Happy Rockefeller
In My Old Kentucky Home, we learn that Nelson Rockefeller had just that afternoon married Happy, and they gossip about it. Betty’s connection to Happy continues throughout the season; by Shut the Door. Have a Seat, it appears that Betty will do with a Rockefeller staffer what Happy did with Rockefeller himself. In fact, when Betty and Henry are in the car in The Grown-Ups, Rockefeller is on the radio.
In researching that reference, I came across this very interesting article about Happy from People Magazine, dated 1974, on the occasion of her becoming the wife of the Vice President. (Nelson Rockefeller was nominated to the Vice Presidency by Gerald Ford.)
What is most compelling about Happy, from our point of view, is her similarity to Betty Draper. Happy was from Philadelphia’s Main Line. She graduated from Bryn Mawr, and she moved to New York City when she got married.
Happy’s mother, a friend recalls, “was a great beauty, but she was extremely self-centered. She did not have much time for her children.” The same friend remembers Happy as “a very pretty, sweet thing, always smiling”but there was a quiet sadness too.”
Perhaps her people were Nordic.
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...
December 2nd, 2009 at 5:33 am
There are definitely some parallels. But Happy actually graduated from The Shipley School, initially founded to prepare young ladies for admission to Bryn Mawr. It's been coeducational since the 80's & seems to be a very fine institution. http://www.shipleyschool.org/Page.aspx?pid=309
Then Happy did volunteer work in a hospital; it being 1944, a European sojourn was not an option. Betty's mother does seem a bit like Happy's. But her parents actually divorced; Wikipedia says Happy's father was The First Husband. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Rockefeller
As a fictional character, Betty gets on my last nerve. But I do hope she learns how to be, umm, happy!
December 2nd, 2009 at 5:42 am
Deborah, this interview was fun to read – definitely some interesting parallels with Betty!
And five years later, ironically, Happy became a lot more sympathetic figure when Nelson Rockefeller died literally with his pants off, in the company of an even much younger lady.
December 2nd, 2009 at 6:19 am
"On Apr. 1, 1963, Happy divorced Robin, signing away custody of their four children."
Wow. Wonder how that played out over the years.
December 2nd, 2009 at 7:02 am
The aftermath?
In 1964, Doctor Murphy married one of the children's teachers. So Happy went to court, thinking she might be able to regain custody. Eighteen months after her marriage to Rocky, the children were James, 13, Margaretta, 11, Carol, 8, and Malinda, 4. By then, Happy had a baby boy by her new husband.
She lost the case. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,...
December 2nd, 2009 at 8:25 am
In 1964, Doctor Murphy married one of the children’s teachers.
Oh crap. The return of Miss Farrell!
December 2nd, 2009 at 8:34 am
#5 gypsy,
Oh crap, indeed.
What strikes me as more significant is the Main Line directive about how many times a girl is supposed to have her name in the paper (birth, debut, marriage, death). As a print model, Betty Hofstadt already rendered that advice obsolete.
Also: contrast that directive to now. Have we come a long way, or fallen the same distance?
December 2nd, 2009 at 8:46 am
As a print model, Betty Hofstadt already rendered that advice obsolete.
And got called a prostitute by her mother for doing so.
(I wonder if that coincidence was lost on Betty that her model roommate turned out to be an actual prostitute.)
I'm positive when Don called her a whore in the last ep, he chose that word for maximum emotional pain, knowing how deeply hurt Betty was about her mother's searing judgment.
December 2nd, 2009 at 9:16 am
gypsy and AB—
BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
(fiendish, maniacal laugh courtesy of the Save Suzanne Support Group.)
December 2nd, 2009 at 9:31 am
CORRECTION–
above parenthetical should read:
(fiendish, broadly insinuated though never actually portayed maniacal laugh courtesy of the SSSG.)
Where the Truth lies, yada,yada.
Thank You.
December 2nd, 2009 at 10:02 am
This was found stuck to the bottom of a Velveeta packing box.
