Don is chasing the magic
Who are you? Are you dumb, or pure? Running out here in the middle of the night and I run into you. How did that happen?
I think that he wants to feel again what he once felt with Rachel.
With Rachel it was magical. She looked right through him in the pilot and saw in one moment what Betty had failed to see in all their years together–that he wasn’t who he pretended to be. And later he learns that Rachel’s mother had died in childbirth, just like Don’s mother had. Just like Dick’s mother.
And this is what he longs for, this deeper, bigger-than-we-are connection.
When we first see Suzanne Farrell, we see, as does Don, a full painting–the Maypole, the dancing, the children and the flowers and ribbons. Nature and femininity and purity and ancient ways. And we see that his longing is elicited in this moment–his fingers in the grass–but I never felt that it was a longing for Miss Farrell specifically. I felt at the time that the youthful, dark-haired free spirit was just one more element within this fuller image.
Only now it’s shifted.
I want you. I don’t care. Doesn’t that mean something to someone like you?
He wants to feel it again, and he thinks that Suzanne qualifies. He thinks that this woman, and the ‘magic’ of their story, will make him feel the feelings. And so he’s chasing them. The feelings.
Rachel was never “someone like you”. He didn’t want her because she was a type, a puzzle piece in a shape that has been proven to fit.
Suzanne calls it:
Because I’m new and different. Or maybe I’m exactly the same.
As a reminder, he also wanted to feel again what he once felt with Betty. He did in fact feel that in Souvenir, but then they came home and she rejected him.
And for the record, I still think Suzanne Farrell is a nutjob, and that more will be revealed on this. Wait for it.
Basket of Kisses: The unofficial blog of AMC's Mad Men. Where all the cool kids meet & greet to talk about Don Draper, Janie Bryant, Christina Hendricks, Jon Hamm, Matthew Weiner, & subtexty things.
Loading...
October 13th, 2009 at 5:13 am
I was actually thinking about this in relation to Anna Draper this morning. For Don he disappointed Daddy so it's back to trying to find comfort in a Mommy. I think at some point Betty must have been like Anna to him – someone who knew about worlds he didn't, a partner and blonde to boot. Now Betty is just Mommy in the more down to earth idea of it. Someone who keeps house for him and blonde.
I think Italy was good insight to how things must have been for Don and Betty when they first met. He must have thought he was getting someone mysterious and wonderful who could teach him things he knew nothing about and Betty must have thought she was getting someone who could satisfy her needs and give her the life her mother made her strive for. Instead Don got a child and in a lot of way Betty did, too. They both need parents for them to look up to. I think Don wants to grow through whoever his surrogate parents are but Betty wants her Prince Charming who will just sweep in and take care of everything. Henry must have really seemed like that to her until reality set in once again.
While Rachel, Midge, Bobbi and Suzanne are all career women, who are forward looking, know about things Don doesn't know about and who let him be who he was when we saw him with Anna and they're brunette for some reason which must help him separate from his mother issues or something. They all have/had something to teach him. Who knows maybe Don has lost his mojo this season b/c he hasn't had his forward thinking brunette by his side.
October 13th, 2009 at 5:27 am
I don't think Farrell is a nutjob. She was considerate of Sally's grief over her Grandfather's death when her parents had just ignored it. She saw the importance of Martin Luther King's speech and wanted the kids in her class to listen to it. There's just two examples of how Miss Farrell is a more thoughtful and decent human being than most of our main characters.
If there is anything wrong with Miss Farrell I think she is badly written. It feels like the writers want her to seem magical and perplexing, but her character is just coming off as a contradictary mishmash. The only thing the show (and this post) want us to focus on is how Don percieves her. The thing that makes NO sense to me is why Miss Farrell is attracted to Don. One moment she seems to have total contempt for him. The next moment she is flirting with him in painfully obvious ways. I just don't find it convincing that a bright young liberal woman would be interested in an older philandering republican like Don.
So maybe Farrell has been used and discarded by philandering dads before and it has become a bad habit she can't seem to quit. That fact does make her seem "dumb" and I don't think she is supposed to be dumb. Like I said I think this character has been contrived for Don's storyline and is very unconvincing as an individual character.
October 13th, 2009 at 5:58 am
falafel, I think you are right in some ways about Suzanne, but I also think she's a nut. She's in touch with things, and honest, and "new," but she's over-emotional, has poor boundaries, drunk dials, and blurts in front of children.
October 13th, 2009 at 6:00 am
2:Don is not, for instance, Roger. If he looks like an "older philandering Republican" it is because it is the role he is playing, one layer below the "good husband and provider." Don is a phony, but he is hiding his best aspects and qualities. Remember, where Suzanne has seen Don, in the classroom and the park with Sally, Don nearly at his best.
I'm sorry, but I am just not that impressed with the "Don" that Rachel got to see. That "Don" showed vulnerability, but also a neediness and desperation that ultimately frightened and repulsed Rachel. It wasn't the "Dick" we got to see with Anna" or the "Don" we got to see in Rome. Just another pitch.
But Don-with-Suzanne is not Dick Whitman or anything else very nice. This is Don trying to seize back control and power. I was wrong earlier, this cannot end well.
I like Suzanne. With the possible exception of Joan and Anna, Suzanne seems to be among the "nicest" people we have yet met on the show. Even Peggy just has fun working with Don, but she envies him and I don't think Peggy has any empathy or sympathy for him. I think Suzanne sees the Don that doesn't want to be Don.
I think Suzanne may be the first of Don's conquests that can be destroyed by the affair. How about a suicide to end season 3?
