Matthew Weiner has created a show in which every character is deeply flawed (like, y’know, people), and every character is sympathetic (also like people). Therefore, it’s interesting to ask what makes a character likable or dislikable, especially given that liking and disliking some characters has become so controversial.
Obviously, we must start with the writing. Characters who rape, abandon dogs, express anti-Semitism, homophobia, or disdain for their own children are naturally going to garner dislike. Characters who are loyal, are resourceful, and are polite and welcoming in the face of a faux pas are going to earn sympathy. Our feelings are complicated when these two sets overlap.
Partly, I think it’s point of view. The audience loves a narrator. Hitchcock quite famously played with that in Psycho. Take away the audience point of view and the audience, floundering, will land their perception of self on whoever’s handy. Hitchcock took away Janet Leigh and thereby purposely manipulated the audience into sympathizing with Tony Perkins. We want him to clean up the bathroom thoroughly, we want the car to sink all the way into the lake. Similarly, I think even when Don is a bastard, our hearts tend to stay with him because our POV is with him.
Some of it is definitely cultural. There’s been a lot written, for example, about antipathy towards Betty being rooted in sexism, and I support that view (even though I still have some antipathy towards Betty). It works both ways; Deborah Lacey is a fine actress, but part of why Carla is seen with such high regard is because we see so few African-Americans; the cultural weight in this case works in her favor. But, our culture is surely geared towards supporting and forgiving the white male, and Don Draper’s bad behavior is viewed through that lens. (That same culture does not love a silver spoon, which damages Pete’s sympathy.)
And some of it is acting. No one has been heaped with more negativity in that regard than Abigail Spencer. The point is; show me somebody’s soul and I will empathize, because I, too, have a soul. Acting must reveal.
I would love if the comments on this post did NOT turn into a bitchfest about Suzanne or Betty, of which we’ve had plenty. Rather, I’d like to discuss what makes you sympathetic or unsympathetic to any fictional character. Do you side with the main character, even when fickle or unreliable? Do you always connect with the downtrodden, even when they seem to contribute to their own doom? What lines, once crossed, make a character irredeemable to you?
35 Responses to “Sympathy and antipathy”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
My favorite character is Pete because I'm a socially awkward weirdo. Well, not exactly. I like him because he's hilarious and sometimes disarmingly heartbreaking. But because we both have awful social skills, I'm predisposed to root for him the same way I'm predisposed to root for Sal because I'm gay. It would take a lot for me to stop liking Pete, and in fact after he raped Gudrun I was pretty shaken (ridiculously so, given that Pete isn't real). However, after I thought about it for a while, I saw that that aspect of his personality was always there, and that in the big picture it seems to be improving. And I can see how his abuse of women comes out of the fact that he feels powerless because he's so bad with people. So in the end, the Gudrun situation actually made me feel closer to Pete because I had to examine his character some more–objectively, my opinion of him is worse now, but I'm actually more excited about episodes where he is a main character, etc.
I think because social awkwardness is a pretty major part of my identity, it takes a lot for me to relate to a character who is not awkward. Even though Ken doesn't treat women any worse than Pete does, I've hated Ken from the beginning. At least Pete treats women badly because he's unhappy; Ken just does it without thinking about it. Everything seems so easy for him and I loathe him for being so normal and well-adjusted. For some reason, I felt the same way about Roger the first time I watched the show, but the second time I watched it I found myself feeling the same way I do about Don; he's not my favorite, but he's interesting and doesn't annoy me.
Writing this post, I think I'm making myself sound like the most maladjusted person ever. To make matters worse, I don't like Peggy very much in S3 because she seems cold. On a shallow level, I just thought she was cuter when she had a ponytail and wore different clothes (for the record, I don't see how the clothes she wears now are "not little girl"–she looks like a clown to me with all those bows!). I think the other reason she seems cold is just that she doesn't really seem to have friends at work anymore, and we see her less with her family, so there aren't as many chances for her to be funny or show her emotions. So this isn't really the character's fault, but I just like her a lot less.