I suspect it's from the Bertram Cooper Haiku Collection, Vol.4
Enjoy, (or alas not)
A new season dawns:
Betts embraces Happy-Ness;
Suze bakes Don more bread.
December 2nd, 2009 at 10:55 am
Here is a long sad story from TIME Magazine about the court case over custody of Happy Rockefeller's and Dr. Murphy's children.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,...
Suzanne made date bread. Real earth mothers made yeast bread with 8-grain flour.
December 2nd, 2009 at 12:39 pm
There are a couple of interesting articles here
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1338&da...
http://yachtingnet.com/time/magazine/article/0,91...
The writer of the first article indicates that Dr Murphy threatened to initiate divorce himself naming Nelson as co-respondent unless Happy consented to a divorce. There had been several attempts at reconciliation. The second article describes Dr Murphy's second wife as a Radcliffe graduate and a former Social Registerite. She met Dr Murphy at a Parents' Day and taught two of his daughters. It also describes Dr Murphy as "suave" Dr Murphy remarried in June 1964.
December 2nd, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Another great Life article with lots of lovely photos (including the suave Dr Murphy) here
http://books.google.ie/books?id=QkkEAAAAMBAJ&...
A slightly different perspective on the break-up of Happy's first marriage here
http://books.google.ie/books?id=MlMEAAAAMBAJ&...
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Final post – there is an interview with an older Happy here
It looks like she got to spend some time with her children despite the custody case having failed.
It also seems that on the whole she had a good marriage to Nelson.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1350&da...
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Now this makes me think: did the writers have Happy Rockefeller in mind for Betty's character from the very beginning? Or did they realize their similar backgrounds and come up with the parallel plots during season 3? Betty still younger enough to have another child by Henry…so the parallels can be even more striking.
As to the return of Miss Farrell…I'm in the anti camp. I thought the acting was poor. I don't think I would mind if they kept the character in S4 but cast another actress, like Rachel Dawson (who wasn't that great of a character either) in Batman Begins and the Dark Knight.
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:24 pm
Wow these parallels some of you caught on to are interesting…poor Happy, having to sign away custody. Things were so awful for women who divorced.
At least Betty had blackmail on her side.
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:32 pm
I think I could have gotten on board more easily with the Suzanne Farrell affair if her character had developed more along the lines of how we first met her — the lovely free spirit we first encountered dancing barefoot around the maypole. But she quickly turned into a dowdy and fairly uninteresting person living in a dreary garage apartment. None of the light and humor of Midge. None of the spark and intelligence of Rachel. The whole affair just felt like we were in a psychic Great Depression. Even her apartment (surely a reflection of her personality) was depression-era in tone, color and lighting.
What happened to the maypole girl? I would have been more intrigued by that person.
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:50 pm
#17 gypsy – I believe everything about Suzanne was very, very intentional. Remember when Don first saw her apartment and said "this is nice." I think that was a sincere compliment. "Dowdy" Suzanne appealed to the inner Don/Dick. After Rome and Betty's "hate" of every part of their life that he had worked so hard to provide for her, Don had had enough. Suzanne was simple and honest and real – and it felt good to him. He needed her to be plain. He needed her to be motherly and nurturing. He wasn't seeking a flaming hot affair. He needed to be stripped bare and soothed, so to speak.
(Jump in here any time less of me. Would love to expound on that, but I have to go make dinner for my brood.)
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Scroll down the link above, and you'll also see photos of Grace Kelly.
Back in 1972, I attended the inaugeration of the Museum of Immigration at the base of the Statue of Liberty just feet away from Nelson Rockefeller, who I remember as tall, stately, ruggedly handsome.
I no longer remember if Happy was there, and links to newspaper reports at the time all require a $3.95 fee. But then President Nixon was also there presiding over the whole she-bang in very orange pancake makeup.
In contrast to the au naturel Rockefeller, and every other politician present. Nixon may have learned the lesson of wearing makeup for the camera from his TV debate with Kennedy, but I imagine it must have been galling to Rockefeller to have lost the Presidental nomination to a Nixon in orange pancake.