October 13th, 2009 at 6:11 am
Roberta: Yes, Yes and Yes.
If there's one thing that's been coming through loud and clear in this season, it's that Don desperately wants to *feel*, and not just feel, but feel whole. Everything in his story arc this season seems to reflect that, starting with coming back to try once again with Betty. Starting with his reawakening in California, this whole season has been about trying to recapture magic and a certain kind of innocence, i.e. purity. Except after this last episode it looks more "dumb" than "pure."
Yes #1: Like you, I've always thought that when Don first encountered Suzanne, it was the totality he was seeing, not her specifically. It was the whole tableau, which as I believe was mentioned earlier, looks very much like a card in the Waite tarot deck. It's true he looks at Suzanne then, but then his gaze shifts up to the trees overhead. At this point, I thought it was literally the forest he was seeing, not the specific tree. I thought he was unconsciously trying to "get back to the garden," to quote Joni Mitchell. It was sort of a land-bound version of that beautiful scene in "Portrait of the Artist" when Stephen Deadalus walks along the beach in Dublin and sees the image of a beautiful seaweed-draped girl arise from the misty sea.
Yes #2: As things have begun to deteriorate with ever-increasing speed in Don's world, I think, once again, his thoughts go back to Rachael. She truly was, if not the love of his life, his soulmate. He has never gotten over her. We saw how he self-destructed immediately after she made an appearance at Sardi's in Season 2; this time we don't literally see her, we have Suzanne as her stand-in. I think Don is trying to recreate Rachael, except this time, it's from desperation, not discovery. Suzanne nails it, except, as you said, she's *not* the same as Rachael. She possesses Rachael's honesty in that she calls it as she sees it, but to me, that honesty is like Cassandra's–it's pressed into the service of doom. She may dance around the maypole, but so far, her magic isn't life affirming, it's either an illusion, or, more likely , a kind of catalyst that's going to burst the dams and blow everything sky high.
Yes #3. Yes, as I said above, I think at the same time Don was looking to recreate the magic of Rachael, he was also trying to do it with Betty. And like so many couples, he and Betty thought the miracle of birth might do it. Except, of course, it's reinforced Betty's gilded cage of a jail, and created more distance between them. For one, brief, shining moment (shades of Camelot), Don and Betty recreated it in Rome, but that was also the final nail in the coffin as far as their marriage goes. There's just no way even appearance-obsessed Betty is going to be able to ignore what Don's doing; a split is inevitable whether she's ready or not.
Magic can go two ways, there's the magic of wonder and then there's black magic. If there's any magic going on, here it's increasingly black. I think Suzanne is the harbinger of the new era that's going to start in 1964, but as we've already seen with the hitchiking couples, not everything about the new era that's about to be launched is free and liberating. Like the violence that spawned it, there will be an undercurrent of restlessness, rootlessness and lawlessness that smashes the old ways without necessarily creating something better in its place. I think Suzanne does indeed carry a kind of magic, but it's not necessarily the kind of magic Don is searching for.
And Yes #4: Call her a loose cannon, a nutcase, whatever. Despite her forward thinking and modernity, there's just something off about Suzanne.
October 13th, 2009 at 6:12 am
#2 I agree with you that the Suzanne character comes off badly because of writing. In particular, the drunk dial and the eclipse scene. She's not dumb because she does see through Don and Sally, but she has judgment errors when it comes to timing. We don't like not because she's forward, but because she's forward when Betty is about to go to the hospital and the kids are watching the solar eclipse. If you're gonna hit on a man, hit on a dark street when you're out jogging, not when he's with his family.
October 13th, 2009 at 6:39 am
And the "magic" is just like the magic of "Camelot", delusion pr and spin, just as disillusioning and "tawdry" as the Colosseum bracelet charm. Nobody can escape their past and present circumstances. Everybody is trapped and drowning. A season in hell.
The horror of the 60s, at least for me, which probably cannot be understood or accepted by young people, is how inevitable it all felt, the assassinations, the war, the riots, the ugly politics, the generational conflicts. And a lot of personal stories.
Inevitable.
October 13th, 2009 at 6:40 am
I'm not crazy about the way her part is written either, and I can't figure out if I'm not reading any chemistry between them because of the way it's written, the way it's directed or if there's simply just no chemistry between the two actors and that's coming through in the scenes. The words read like they're hot for each other, yet I don't sense it in their interaction.
She's clearly got his number as far as the 'philandering dad' stereotype goes, but I don't really sense an intuition from her about about the Dick who's hiding inside Don (bad choice of words, but I guess there's a reason his name is Dick) the way Rachel did. But maybe I'm missing something, or it hasn't been revealed yet.
But regardless, I see Suzanne as the catalyst for change for Dick/Don. I finally accepted this week that whatever Don and Betty might have once had, they no longer have it, and it's not coming back. They are so miserable in their own lives, and so miserable with each other, that there's just no way for this relationship to work. Not all relationships can be, or should be healed. Now we have to see how they can make that break.
For all her education and native intelligence, Betty is a shallow person. I don't see that changing. She needs someone who is not looking for someone deep. Maybe Henry is that person. I keep going back to their first meeting, when he put his hand on her belly and asked "what is that like". Her response was typically Betty "I don't think about it." Henry's apparently fine with someone who doesn't think about things. Maybe that's the kind of person Betty needs. I can see them working as a good team, something Betty does want. They would hold fundraisers together where her hostess skill would be important assets; they'd go to important political functions, where she'd be admired for her social skills. Maybe Henry would be appointed ambassador to Italy! Betty might be very fulfilled in that kind of life.