As for Betty–I don't actually hate her, like I hate Ken, because I can't think of any real reason to. It's not her fault she's so depressed. But it's hard to like someone who doesn't seem to like or care about anything. I guess what I enjoy in characters is intensity and geekiness/weirdness. Besides Pete and S1-S2 Peggy, my favorite characters are Sal and Paul (Sal isn't really that intense or geeky but like I said I guess I feel naturally attached to him because I'm gay). I love watching Joan but I don't feel as attached to her as I do to my four favorites. Rachel was my favorite character in S1, but she doesn't exactly count because she never did anything bad that I had to overcome in order to like her. She just seems like someone who would be cool in real life.
I've found all of the major characters (and several minor ones) on Mad Men sympathetic at some point in the show. I think Weiner gives us very intimate insight into these characters. We see them at their most vulnerable and insecure. We see their humanity, their soul and like Deb says, that brings us to empathise with them.
Personally, I find Betty sympathetic, more so than Don. I always think of the scene where Betty breaks down and cries in front of Glen Bishop. Even though Betty is emotionally repressed most of the time we have been given so much insight into how lonely and trapped she feels. I sympathise with Don too in the moments when he breaks down, but Don has so many barriers and false veneers layering his character. So even though Don is our main POV guy I often feel emotionally distanced from him. Personally I don't agree with the "supporting and forgiving the white male" viewpoint – I think white male empowerment is depicted very negatively on Mad Men, not as something we should support.
I also don't understand why people would NOT sympathise with Pete because he's a silver spoon. I think as soon as you learn the truth about Pete's old money family and how they aren't actually giving him any money or love or respect, that is what makes Pete sympathetic. Because the only thing Pete inherited from his family was their embittered sense of entitlement, which is the main thing holding Pete back in a job he is actually good at and is always causing Pete to ruin personal relationships. I agree with Weiner though that Pete is "the most honest unedited character" of MM. If sympathy is based on what characters "reveal", then I think Pete is the most revealling character, warts and all. He's the most transparent.
Personally, I think Peggy and Sal are the most sympathetic from a moral perspective. They are often punished for things they don't deserve to be punished for; being a woman, being gay, etc. Joan is very sympathetic too, but I feel that mostly Joan suffers for her own pride, resigning herself to bad situations just to save face. I see why Joan does this, but it is frustrating to watch such a strong capable woman submit to that for vanity's sake.
The problem with Miss Farrell is she always seemed like a prentious idea, not a real person. She was a wishy washy device for Don's story. Unlike Midge, Rachel and Bobbie I never believed that Suzanne was a real woman with a real life that extended outside her affair with Don. Even though Matt attempted to portray other factors of Suzy's life with her brother, her job, etc, for some reason it never felt natural or believable.
@AWV I like your insights about Pete and how you relate to him; it is really fascinating and thank you for being so honest about how you feel about him relative to yourself.
Deb, I agree 100% about feeling for the protagonist. I think, even though you are right that Don gets away with a lot due to his male privilige and his white privilge but I think so many of us continue to like him because so much of the story is told from his POV. We met Don first and he was our entree into the world of Mad Men and so much of the story is about him and told from his perspective. I feel about him the way I felt about Tony Soprano to some degree. Sometimes I really loved Tony but then whenever I liked him too much he would do something HORRIBLE, like kill his cousin or some random person or tell someone to kill a girl he’d known since she was a child or cheat on his wife AGAIN or swindle someone. Then once I’d get all stirred up in hating him, he’d do something nice for his kids or he’d have a panic attack and I’d worry about him or someone would do something not too nice to him but in the grand scheme he sort of deserved and I’d get all kinds of angry. I’d actually get kind of down during some seasons of the Sopranos. I found it much easier to hate his “nephew” Christopher, but even he’d do some really human things or say or express something I sympathsized with and then I’d grudgingly kind of like him again. I know I just said this the other day, but Matt Weiner seriously developed his chops a lot on the Sopranos and though the scenario and culture of Mad Men is very different in many ways, it is so like the Sopranos in many ways, especially with the characters and how it is easy to go back and forth between liking and disliking and being disappointed and suprised by them.