I was still living in New York when Rockefeller died in the arms of his 20-something mistress, who, like Happy previously, he'd also hired in some seemingly legitimate capacity, and it made all the tabloids.
December 2nd, 2009 at 2:10 pm
#15
Empress Rouge:
Going back over season 3 and rereading Matt Weiner's recent interview with the Daily Beast in the light of your comments, I suspect that the two key events in the finale – Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce and the divorce – were decided on first with a lot of the events of this season being specifically designed to lead up to this. I now see where some of the idea for Ms Farrell came from. What has impressed me is how the Season 3 finale is such a perfect coda to the pilot, it resolves so many issues. Season 4 will be so interesting, as new threads will have to be taken up.
Regarding the possibility of future Hofstadt-Francis progeny, Happy had 2 further children by Nelson – just as well that Betty's been blessed with a very resilient figure [Dr Aldrich, Meditations in an Emergency]
# Gypsy
I have to be honest and say that what annoys me most about the Don/Farrell relationship is her uncanny ability to turn Don into a worshipping schoolboy, unfortunately not as attractive to me as his usual alpha male persona, much as I disapprove of his philandering. I'm sure this is a character defect on my part.
This is not intended to be sexist but I would be really interested to read a male perspective on Suzanne Farrell & her attraction for Don. Is she an femme fatale or an ingenue? Smart or pure? I don't think she's dumb. Is the attraction her looks or her personality? She is not glamorous, but I think she's very good looking. Does this make her personality bearable, or does the personality add to the attraction?
December 2nd, 2009 at 2:13 pm
LL, I get why they did it that way. I just wasn't enthralled much by it. They could have taken her in another direction– the unrestrained and free-spirited woman we saw around the maypole.
Even her clothes were dreary and dull-colored (did she wear that green sweater in every freakin' scene, or what?). They went way out of their way to make every scene with her even LOOK depressing. What happened to the girl in the lovely white dress with the flowers in her hair?
I've read that one of the inspirations for the role was supposed to be Leonard Cohen's "Suzanne" (a song I love) but that's not at all how it felt to me. Instead of being interesting and different and feeding him "tea and oranges that come all the way form China", she's making spaghetti. I just didn't feel her "touching [his] perfect body with her mind."
Oh well. There's always S4!
December 2nd, 2009 at 2:19 pm
18#
Laura Lynn
Just saw your comment after I posted mine. The difficulty is that Suzanne never came across as real to me – I saw her as someone who was pretending to be something she was not, someone who was not happy with the simple life at all and was looking for something else, even if she did not want to admit it to herself. If she was happy with her life, why have a succession of affairs with married men? There was something false about her – I'm not saying intentionally false, but there was none of the sincerity I saw with Anna. Anna was a very honest person. Suzanne seemed to me not to be simple and honest and real at all but rather very complicated and conflicted. But this is just my perception.
December 2nd, 2009 at 3:05 pm
I wonder if the contrast between Suzanne's original ephemeral idyllic image with her dreary life is to depict the contrast between his fantasy and reality. Maybe she was a lovely innocent- appearing young girl from a distance, but when he got to know her, she had had plenty of sexual experiences with other married men, and the reality was they were having a sordid ugly affair.
I don't think that Betty deserves his infidelity just because she was discontent when returning from Rome. Her bitterness was for much the same reason, that her fantasy life with Don contrasted starkly with their reality in Ossining.
For those who fault Betty for her frustration on returning from Rome, I think it was very short lived. One of the saddest scenes in my mind is when she asks him if he is going to sleep at home one night, (the episode he meets SF's brother) and he says no. She was sweet and supportive as she holds his hand and worries he's working too hard. I just don't see her as bitter and cold to him as a rule, until his dishonesty is evident.
December 2nd, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Suzanne Farrell never came alive to me as a person, seemed nothing so much as a plot point or two.
Heaven forbid she returns.