For Don….
Connie was impressed by Dick, and now he's frustrated and confused because this Don guy keeps showing up. I think on some level, Don has to be destroyed for Dick to re-emerge. Miss Farrell's sure going to help with that, regardless of whether, as I earlier fantasized, she is his soulmate-for-life or not. Don's world is crumbling — his marriage, his work, all the relationships he's developed throughout his Don-era. And he's reached the point where he doesn't care if it blows up. Nihilistic sure, but a necessary part of his rebirth. Anna said that with judgment will come resurrection. Well, the 'judgment' part is surely hurtling his way.
…..
Come gather 'round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You'll be drenched to the bone.
If your time to you
Is worth savin'
Then you better start swimmin'
Or you'll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin'.
….
I'm actually feeling very optimistic today for what is coming for our Mad Men.
Until I am emotionally crushed again next week, of course.
October 13th, 2009 at 7:01 am
#7 Bob–That's exactly what I was getting at. The real sixties began after the Kennedy assisination and all the violence and smashing of barriers that followed *was* inevitable because it was spawned out of the violence of that shooting and the abrubt ending of a way of life with no time for transititiong
Still, not all magic or advertising is bad. Yes, Camelot was pr spin and lies, but at least we *believed*. I think that was truly the last time we were unified as a country and felt proud to be Americans. Has anything else that followed been any better?.
October 13th, 2009 at 7:08 am
In the words of a once-great ad man:
"Let’s also say that change is neither good or bad, it simply is. It can be greeted with terror or joy. A tantrum that says ‘I want it the way it was,’ or a dance that says ‘Look, something new.’ "
October 13th, 2009 at 7:26 am
For all her education and native intelligence, Betty is a shallow person. I don’t see that changing. She needs someone who is not looking for someone deep. Maybe Henry is that person.
I think Betty is also searching for someone who is deep. Someone who sees her as something more than just a trophy wife or a beautiful piece of ass. I think her dream in "The Fog" made that clear. She thought she had found this someone in Henry and was disappointed.
October 13th, 2009 at 7:29 am
Don shows the classic signs of someone who was abandoned, which he was by his mother at birth and by his father when he died (or was killed) later. It is more than refusing to commit, it is being afraid to commit, because of the likelihood that it will be taken away. Although Don takes on attachments — a wife, children, a house, a job — he is never fully committed to any of them, because that lessens the chances that it will hurt when he loses them. So he moves through a series of affairs, almost always being the one to end them.
While Suzanne Farrell may call his bluff, I just wish her dialogue and character were more cogent. There is not a hint of subtlety about her, and if anything, Don prizes that. Remember what he said to Peggy when she said, "sex sells"?
October 13th, 2009 at 7:44 am
I think Betty is also searching for someone who is deep. I don't see it. She really ISN'T deep. I think what she wants is commitment, and the feeling that she's part of a team, but intellectual or emotional depth? Not so much.
Where have we ever seen that part of her? Let's say for a moment that Don thwarts all that in her — but have you ever seen an inkling of it when she's with someone else? Arthur comments that she's sad. She replies that she's Nordic. When she meets up with Juanita, all she notices are the nice clothes and jewelry — it takes Don to point out to her (something she later tried to claim as her own observation) that all was not exactly as it seemed on the surface. Her reactions to Helen Bishop are just as catty and driven by appearances as any of the other housewives. Her conversations with Henry are all about the surface of things. "I don't think about it." Even her early career as a model suggests it's all about what's on the surface.
I'm not hatin' on Betty, merely pointing out that this is the kind of person she is. Some people ARE shallow. Doesn't mean she doesn't deserve happiness, just that it won't be found with someone who is looking for depth.
October 13th, 2009 at 7:52 am
Well, I miss Rachel and I wish she'd come back. I feel no empathy or interest in this teacher.
October 13th, 2009 at 7:57 am
A recent post on another blog about another philanderer:
I Love Paris: Billy Wilder's 'Love in the Afternoon' http://movieprojector.blogspot.com/2009/10/i-love...
October 13th, 2009 at 8:01 am
It is more than refusing to commit, it is being afraid to commit, because of the likelihood that it will be taken away.
And once again Dick's fear is validated, by Connie this time.
October 13th, 2009 at 8:28 am
I don't get the love for Rachel. She was just as sour as Betty, though in a different way. If she and Don had ended up together, does anyone really think it would have ended his cheating ways? And how could she complain, since she was complicit in his cheating on Betty? If Don is trying to recapture a "feeling" with Suzanne, I think he needs to grow up and think about someone besides himself–like his children, maybe.
October 13th, 2009 at 8:42 am
I’m actually feeling very optimistic today for what is coming for our Mad Men.
Weiner is from the Sopranos, and writing about the 60s. Eyes on the Prize, "Wonder Years", and Across the Universe didn't quite capture it. If AMC lets him, he may go darker than we can imagine.
My dad was dirtpoor in the Depression, a decorated WWII vet, a dry drunk, a salesman & con artist, a philanderer who divorced my mom in 1963 after 17 years of marriage, and died in 1980 at age 55. The 30s and 40s scarred and wounded a lot of people. I can't hate Don.
October 13th, 2009 at 8:55 am
Gypsy Howell, I'm not sure I agree with you.
The examples you summon for your position are all social encounters where Betty is put on the defensive or outright distracted. Arthur, regardless of whether he was cute or whatever, was completely out of line in the way he spoke to her. Juanita was a fly-by on what has got to be one of the rare romantic Valentine's Days that Betty gets. Betty's social standing as hostess, wife and mother is on the line where Helen Bishop is concerned.
