that was commonplace in 1962. For that matter, let's not fault the countless women who continue to accept it as commonplace today. It takes a lot to stand up to it.
Rosie: It is unacceptable to blame a rape victim for her rape, or a domestic abuse victim for being abused. Unacceptable.
Miss Mia: Greg's actions did not "border on rape." Greg's actions were rape.
Rosie, I think you're taking a shallow view of what it's like to be in advertising. Yes ultimately it's about "pimping products" if you want to look at it that way. But for the people involved in it, it isn't as cynical an exercise as you make it out to be. Don is absolutely right when he tells Peggy you have to make people feel something. And that "something" has to be real. You can't fake feeling. Believe it or not, it takes deep insightful thinking to understand what makes people tick, and what motivates them to do things and want things and buy things. Good advertising taps into that. Good creatives are psychologists before all else. They are not "frauds."
Don in particular seems most honest with himself when he is working on a campaign. Interesting, no?
Rosie, I get the feeling from most of your comments that you really dislike the characters on the show. I think that's too bad. I love all the characters, for the very reason that they ARE flawed, they ARE emotionally damaged. Just like most of us. I think that's what I like so much about the show- it delves into all manifestations and ramifications of that emotional damage in a way that's highly empathetic, and shows how the characters are trying to cope with their flaws. I find it fascinating, and I'm rooting for all of them to overcome what makes them so unhappy and act out so badly. Even Jane, who acted so loathesomely — by the end of this episode, I felt a little sorry for her.
I think that's one of the strengths of the show – that it can present these characters who have so much depth that even when they act abominably, and from the worst motivations, you feel something for them.
What DO you like about the show?
I have a feeling there will be many reasons to dislike Greg as the season wears on …
And there may well be reasons to like him. Like that vulnerable look he got when his "mistake" was mentioned, if that was a reason. (I'm reaching here.)
But those reasons remain inside the viewer. These people, all of them, are fictions: I bring to them my own fondness, anger, love, dislike, confusion, fear … and yes, contempt.
If I'm projecting something onto these screen figments that is bigger than — or similar to — what I feel for other people in my life, that says more about me than it says about them. Rosie, what might your feelings about Joan, Don, or Peggy say about you?
That's always where I like to start.
Anne B, your diplomacy is refreshing. It was getting heated in here! : )
Joss Whedon said/wrote the coolest thing: bring your own subtext. The creative people write the stories and make the shows, and then it goes out to the audience. Almost invariable, particularly if the product is good, fans begin to interpret based on who they are and what they need the story to be. Every time we discuss a show we do, indeed, bring our own subtext and sometimes argue it passionately, sometimes without proof.
The coolness of Joss is that he gets that bringing your own subtext is the ultimate compliment — fulfillment of his desire for people to love his work passionately enough to internalize it.
However, some theories are more credible than others. I think it's okay to hate a character with no shades of gray, perhaps what the viewer needs to project, but good writers usually aim for more nuance than that.
Ms. D, I adore listening to Matt say "I think" on the commentary tracks. "I think" this is the first discussion Don & Betty have had about this, "I think" Sal has never been with a man, etc. He allows that viewer opinions are as valuable as his own.
@ 65: Oh, sure, if the entire group is “murderers,†go ahead.
Actually, I would take offense at blanket characterizations of murderers as well. A man is not his crimes, and no crime is black and white…
…you know, just chiming in from the anti-prison-industrial complex side, here.
What about accountants?
…and back to the Roger/Don discussion. In looking at the episode again I found myself mourning a little for the probable end of their seemingly long friendship. Season 1 I used to wonder how they met. Season 2 I loved Roger's insouciant way of explaining that no, Don didn't have a contract yet. I felt he was telling the Brits, 'hey, Draper is old school, like me and we didn't need a contract, a handshake was enough'. That's a powerful thing for your boss to do for you in any era.
On the other hand, I used to always wonder how much Don really liked Roger. He seemed to just go along with whatever needy Roger wanted. Necessary for his job, which was necessary for the "Don Draper" persona/life, but what could he really like about Roger?