December 2nd, 2009 at 3:36 pm
My husband finds Suzanne compelling. I don't.
But my reasons for finding her less than compelling are different from his for liking her. To us, the blame (or credit, as the case may be) rests in different places.
Can she be salvaged as a character? I don't think so. I think viewers have long memories. But I think my husband believes something else.
This may be as simple as a battle of the sexes — which, as many of us know, may be unwinnable.
December 2nd, 2009 at 6:50 pm
I think Suzanne was a cheap bit of work pretending to something more. In the story, really.
Because she is such a non-entity as a person – she's this date nut bread jogger elementary school teacher give me a break how many cliches do you want to pile on her accept Don no matter what fantasy female that (many) females (and probably males, tho I see this here among those I know or seem to be female) do not buy as a character.
Plus, this was the break up of Don and Betty's marriage season and they let Betty take so much of the blame when, looking back on season 1, especially, Don is the total ass while Betty tries and tries to be what she thinks he wants.
So, to me, Suzanne is a cheap set up of a "good" woman in contrast to high-maintenance pregnant, recently lost both parents mess of a woman Betty.
That's what was so annoying about her to me.
December 3rd, 2009 at 2:11 am
# 2 – "And five years later, ironically, Happy became a lot more sympathetic figure when Nelson Rockefeller died literally with his pants off, in the company of an even much younger lady."
The younger lady was Megan Marshack.
A joke at the time, was that she was going to become the new spokesperson for Prudential Insurance – a play on the then-current commercial slogan for the company: "Get a piece of the Rock."
Here's a short 1979 People Magazine article about Ms. Marshack … http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,2...
December 3rd, 2009 at 5:25 am
My humble apologies to you Laura Lynn. I was unplugged from the Matrix all night, on the night when our group, SSSG, was apparently needed. These new organizations are tough to get up and running. We need infrastructure!! Federal monies and grants!! Tax breaks, tax breaks, tax breaks!! (this chant will conjure up the cyber Grover Norquist or some such no doubt, sorry. Maybe the spam filter will catch him.)
The first priority is to invest in a Save Suzanne searchlight of some sort. Just like the BatSignal. (I will beat the others to the joke and call it a Bats Signal.)
The overall dislike for her, in seemingly every possible way, I find profoundly amusing and I want to engage this because some new angles of discussion were brought out here by Ruth and drmom among others. However, I can't do anything from work right now but sneakily lurk and fire off a short comment or two. Suzanne deserves much more. Keep up the defense Laura Lynn and other sympaticos. I'll try to make some time to expound later tonight.
In the meantime, I ran into a friend of a friend at Happy hour last night. This woman proofreads manuscripts for struggling young writers and as you will see, apparently some not so young writers. She said she had edited a submission from an unemployed, recovering alcoholic; the stereotypical wannabe artist with a few half finished novels in a crate on a shelf in his closet. This guy tried all forms of expression it appears, because my FofaF recited the following:
From the unpublished anthology of Limericks by Freddy Rumsen–
Suze the Teacher: A sinner? A saint?
Bad acting or elaborate feint?
Is she yellow or blue;
A secret harpie or shrew?
"Boring!!"–Don would tell you she ain't.
Have at it everyone. Date Nut Bread for all!!!
December 3rd, 2009 at 8:52 am
#28 Less of me
Really looking forward to reading your defence of Suzanne!
December 3rd, 2009 at 9:42 am
Ruth? Can we try to win you over? You sound like a swing vote upthread, I can bring that male perspective you asked for.
If you're across the pond and can't wait up, there's more or less of me @32 in "she'll never forgive herself" and @50 in "Don is chasing the magic". That's some of where I'm coming from. If those appetizers don't sit well, you may not find the main course worth it, I'm afraid.
Either way, thanks for doing the digging on Happy. I enjoyed all those links. That was/is an interesting person and family. And the eerily similar plotline has given me Hope. See you later.