From this starting point, I remember that when Betty's in doubt, acting the most like a Stepford Wife has always gotten her through the tricky situation. Sort of like that 'Don Draper's Guide to Women' thing–when in doubt, be completely silent. Her willingness to repress her depths to fit into a shallow world doesn't mean that she's a shallow person. What is she supposed to do, talk anthropology at a kid's birthday party?
I will grant that she's self-absorbed. But I don't think anyone else would ever truly let Betty in. People in her life valued her beauty–she delivered it.
I just think she needs to have someone truly love her. There's a lot that will only come out when that trust and love is there. And Don's not giving it to her.
October 13th, 2009 at 8:57 am
Didn't Matt Weiner say one of his themes of the series is about "Getting what you think you want? But finding out it may not be what you want?"
Weren't Don and Betty chasing the magic at one point?
Wasn't Joan chasing the magic with Dr. Greg?
Wasn't Roger chasing the magic with Jane?
Wasn't Peggy chasing the magic with Pete – and visa versa?
Wasn't Sal chasing the magic with the Bellhop?
Didn't Harry chase the magic with Hildy?
Didn't Duck chase the magic with American Airlines?
And these are only a few examples of chasing one thing, and it resulting in devastation and loss.
At what point is chasing a fleeting feeling of enjoyment at the expense of something or someone else, just immature and irresponsible?
October 13th, 2009 at 9:05 am
@2 falafel, I guess I’m not buying that she is badly written. You can be a nutjob and still have some wonderful qualities (even being a liberal). To me her accusing Don of hitting on her at the eclipse when he clearly had not was the sign for me. This is why I say, Wait for it. I think her fragmented elements will ultimately make more sense. I could be way off on this, of course. We’ll know when we know.
@5 SFCaramia, “totality†and “tableau†are way better words than I came up with! They are what I was reaching for. And wow—great thoughts about black magic. I often forget it’s out there, but yup. Good call.
@8, gypsy howell—wow. You’re right, Don and Betty may have missed their last train. And @13, yeah. Remember that time she was in a car accident and she worried about Sally being scarred?
@17, Annie, I adore Rachel, and I do think that Don loved her deeply. That doesn’t mean I think their relationship would have worked—the guy is really dysfunctional in relationships, period. And when Rachel saw that his dysfunction was beyond this one cheat (the only one she knew about), she bolted and married a mensch.
October 13th, 2009 at 9:38 am
@mari –There’s a lot that will only come out when that trust and love is there.
I know it's nice to think there is lots of "there" there in all of us, if only it were allowed to blossom. I just honestly have never seen one tiny little sign of it in Betty. Other than wanting it to be true for her, what makes you say it is? Show me where I'm wrong about this.
I've just come around to accepting that that's who she is. It doesn't make her bad, it just makes her shallow. And it makes her and Don a very bad match for each other. Maybe once it worked with who they were then, but it doesn't now.
@roberta — is it just me, or is the whole "Im so hot for you" vibe just completely missing between Don & Suzanne. I don't get it. I loved Rachel too, and I think she and Don are one of the great missed opportunities in life- you meet someone at the wrong time in your life, and that's all there is to it. No fixing it. It was so telling to me that in the speakeasy scene with Freddy & Roger, the name that popped into Don's head was Tilden Katz. How much more obvious could it be that he was crushed by their affair? But how else could it have worked out.
October 13th, 2009 at 9:40 am
#5 SFCaramia,
I more than agree with all your comments. I continue to see Don as a deeply fractured person — and what we what him seek out, again and again, is connection. Not just with another person or people, but with feeling or meaning of such magnitude that the identity of the person involved in it (Dick? Don? who cares?) will, at last, not much matter.
But I think I might be overstating the "fractured person" bit — leading other posters to believe that there is such a thing as an unbroken person. If there is one thing the world does with efficiency, it breaks people. Everyone's suffered, to one degree or another: some more than others. Don is simply in more pieces than most, and he repeatedly makes the mistake of trying to hide his broken places.
Don could be much more human than he is. He could have, when it "got cloudy" in the restaurant with Bobbie after their encounter with Rachel and Tilden Katz, have said simply, "She broke my heart."
But that's not how he — to use a modern word — rolls. There is something about personal honesty that scares Don. Why? I don't know.
As for Miss Farrell, I don't see her as crazy. Broken? ABSOLUTELY. She lost her father in childhood, and the only people she professes to relate to are children. (Unlike Rachel, who had her sister, parents, and her dogs, and Midge, who appeared to have all of Greenwich Village.)
Still, in the things Miss Farrell assumes of other adults, she is anything but childlike. She is a cynic, which for my money is worse than crazy.
And in the things she said about Don and his life (I live X far from you, I see your wife doing Y), I see an awareness of self and others that is quite calculating. Men don't see women as women see each other, and there is something amiss in her.
October 13th, 2009 at 9:41 am
I meant "what we see him seek out". Sorry.
October 13th, 2009 at 10:26 am
All I can think about with this relationship are the many ways in which Don can potentially be busted. Unless he's parking his very large, very conspicuous car at the train station and then doubling back to Suzanne's garret on foot, isn't only a matter of time before someone spots him and tells Betty? How has Don not thought this through? It's out of character–why would such a secretive man take this kind of risk? There hasn't been enough on-screen interaction between the two of them to convey the kind of obsession that would be worth it for him.
October 13th, 2009 at 10:32 am
Mark my words the teacher is nuts. Her lack of boundaries alone, is proof positive.