I think given that he is the protagonist, given his hard scrabble upbringing (that we’ve seen flashbacks of) and his intelligence and drive, I will always basically like or care about Don, just like I cared about Tony. I’m sure that all of the characters had their childhood trauma’s and difficulites and maybe (though it seems unlikely) someone else may have had an equally bad or worse childhood than Don, but he is the only person who we’ve seen flashbacks to their childhood and younger years which makes it much easier to sympathize with him. Knowing someone since childhood or really knowing about someone’s childhood can really change your perception of them. For instance, on the show Six Feet Under, I really disliked the character of George (husband #2 of the show’s matricarch) a lot of the time, but after they showed an episode with a flashback of him as a little boy who saw his mother kill herself in front of him, no matter how mad he would make me at times, I understood him so much more and his hostility and hard edges seemed not as hard and I felt so much more for him than I did before. In real life, I was very mad at my Dad for being an absentee parent but when I got older and found out that his Mom died when he was 7 and his Dad, who was physically abusive, died when he was 12 or 13 and he was then raised by his big brothers briefly (who weren’t too much older than he was) a series of aunts and uncles some of whom had mental health issues, I wasn’t so mad. It isn’t like I think everything he did was ok and forgive him 100% but I understand why he wasn’t able to be what I needed b/c he didn’t get what he needed and he did the best he could.
Even though we know a little about some of the other character’s childhoods, it isn’t much and we haven’t gotten as much perspective. I can say that I did feel a bit more for Pete after I saw how chilly his parents were towards him and even for Betty when I saw how her father was towards her and how her Mom shamed her for being “fat”. Even though lots of people loved Grandpa Gene for his tender relationship with Sally, I could see that he was a hard brusque man and I heard a male version of Betty’s voice after the whole $5 theft when he knew it was Sally and he told her “get in here” and made her read to him. Though it ended in a tender moment of sorts, that harsh voice echoed to me what Betty must have heard and it is very much reflected in her cool manner and “hit your head against the wall, only boring people are bored” flipancy with Bobby.
I think though that for me, in some ways, Betty’s privildge as the daughter of a well-to-do family and her status as the wife of a successful executive and a a white female in some ways make me resent her a little bit more at times and make it harder to see from her pov. In some ways I feel like Don, “what do you have to be unhappy about” and in other ways I understand her boredom but get so impatient b/c even though I know women had fewer options then, she has so many more options that a Carla or a Peggy or a Joan. But depression is a bitch and for her I’m sure living at a time when women had fewer options, and being depressed with no one to talk to (not even her shrink) it makes her options seem so much narrower than they really are.
As for Peggy, the only other character, except for maybe Joan, who I feel the most sympatico with, I go back and forth with her as well. I admire her intelligence, her grit, her ability to still be feminine and even nurturing at times (like she was with Paul during the forgotten idea episode) but her growing toughness. On other occasions, I feel like she is over grasping given her age, though some of that may be a result of personally seeing too many too big for their britches recent college grads of both sexes in my own life, I feel torn between feeling like she is pushing to fast, but then feeling like maybe if she were male it wouldn’t bother me as much. The thing about Peggy though that always amazes me though is her ability to pick herself up, dust herself off and start all over again. We’ve seen her do some really embarrasing stuff, but instead of wilting under it, she seems to take it under advisement and use it as a way to grow. I also like that her changes are generally gradual, it took awhile for her to go from the too short bangs and long ponytail to the much more grown up style but she still has a some of that little girl awkwardness too. I would love to see a 40 or 50 something all growed up super-sleek sophisticated Peggy someday.