I loved how Don (and Pete too, it's there in the background) were the only ones I saw who were unable to hide their discomfort at the blackface. Pete and his sweet, sweet wife rocked this party without seeming like they tried too hard. The competition with Cosgrove is heating up.
Review the times the two spent together over the past 2+ seasons. They were never friends.
Judy, it was never mentioned [whether Jane is Jewish] one way or the other, but Roger has made anti-Semitic remarks on more than one occasion, so it seems unlikely.
It's possible, though, that she has a Jewish father and a gentile mother, which would make her technically "not Jewish" as far as organized Judaism is concerned. (Recognition is based on the mother's religion/ethnicity, not the father's.) It would also make it easier for her to pass for WASP, especially if she inherited more of her mother's genes than her father's.
Thus Roger would find it easy to "make an exception" for Jane, because she's Not Really One of Them. (And yes, it's very possible to be prejudiced against a certain group of people and still have intimates for whom one makes an exception. See "some of my best friends are…")
I don't think Jane is Jewish because there has been nothing indicate that. If Rachel being Jewish was such a big deal coming to SC in the 60s, we would have heard some sort of anti-Semitic remark if this show if the writers want to go for authenticity. Especially
Besides being a Jewish name, Siegel can also be a German surname originating in Bavaria.
"Review the times the two spent together over the past 2+ seasons. They were never friends."
You're right of course, friendship is not what they did. Poor Don, secrets means never having real friends. Roger probably would have been his friend (sorta)if offered a chance. I suppose I meant I liked their working relationship. I felt like Roger really believed in Don's ability to pull a fantastic campaign out of thin air and was very convincing in meetings with clients. I think in the pilot you see that sort of play both ways. Roger tries to talk up Don to the LS people, they're not really buying it but it doesn't matter, Don suddenly 'unblocks' and you see a glimmer for the first time of what makes him special in his profession. That's what I'll miss. If Don leaves and starts his own agency, who will tell the clients he's a genius at what he does? No one will ever do it as well as Roger.
#78 B.Cooper- I agree with your thoughts about viewers. I'd like to stretch out your point a bit by suggesting that not just writers but our culture encourages us to judge just about everything that's put in front of us. And the judging is almost always encouraged to be reduced to the simplest Thumbs Up/Down dichotomy; good/evil, black/white; we all know how deeply that plays in the human psyche. The entertainment industry probably exploits that because it's easy, comfortable and marketable.
But Mr. Weiner and his crew definitely like to paint with those shades of gray Ms. Darkly mentions. They don't make their characters fit the archetypes that we the viewers have become familiar with, and like you hint at, they seem to deliberately thwart those accepted TV viewer expectations. I think Anne B@#67 is right, we might see something to like about Dr. Greg, most definitely something Joan obviously likes about him.
And many a viewer will be challenged to adapt their expectations, accept the show for what it is or "change the conversation".
But don't change the channel!!
#69 – Ms. Darkly … love that sentiment, and I’m not a Whedonite.
However the issue here is how we judge these characters. One tenet of acting is not to judge your character. He may have his own motivations and background that could mitigate any good or bad act, and judgement impedes the performance.
But as viewers, especially modern television viewers, we are encouraged to judge characters. Television characters, even many of the best, are drawn so broadly that their actions are their characters, and the audience is meant to have a particular reaction. Joan Holloway is no Amanda Woodward.
On Mad Men, and in what appears to be Matthew Weiner’s signature, the audience is challenged not to judge, but to view the action and the characters in much greater context (including the viewer’s own). And as soon as you think you’ve reached a conclusion, convincing alternative evidence is presented.
So argue we must (and shall), but in the end “I think …” may be all we can say for sure.
I’d like to stretch out your point a bit by suggesting that not just writers but our culture encourages us to judge just about everything that’s put in front of us. And the judging is almost always encouraged to be reduced to the simplest Thumbs Up/Down dichotomy …
less of me, I could not agree more. There's a magazine that has this feature — "Who Wore It Best?" — where they present two actresses in similar (or the same) outfits, and poll readers on who looks best. It's a small thing, but I really don't feel like judging that.
I don't feel like a participant in ANY of these things. I don't know those people (Jon and Kate? Brad, Angelina, Jen? What the hell?), and I don't care. Those are all just shadows on the cave wall.