October 13th, 2009 at 10:53 am
@25 – my first thought exactly. Hope you're throwing pine boughs over that car, Don! I think on some level he wants/expects to get caught. He wants things to blow up. Well maybe Don doesn't but Dick does.
October 13th, 2009 at 11:53 am
I don't fault Don for "chasing the magic".
When you consider what he's running from, it makes perfect sense. But that madness, from which he seeks escape, is personal. He's running from his own life and history.
Back in Season Two, in 'The Jet Set,' during the trip to California and the presentation by the aerospace contractor's MIRV warheads slideshow, he saw the real potential for the madness to take on a national and global identity.
Before long, everybody's looking to escape, but as the 1965 song goes: "Nowhere to run to, baby. Nowhere to hide."
While 'Camelot' might, in hindsight, looks like "P.R. & spin," whipped up by Theodore White and Jackie Kennedy, there actually was some hope and magic for America (and the world), at least initially, after eight stodgy years of Eisenhower/Nixon.
Kennedy's 'New Frontier,' offered promise and energy in the new decade of the 60s, but all that ended in a hail of bullets and a cloud of brain matter and blood, splattered on Jackie's pink wool suit and upon the Nation's consciousness.
After that, everything shifted – with everybody "chasing their own brand of magic".
Don Draper, like any good ad man, was just ahead of the trend.
October 13th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Farrell=nutjob… very possibly. I get a really 'off' vibe from her. She's made references to other married men who she's met through the school, and you get the sense that she's getting ready to crack, Fatal Attraction style. Not necessarily that gory, but she's at her limit of married men and affairs that go nowhere. The constant drink in her hand that we see when she's at home (drunk dialing Don, among other things) is a big red flag as well. And quite a contrast to the 'maiden' image in the Maypole scene.
I agree with you that he doesn't want her, per se. And Don Draper has never seemed so pathetic and lost as he did when he shows up at Miss Farrell's doorstep. Except possibly the time when he thought all was lost and ran to Rachel and proposed an escape. Such a scared, lost and deeply lonely man.
He lives in a hollow shell with Betty. He cannot connect with her because he cannot be real with her. Betty in turn feels that void, and cannot breech it. Not with sex, not with being the perfect housewife. And I think she's really done with trying those routes.
I question whether Rachel was his true love, or whether she is part of his escape/sex addiction routine. She may have been the most stunning/wonderful of all his lovers, but was she really better for him than Betty? Betty is every bit as beautiful and talented as Rachel, it's just all unrealized. She doesn't have the experience that Rachel has, but I think she'd do pretty well if she had it. And perhaps this part of the secret of Don and Betty succeeding in their marriage. If Betty can figure out how to become authentic and stop needing everything from Don, he would feel more drawn to her. And possibly would feel safe enough to finally confess all to Betty. Who, on the other hand, might be less likely to act like a petulant child when Don makes a sincere attempt to connect with her. The end of 'When in Rome' broke my heart. So sad to see Don really trying and getting brushed off. And yes, no wonder he ends up on Ms. Farrell's doorstep.
Did anyone else notice how Don seems much more comfortable and relaxed in less opulent environments? At S-C, the chic bars and restaurants and especially in the Draper home, he is tense. In Farrell's homey apartment (as well as the real Mrs. Draper's home in CA), I think you can actually see his shoulders drop an inch. As he walked in he said, 'this is nice!' and you really get the feeling he means it. It's as if Dick is talking for a moment, instead of Don.
It's really a wonder Don/Dick hasn't lost his marbles already, when you stop to think of how incredibly isolating, lonely and bizarre it must be to lead a double life. How much longer can he keep this up?
Something is going to crack soon in the world of MM. It's getting too darned hot.
October 13th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
As he walked in he said, ‘this is nice!’ and you really get the feeling he means it. It’s as if Dick is talking for a moment, instead of Don.
Absolutely. You almost get the feeling he was subconsciously checking it out and thinking "I could live here, in a place like this." If/when Don & Betty do break up, I don't think he'll have any problem giving up the Ossining house — chinoiserie breakfront, murano glass, dupioni silk drapes and all. He probably hates that house and neighborhood even more than Betty does at the moment. Betty, on the other hand, would never, ever in a million years be happy with less opulent surroundings. But I imagine she'll get to keep the house regardless.
October 13th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Yeah, there's something not quite right about teach. I won't go as far as calling her a nutjob — yet — but she definitely has boundary issues. And like others, I don't get the sense of there being a "strong attraction," so really, what's the point? With Rachel, Midge, and even Bobbie, the chemistry between the characters was palpable. With them, I thought, "it ain't right, but…it's understandable." They were well matched. With Don and teach, I don't get it. It's just odd. Maybe Don just needed a good night's sleep, and the sex was a bonus for him.
"All I can think about with this relationship are the many ways in which Don can potentially be busted."
@ # 25 rechercher:
I agree. You could almost create a drinking game of all the possibilities. I just hope that Sally's not the one who busts him…or maybe it should be her. But, oh, man, the fallout…
October 13th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
"If Betty can figure out how to become authentic and stop needing everything from Don, he would feel more drawn to her. And possibly would feel safe enough to finally confess all to Betty."
But Don had never confessed all to Rachel. He told her about his parents and step parents, but he never told her about Pete discovering his real identity or his real identity, for that matter. Rachel tried to get him to tell him what was wrong in "Nixon vs. Kennedy", but Don seemed more interested in evading the truth and running off with her.
October 13th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Wasn't Don stalking Ms Farrell? His friend mentioned during the eclipse that he had seen her jogging early in the morning. So it seems that Don was looking for an excuse to 'bump' into her.