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:30 am
Thanks for the links. I think you're spot on on i@50 in "Don is chasing the magic" on why Suzanne appeals to Don…she's a muse. I don't agree she's a second wave feminist as you state in @32 in "she'll never forgive herself" but I see you modify that comment below at @42 in the same thread. Your comments on the date nut bread & Suzanne's submissiveness are really interesting…. could this run on the same lines as Pete's hunting fantasy? I look forward to a really long post. I don't think I'll ever be won over in favour of Suzanne – but I look forward to getting a better understanding of why her character appeals to Don (and presumably to Matt Weiner, who I think said that he couldn't understand why people disliked her so much? I may be wrong on this – if so please someone correct me as I can't find the reference)
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:54 am
I'm curious about what MW said too but I have not regretably been able to read many of his interviews. I listened to a linked podcast of a radio interview a few threads back Ruth, don't recall them speaking of her then though.
Anne B threw some wood into the fire of my Suzanne crush with her post that I think just retroactively popped up. Or maybe I skimmed past it this week. It's behind this post, dated 11/30.
December 3rd, 2009 at 8:53 pm
“Threw some wood”, l-o-m?
Perish the thought. I would NEVER do that.
I am more your classic Silly String type. (Which might explain my little timecode issue with the post.)
Wood, whether “thrown” or merely carried, can wreck a perfectly lovely outfit. Silly String, on the other hand, seems to enhance it.
December 3rd, 2009 at 9:25 pm
Ruth, you appear to be the only one interested.
I don't believe this to be just a male opinion. Suzanne is interesting to me because as you say above @22 she seems complicated and conflicted.
In my androgynous cyber opinion these are very human qualities. I like her because she is portrayed like many actual people I know and admire. They're not always dramatically dynamic or always confrontational. Though Freddy rhymed so above, he is not correct. Suzanne is neither sinner or saint.
Does she have to be one or the other? She's some of each, like I think we real humanoids all are. Most of the other characters display this same multivariance of personality so I'm amused that it seems Suzanne's "negatives" get top billing. For example, read back around the "Grown-ups" time, Pete was trumpeted as some spiritual successor to JFK, which I agree with if that means primarily that JFK probably used his privilege and position to sexually coerce a babysitter somewhere.
Which is the more egregious offense– coercing sex from a position of power or calling and flirting from a position of weakness?
I like Suze because she reminds me Etta Place in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. Etta's line explaining her decision to follow the guys to Bolivia sums it up,
" I'm 26, and I'm single, and a school teacher, and that's the bottom of the pit. And the only excitement I've known is here with me now. I'll go with you, and I won't whine, and I'll sew your socks, and I'll stitch you when you're wounded, and I'll do anything you ask of me except one thing. I won't watch you die. I'll miss that scene if you don't mind."
Let's hope Don doesn't die but I think that gets to a part, just a part, of Suze's outlook. Now it's not pretty or ridiculously optimistic but it seems like a reasonable conclusion for a real person to come to.
And I like smart people being reasonable about life. That's also why she's a great match for Mr. Existential, because when you know that life is not fair and the universe does not care and the time you have is all you have, it's good to be around someone who appreciates these facts too.
If the WeinerWriters pursue this relationship Don could become unrecognizable to most fans in a few years but I certainly think that would be something fun to watch.
Obviously, opinions vary.
And I just saw "Smoke gets in your eyes" again and you are right on about S3 being the perfect coda to some of those beginnings. The Writers have the option to go anywhere with Don they choose, anything and everything will feel genuine.
Thanks for listening.
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:12 pm
Thanks for this – it has certainly given me a new perspective on Suzanne, Don and indeed on myself & why my initial reaction to this particular character was so strong – I can't speak for other posters. Against my expectations, you have succeeded in making me modify my initial opinion of her, even a little. I will watch the Don-Suzanne scenes again in light of your comments. To the extent that Pete is a Kennedy (and I mean in this regard a real Kennedy, not the Camelot airbrushed version), he is definitely RFK not JFK.