In my real life, I have a huge family of all ages. If any one act could elevate or condemn any person in my life to a certain type, I'd have settled on who they all are, and shelved them, long ago. But life and people are not like that.
Rosie, as for Roger and Mona's marriage being "artificial": I don't think I can agree. What I saw at the end of Season 1 looked real enough to me. A man doesn't burst into tears when a woman who means little to him walks in the door. I think Roger loved Mona, and loves her still (if he didn't, the idea of her taking a date to Margaret's wedding wouldn't bother him).
I think he got bored, needed more stimulation than his long marriage offered … or he is slowly pickling himself, to the point where a young woman's attention is what it takes to make him feel something.
I have a relative who divorced some time ago. This relative will occasionally refer to that marriage as "failed". And I'll say: wait a second. You were together for 15 years. You have two great kids. I am not seeing failure there.
I'm six years into my own first marriage, and if it lasts, great. But there was nothing artificial about my husband's first marriage: his ex is a good person, they were married for a decade, and the kids are amazing. I hope to be married to my husband for the rest of my life — but even if that doesn't happen, I hope I'd describe it as a success: he's my best friend, first editor and lover.
I don't think a marriage, any more than a life, can be measured by its end. It's what is in the middle that matters.
Anne B, I agree with you. I don't think an ended marriage = a failed one.
And as a total personal aside, Deborah and I, on our flight to LA, finally asked each other about the book The Story of a Marriage. By total coincidence we'd both just finished up a week or so earlier, and we both adored it. Thank you!
Roberta,
I'm glad you both liked it. That book is still on my top ten (and I read a lot) … more for its surprises than anything else. But what good story doesn't have those?
I’ll bet that Roger & Janes’ wedding was low key, followed by a luncheon for the select group of guests. (If Margaret really wanted Jane excluded from her wedding, she should not have attended her Dad’s.) Perhaps he saw the Derby Party as a late wedding reception–a chance to throw a great party & introduce his lovely bride to all his friends & associates. (And he should have invited the Pryces; Mrs Pryce might have enjoyed the dreadful blackface act.)
Poor Jane. In “previously on Mad Men” from the earlier episode, we saw Roger popping the question & her smiling her assent. In the actual proposal scene, she answered his question with “what?” She was not expecting a proposal & would have been glad to remain the girlfriend in the fancy hotel suite. But she accepted. Now the romantic honeymoon is over & she has to deal with a stepdaughter her age & a social milieu whose rules she does not understand. Perhaps she would have been happier to have spent the afternoon getting stoned & flirting with guys not old enough to be her dad. Roger said something about having made his bed, then having to lie in it. The same goes for Jane. (Actually, they are quite happy in That Bed–but they both have to deal with the rest of the world.)
And I’m convinced that one of Don’s biggest problems with Roger is that that he sold SC to arrange his second marriage. Don has money in the bank but work is not as much fun & a bunch of people lost their jobs. (Hey, he went in to work some of the time.)
On this show, I’ve come to appreciate some initially unlikeable characters. And to understand even the ones I continue to loathe. I do want Doctor Rapist to end up in the same gutter as Duck. (As Freddy walks by with Chauncey–saving that dog’s life was just the motivation he needed to stay off the bottle. Along with The Meetings, of course.)
I rambled on and on (and on) about this in my write-up for this week, but since this is an actual thread topic, I thought I’d add a “condensed” version here.
In “My Old Kentucky Home,†Paul and Smitty talk about getting some “mary jane.” That, I believe, is a deliberate play on “Marry Jane” and directed at Roger’s “happiness” over his new marriage (which may be real or self-delusional). I’d add that at the end, Peggy, under the influence of “mary jane” expresses a new found euphoria to Olive. Which, to me, seemed similar Roger’s elation and could end up being just as artificial (albeit personally satisfying).
Matt, the problem with that is it's established language for Paul: He referred to "Mary Jane" in ep. 1.02.
Hello Anne B – simpatico philosophers are we, I see. What is real?
A favorite quote (from Woody Allen):
"Cloquet hated reality but realized it was still the only place to get a
good steak."