October 13th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
I'm in the Not a Nutjob camp. Obviously something big is being set up, but "nutjob" is thrown around as a term for women far too casually, in TV AND real life, I think.
She's craycray because she knows what these guys are thinking? Because she has an awareness? Don't get it. Yes I see the signs in the writing and the character for something major and she wouldn't be there if that wasn't the case, but I'd say so far Miss Farrell's slightly less nutjobby than Betty or Peggy.
October 13th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
@#32: Agreed, and I think it's further proof that this is what keeps Don from getting what he craves: intimacy. He has somehow learned that sex is a way to achieve intimacy, but time and time again it fails him. In fact, you could argue that his intimacy issue is exactly what caused him to lose Rachel: she could sense that there was something nasty lurking under his desperation the day he fled to her with his escape plan and it scared her off.
If Rachel's character does come back, and Don has confessed to all who he really is at that point, I sincerely wonder if she would still want him. She strikes me as someone who might not. Possibly the same for Betty. It's really hard to say for both women as 1/we did not get to see that much of Rachel before she was gone so it's hard to judge what her reaction would have been; and 2/with Betty, her character is still somewhat unformed and immature, frustrated by the roles that were supposed to make her happy and aren't. If she ever figures out who she really is and what she wants, it may or may not include Don in her future. Or even Dick.
It would be beautiful to see one of these two women accept him for who he really is (once he confesses), but as a viewer, I am as scared for Dick/Don as he is for himself when it comes to confessing and facing the outcome. Which makes me wonder if he'll ever do it.
October 13th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
I'm a recovering alcoholic and have been sober for more than 10 years. What I see in Don is all too familiar and haunting. Don acts the way he does because he's seeking to exorcise his demons. Though he drinks an awful lot, that's not what his addiction is. It's sex and affairs. Don learned a lot in his visit to the real Mrs. Draper last season. Like many alcoholics, he's had trouble staying on the journey he began. He humbly begged Betty for forgiveness, but once again sought to exercise his demons when he was with the stewardess and now with Suzanne.
Don is not in love with Suzanne and I think his and Betty's marriage is very unhealthy for both of them. But Don's actions are not going to help him find what he needs to find. Until he truly accepts that, his vicious cycle will continue.
October 13th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
You know, David, I said something to my husband about this on Sunday night after the episode.
I said: for some people it's booze, for some it's drugs, for some it's food … for Don, it's sex. Very, very many people have something — what I would call a secret or fatal need — and when they are without whatever it takes to satisfy that need, they will always really miss it.
Whatever they do, however far from it they get.
I think you are on to something. "Demons" … I think that's right on. Don is seeking escape, not love.
Thank you for posting, David … and congratulations on your ten years.
October 13th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned before, but I get a completely different take on the source of Don's philandering ways. I see it as searching for his muse. He is in a pressure cooker, creative industry and he is searching for stimulation that he is not finding in his home. I do agree that he pursues these relationships in a pretty reckless manner as well, which may be additional stimulation for him.
October 13th, 2009 at 6:44 pm
I will not be IGNORED, Don.
What happens when Miss Farrell picks up Sally from school and takes her to ride the Cyclone @ Coney Island? All Hell's going to break loose.
David – Aint ya' heard? He's a whore child.
On a serious note – I have this saying, "reversion to the mean". I consider our true selves to be our "mean" or "average" or "median". So no matter how far we stray from our true selves, there is a tendency to eventually revert back to the true mean. For Don, it's whoring around. Faithful Don is about two standard deviations from the True Don. When things get bad/stressful/out of control, he seeks the comfort of the familiar as David points out. He may never rise above it. It is his nature. Special shout out to Dr. Hannibal Lecter/Marcus Aurelius for their insights.
October 13th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
I think Don is searching for what we are all searching for–the intimacy that Rachel mentions above. He wants someone who sees him for who is is and accepts that and who he can see for who she is and accept that. He wants to be totally okay with himself and with someone else. I'm not sure he knows that, but I'm pretty sure what's driving him.
Don is the wedding cake groom to the wedding cake bride; the perfect ad man; the perfect illicit boyfriend. He's more like Joan than Betty, but they all are trying to present the perfect appearance and knowing the right thing to do at all times.
I know I am not revealing any secrets when I say that all this maintaining of perfect appearances does not lead to intimacy, but I am feeling maybe it needs to be said.
These are people following all the rules for success that they understand and they are having trouble dealing with the fact that success they have thus achieved is leaving them pretty miserable.
I think the whole "you people" speech referred to everybody that Don feels are looking to him to get them what they want. Those are the "you people"–every and anyone who is asking him for something he doesn't have to give. And he's getting nastier and nastier as he becomes more and more miserable and frightened and powerless himself.
October 13th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
#8 gypsy howell: "Henry’s apparently fine with someone who doesn’t think about things. Maybe that’s the kind of person Betty needs. I can see them working as a good team, something Betty does want. They would hold fundraisers together where her hostess skill would be important assets; they’d go to important political functions, where she’d be admired for her social skills. Maybe Henry would be appointed ambassador to Italy! Betty might be very fulfilled in that kind of life."
But isn't that what she has with Don? He has business dinners where her hostess skills are important assets; they go to important business functions, where she's admired for her social skills. But she is not happy.
You also say that Betty is the kind of person who doesn't think about things, but I think it's interesting that she emphatically stated in one of her letters to Henry, "I do have thoughts."
I'll give you this: I don't think Betty's brilliant; we haven't seen any evidence of it, at least. And her life has been pretty shallow. But the point, I think, is that it's not fulfilling her–she does want something deeper now.