PS What's your view on JFK's greatest fan Jane Siegel, who would have needed no coercion? Can you redeem her too?
December 4th, 2009 at 2:44 am
One of the reasons Suzanne is not as well liked or as popular as the previous three, is power. She is not perceived as a powerful woman.
Midge–single, knows what she wants (no cuddling, kicks Don out of her apartment after sex), an action usually saved for men.
Rachel–owns her own department store and is every bit the equal to Don in looks and intelligence.
Bobbie–wife/mgr of her husband, who does nothing without her say so.
She is her husband's boss at home and at work.
I like Suzanne. Don needed a safe place to get away from the insanity of his home life and work. She provided it. She wasn't Rachel because I don't think think Weiner wanted to give the us the chance to root for a divorce, although some of us did, to give Don an easy out. He wanted to stay in that sick mess!
Teachers, as pointed out in #34, don't make much money (my parents were teachers). There are no great colors or frills in the country teacher's life, just basic good times and date nut bread night.
Sorry about the length, final knuckle dragging comment, Suzzane has a wonderful profile!!!! Don looking out his window at her running made my season, while Don makes many other's season including my wife's.
December 4th, 2009 at 4:14 am
Fatphil – That's a good point, one that I felt but couldn't name really. The negative reaction could be that Suzanne is perceived as not quite worthy of the Draper. They don't fit the role of the Power Couple and this is in direct opposition to Don's image of being a semi-classic Type A, rugged, Lucky Strike archetype. Well done.
And my baser instincts enjoyed the jog of course but The Look in Suzanne's eyes when they're in the kitchen and she owns the flirting accusation from Don, "yeah, I was flirting, so what?", that was a winner for me.
Ruth- you right about RFK and Pete on the bigger issues coming up in the decade, I'm curious if he'll support the war the whole way. Something for me to think about. I like the challenge of Jane but haven't had time to work it out.
But wait a minute! She only really said she wanted to vote for JFK, right? Didn't Freud make some observation about how sometimes a voting machine lever is just a voting machine lever? I could be mistaken.
December 4th, 2009 at 8:30 am
Like Don, Freud had a problem determining what women wanted…..JFK (this side of the grave) would definitely have been Jane's type. Rich, powerful, older man – with wife – as Karen Ericksen would say, what's an unmarried man got to offer to a girl? And wasn't Jane described as a "Jackie" in Maidenform? Had things played out differently, Jane Siegel Fitzgerald Kennedy could have been hosting the White House Tour – a cinch after her tour of Bertram Cooper's office – Dallas obviously wouldn't have happened as "sunstroke" on the part of the new and very nervous Mrs Kennedy would have cancelled the presidential motorcade long before it got near the grassy knoll.
December 4th, 2009 at 8:49 am
Again, l-o-m: consider the writing.
If those lines from your movie had been Suzanne's, she'd be my girl. She has every reason to be that. I don't want to oppose her. Who the hell would oppose true love?
Who doesn't like a young schoolteacher who connects to kids, who supports civil rights? I get that. I've been that. Why would I not want to see Don with a person like her?
But I can't get on board unless there's good writing. Character is writing.
To wit:
CARRIE: We gave in to our baser instincts.
BIG: Are you wearing glasses?
CARRIE: What?
BIG (grinning): You sound like you're wearing glasses.
Dude. That, above, was cheating I supported. It was funny. It was character.
December 4th, 2009 at 10:50 am
**Still smackin' my gob here Boss, still smackin' my gob.**
________
Ruth, Jane Siegel Fitzgerald Kennedy, that works! you've tickled me.
December 5th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
@34 less of me- *dreaming of Paul Newman and Robert Redford,* and I'm back. Suzzane knew what she was getting into. She's a love 'em and get left type. She's been through this before. She knew what to expect from the affair.
@ 35 Ruth-I agree with you. Pete is ruthless enough to merit the RFK comparison.
February 28th, 2010 at 8:42 pm
I'm keep a list of resources related to yeast cures and remedies – please feel free to link back.