Hi Roberta- nice place you got here! Thanks for the nod to the nom de plume yesterday on the other thread. I wish I was here last season to yak about the sublime perfection of that whole scene. The truth in there still echoes with me.
Yet I fully anticipate more enlightenment this season. After all, Peggy is in a very good place right now.
BTW- because I'm into the thoroughbreds and I did not see it in the episode nor have I read it anywhere yet, the winner of the 1963 Kentucky Derby was a long shot named Chateaugay. Run with that where you will.
“Really? I thought Don’s point is that a.) a man Roger’s age looks like a moon struck adolescent chasing after lost youth b.) Jane is a golddigger and everyone at Sterling-Cooper knows it.”
When did the series establish that Jane was a golddigger? We do know that Jane used Roger to keep her job in “The Gold Violin”. We discovered in “Six Months Leave” that she and Roger were having an affair. We also discovered in the same effort that after a conversation with Don, Roger decided to leave Mona for Jane. And in “The Jet Set”, we discovered that Jane likes to write love poems about Roger. By the last two episodes of Season 2, we discovered that Roger plans to marry Jane after his divorce from Mona.
But when was it established that Jane was a golddigger?
I’d add that at the end, Peggy, under the influence of “mary jane†expresses a new found euphoria to Olive. Which, to me, seemed similar Roger’s elation and could end up being just as artificial (albeit personally satisfying).
Just as his marriage to Mona proved to be artificial . . . or Don’s marriage to Betty.
I do want Doctor Rapist to end up in the same gutter as Duck.
I didn’t know that Duck was in the gutter. And quite frankly, I miss him.
or Don’s marriage to Betty.
I agree. Althought it was nice to see them have a “happy” ending for once.
— However short-lived.
it’s established language for Paul: He referred to “Mary Jane†in ep. 1.02
Hey Deb, I don’t think that precludes it from referring to Roger as well. Certainly Roger is depicted as being intoxicated by his new married life.
There’s also the pointed reference to “[Gov] Rockefeller marrying Happy” –which was his wife’s real name, but, in the context of the episode, certainly applies to Roger being “happy” (and Rockefeller threw away his Presidential hopes by that 2nd marriage) . And earlier, a radio broadcast discussed corruption with the “State Liquor Association” in the Rockefeller administration.
Furthermore, at Roger’s club, a DuPont exec in “glen plaid” from DuPont is seated next to another exec from Pan Am which ties in with Paul’s supplier (Jeffery) wearing a plaid jacket. So, I think there seems to be a subtle, yet conscious, effort to link the idea of marriage with intoxicants/narcotics.
I’m just saying
"There’s certainly a feeling that Don feels that Roger has been handed things and Don has had to make his own way."
Not super related, but: I think that problem in their friendship is clear when Don says of Kennedy and Nixon that with Kennedy, he sees a silver spoon, with Nixon, he sees himself – a self-made man. It's Nixon vs. Kennedy and Draper/Whitman vs. Sterling. Maybe it's yet another reason why Don told Cooper it doesn't seem fair. And maybe this does relate to Jane. Roger expects celebration, when all along nothing has been fair. It's not fair that Roger dances around and away from his responsiblity — what little he had (his name's on the building!) — and has a majorly overdeveloped sense of entitlement to everything: other people's wives, respect, a super young wife, approval for doing what he should know very well is tacky.
"Rosie: It is unacceptable to blame a rape victim for her rape, or a domestic abuse victim for being abused. Unacceptable. "
Deborah, you just made an assumption, based upon something I had said. I have never blamed Joan for being raped by Greg. When have I ever said that?
Gals (and guys) – I'm a Catholic (nominally) of (mostly) German heritage (from the Schwarzwald region) and am married to a NYC Jewish boy…so the Jane Siegel discussion came up in our house…it's possible she's the product of an 'interfaith' relationship and 'practices nothing'…but my daughter has been raised Jewish…with an Irish first name.
So we know ALL about the 'it-comes-from-the-mother' mantra (we don't buy it!) 
Anyway, it's just fun to 'wonder', as yes, I'm quite aware Roger has said stupid anti-Semitic things…..the show has so many layers…it's TERRIFIC!
(ps – and I'm still in awe of the accordion playing, as I play one in a Jewish band locally!)