October 13th, 2009 at 8:17 pm
#36: David, ditto, congratulations on sobriety. My father was an alcoholic too. He quit when I was 13 years old, and never touched another drop (with much help from AA and the buddies he made there.) I knew then that it was an amazing feat; looking back, I realize now that it was more than amazing, it was heroic. I'll spare all here any other details, but my father had every reason to not stop drinking. So I commend you too, David, on facing and surmounting your demons.
I completely agree with you that Don is a sex addict. I am always surprised when people trash him without taking into account his history and what he struggles with on a daily basis. He is a tortured, haunted man who managed to pull himself together and up out of the hell he was born into. When you are born into that kind of pain and dysfunction, it will take its toll and it often manifests, as I'm sure you know, in addictions of one kind or another. Many, many people suffer (completely unaware) from addictions. They get written off as jerks, losers and assholes when they are in fact simply very broken people.
I guess, to be honest, I really relate to Don's character and it's why I find him so sympathetic and not at all the monster that so many who love MM make him out to be. He is a flawed hero. The Greeks figured out how compelling this type of character is and Mr. Weiner obviously gets that as well. Throw in Draper's heart-thumping sex appeal (so well-played by Hamm), and a stellar supporting cast and you've got a hit!
October 13th, 2009 at 8:25 pm
#40: I agree with you that 'you people' was not a slight. I can understand why gay people would take it that way, but it doesn't add up for me when I look at Don's character development to date. And I agree with you that Don is beginning to feel very weighed down by all that he must give to others in order to keep us his charade. As I said earlier, he has never looked so worn and tired and that remark as well as his decision to support Roger's firing of Sal is coming more from that place and not a homophobic one. If he was homophobic, he never would have been so supportive of Sal. Remember the plane ride back? Don asked Sal if he could ask him a question… Sal was shaking in his boots thinking it was about the bell boy… and all Don cared about was the what they were working on. If he had an issue with Sal's homosexuality, he wouldn't have said two words to him on the plane. Instead, he promotes Sal to TV director when they get back.
October 13th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
On second thought, gypsy, I do see what you mean. It just occurred to me that Betty would be so much more interesting (and sympathetic to more viewers) if she had some sort of intellectual interests and pursuits outside . . . well, whatever it is that occupies her time now. I'm always ready to defend her (and will probably continue to do so), but her storyline has been boring me lately. And I think it's because we don't really know what those thoughts are that she insists she has. I think it's a writing problem, since I'm sure we're meant to empathize with her; she's the poster child for The Feminine Mystique and she has a right bastard for a husband, after all.
But for three seasons we've seen Betty unhappy and unfulfilled, and that's pretty much all that defines her now. She hasn't changed, her marriage hasn't changed, she's given little indication that she's planning to change. It's all become fairly dull. (I'm bored with Don too, but that's another post.)
But I'll still defend her mothering skills! She's no worse a parent than Don is!
October 14th, 2009 at 4:18 am
But isn’t that what she has with Don?
Yes, but only on sporadic occasions, and it's really just convenient but not critical for Don's success. For an ad man, a glittering wife is a nice accessory, but more or less extraneous. Bert, for example, has succeeded without a Mrs Cooper for quite some time (btw, I always thought the "late Mrs. Cooper" remark from Bert a while back referred to a deceased wife, not his mother, as I've seen some other people assume) I might be wrong, but I think the role of political wife can be much more important – hosting and attending functions is much more critical to success in the political world, and it would be one where Betty excels, like a junior Jackie.
Anyway, not that it matters. I'm really really ready to end this Draper marriage, if only so we can move on with the homefront storyline. I feel like we've been stuck in limbo all season. In that sense, I welcome the addition of Miss Farrell for the obvious danger it presents. Can anyone here imagine that it WON'T blow up in Don's face one way or the other, and pretty quickly? Like hullaballoo says above, we could get shitfaced in a drinking game naming all the ways this can end badly.
October 14th, 2009 at 4:39 am
Betty's possible future as political hostess took a hit during the fundraiser. When a woman arrived, instead of Distinguished Henry, her disappointment was embarrassingly evident. A good hostess remains gracious, even if she's dealing with a guest who has commited a faux pas. She might omit them from any future guest lists, but would never go into an obvious snit.
But the lady had done nothing wrong. If Betty really wants to be "deep"–she can begin by discussing deeper matters–& not just with eligible gentlemen. I get the impression she'd love to hear her admirers add "You're so Deep" to the usual "You're so Beautiful." But she won't do anything about it.
Oh, well. Let's hope that Don's liaison with Suzanne brings the disastrous marriage to a hasty end. So we can see what's been happening in the Big City!
October 14th, 2009 at 4:45 am
Of course Don's remark is homophobic, Rachel. Of course!
A blogger I respect said "racist should always be used as an adjective, never a noun." The same can be said of "homophobic." Don fired Sal for being gay, there is no way of prettying that up. It is not an issue of, is Don a homophobic person, it is an issue of homophobic behavior. There is no way that you can look at the action taken, not just of firing Sal, but of simply not believing Sal that nothing happened because he knows Sal is gay, and call it anything but homophobic.
That doesn't mean that Don wasn't more accepting in the past, or at least willing to look the other way as long as Sal limited his exposure.
This is driving me crazy lately. Last week a guy in Georgia put the word n****r on the side of his restaurant (and had Klan uniforms inside) and said he wasn't a racist, it was just the word he liked to use. Whathisname from Seinfeld calls people in his audience n****r and says he's not racist. No one wants to be called a name.
But look at the behavior. Alan Sepinwall said, would Don have treated Peggy the same way? I'll give you a better one: Would Don have treated Harry or Paul the same way? Would Lee Garner have gotten away with it if he had done it to someone Don believed he knew to be straight?
You can't compare it to Peggy because women, like gays, are sexually objectified, then and now. But a straight white man would not have been fired for refusing a gay pass from a client. That makes it homophobic.
October 14th, 2009 at 5:23 am
I definitely think there are some serious issues with the character of Suzanne Farrell. She actively sought out Don first, as we saw when she called him at home clearly having had a little too much too drink). Then, she becomes the person trying to reject Don. She seeks him out during the solar eclipse watching, and becomes somewhat insulting to Don. What is with that? Is it all part of the chase, or is she truly nuts?
October 14th, 2009 at 5:51 am
@Suzanne — I wish I could see what made her so irresistible to Don to go after her. Is it just the danger? It is nihilistic in terms of its circumstances, as even Don in his fog of desire surely knows he will get caught this time, and with much, much worse consequences. Even if he doesn't care what he does to Betty at this point, he must know this will deeply hurt Sally too.
Maybe he needs to prove to himself that despite her outward rejection of him in the eclipse scene and the first jogging scene, she does want him. He can make Suzanne/Mommy love him, even if he can't make Connie/Daddy love him.
Boy, I hope we get some more clarification of where this relationship is coming from and where it's going next week, for good or for bad.
October 14th, 2009 at 6:33 am
Chasing the magic†seems right to me but maybe Midge is the key persona to making sense of the Suzanne appeal.
We only get to see the decline and fall of the Don/Midge dynamic but they’ve known each other for years; it was no dalliance. Midge was likely Don’s muse. She was an artist living a bohemian lifestyle. She was his connection to a freer, sensual, less structured outlook on life; a life that flirts with rebellion and unrest and welcomes revolution. It’s a life in opposition to the one Don has built and accepted, a yin to his yang, and that exposure seems to stoke his creativity. In the S1 premiere it’s interesting that Don has problems to solve with the Lucky Strike (!) pitch, gets some MidgeTime, ponders the smoke and later, Voila! – “It’s toasted!â€.
Don’s attracted to Rachel for the qualities we know he’s drawn to, – intelligence, independence, etc.
But I think he moves on to Rachel not necessarily because of magic. I think it’s because she has what he lacks– a solid, proud sense of self rooted in that family name. That’s her special appeal to Don. She is her father’s daughter and not ashamed of the fact.
Now the Enigma named Suzanne shows all the signs of being his new muse. The detail that struck me was how she tells him she’s going to read the MLK speech to the kids. And Don recognizes the idealism and radicalism (for that time) and danger to the status quo of doing just that. He sees a glimpse of the anarchist, the rock thrower, in this school teacher, this nurturer. She’s saying: tell them truth, let the chips fall where they may.
“Who are you?â€
She’s “exactly the same†and “new and different†all at once. She’s Midge version 2.0. She’s the natural evolution of every woman he’s wanted.
It’s a fact, she’s trouble for Don Draper, for the concept of Don Draper, the construct of Don Draper’s Life but he knows this and does not care.
I have high hopes for Suzanne.
October 14th, 2009 at 8:14 am
#47 Deb: I agree that it's homophobic by today's standards. And you can analyze these characters through the filter of today's rules of acceptable, fair behavior.
I think that is dangerous though. It can lead to misinterpretation's of characters motives and desires, as I think is happening with your (and other's) interpretations. So I respectfully disagree…
I guess the other wonderful thing about this show is that there are so many important and universal themes that can bring to the show almost anything you want to, in terms of analysis and discussion. Some see Don as a heartless cad; others, like myself, see him as a terribly wounded and flawed soul who yearns to be good. You see what you want to see. And IMO, that is a hallmark of classic, timeless writing. When you can maintain that kind of appeal among people with such differing viewpoints, it is quite a complement to all those involved in the production.
October 19th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
"I think what she wants is commitment, and the feeling that she’s part of a team, but intellectual or emotional depth? Not so much.
Where have we ever seen that part of her? Let’s say for a moment that Don thwarts all that in her — but have you ever seen an inkling of it when she’s with someone else? "
Well, I don't know what you would count as deep — maybe we all would disagree — but I saw signs of that when she was talking with her therapist, of all people. She was reflecting on this ideal of happiness that failed her — "She wanted me to be beautiful so I could find a man. There’s nothing wrong with that. But then what? Just sit and smoke and let it go ‘til you’re in a box?" Or, "I know people say life goes on, and it does, and no one tells you that’s not a good thing. Why is that?" Remarks like that lead me to believe she is searching for more and not just an insensitive airhead.
There's no doubt that she has the narrow views and prejudices on class and race of her time; she's had a very sheltered bubble life of WASPy privilege, and it shows. She's also, yes, very obsessed with her appearance, and Don calls her petty. But it's a classic move of the time for men to praise and value women mostly for their looks, then criticize them for being shallow and image-obsessed and vain, not seeing a causal link between the two. The same kind of men tell their wives not to worry their pretty heads over things and shut them out of decision-making and then tut-tut when they feel so helpless at dealing with problems on their own.
I agree she can be shallow — very few people on this show haven't been — but I think there's a difference between saying someone is shallow and saying that that's all they have the potential to be. Forgive the strained simile, but maybe she's like a houseplant with shallow roots because she's always been in a tiny pot. Maybe that IS all she can be, but personally I'm not ready to bet that just yet.