Ok enough blathering for now!
Definitely it’s equal parts what the actor brings to the role, and what the viewer brings to the viewing. Someone who’s struggled to reinvent himself may have more sympathy for Don than for Pete, while someone who has gotten positive results from using her sex appeal in the workplace may have more sympathy for Joan than for Peggy.
And it can swing the other way, too. If you’ve never known someone who raised her kids in that midcentury style, you may not get where Betty’s coming from enough to sympathize with her. I remember back during the father Gill story, there was a HUGE audience divide over whether he was a good guy or not, that seemed to fall along the lines of people who were raised in the catholic Church and ones who weren’t.
I can spell the word privilege, I swear. I even cut pasted my post into word, spell checked it and called myself cut pasting it back into here, but I re-pasted the original. Oh well.
It's interesting…I only feel sympathetic toward Betty and like her as a character because I find her actions fascinating. On the flip side, I don't feel that way about Pete, even though they get compared a lot. I have no interest in him or Trudy as characters. It may have to do with the acting, I feel Vincent and Alison go over-the-top in the their portrayals.
I’m not sure why people are so concerned about “liking” a character. Most of the characters I enjoy in fiction would be people I would not “like” in everyday life. Someone like Pete (and I’ve known a few) is pretty abhorent if you have to actually deal with them IRL, but I love watching his character squirm and scheme. If I had a boss like Roger, I’d be out of there in no time, but I howl over his inappropriate quips on a tv show. Don is an asshole, but IRL, ok, Don is an asshole regardless, but the show lets us in on his inner life and that gives me an opportunity to empathize with him.
It doesn’t matter to me whether a character is “likable,” what matters is if his inner life and struggles are adequately expressed, and if they are entertaining. And this whole technique of all the characters being flawed and antiheroes, and winning the audiences sympathy for them, is just the current fashion. Pretty much every tv show and many books and movies employ it.
We’ve been *manipulated* to sympathize with Donald and excuse a lot of bad behavior…would we still love him as much if he looked like George Costanza?
Betty is the character I probably feel the most sympathetic towards…well, Betty and Joan, although Joan makes the most of her gilded cage. I grew up in the early 70's, and feminism wasn't really on the radar of my extremely Catholic parents, or part of the rural town we lived in. But I felt in my heart for as long as I can remember that there was inherent unfairness in how girls were treated, and it made me mad. Coming from that makes me more inclined, I think, to feel sympathy for the women characters who are in a time where they don't really have choices, and they aren't even aware of choices beyond what society has spelled out as being "for women": work until marriage, have babies, stay home taking care of them, and then be a good grandma after everyone has left you behind, taking for granted everything you have done to make their lives better.
I don't quite get Peggy all the time, but I don't worry over her or feel sorry for her, either.
I feel bad for Paul because he'll never be quite good enough. I feel bad for Pete because he is so filled with resentment, although Trudy is a great influence on that front.
Sal…my heart breaks for Sal. And for his wife.
Characters I sympathize with and identify with:
1) Don. I see so much of my own personality traits in him, some of his past mistakes and the frustration he feels in his present. I can't support some of the things he does, but I'm more forgiving of Don because I know he's at least trying to evolve and be better than he is (especially since he doesn't come from a silver spoon background). I admit that Don's darker side is especially dark sometimes, and it was unsettling to see him take off with Suzanne Farrell. I can't agree with that. But again, I can forgive him more so because at least he's trying to grow up and change his ways.
2) Sal. Mostly because I root for the underdog and I think he's one of the best written characters on the show. I hope he comes back for Season Four.
3) Rachel. God I miss her — she was the brightest light in Season One. Good hearted, sincere, strong and intelligent: she was a heartbreaker in so many ways.
The one character I dislike and can't really accept:
Betty. As a man, I don't believe my dislike of Betty is rooted in any form of sexism. My biggest problem with Betty has to do with the fact she's so intensely unwilling to grow up. She's spoiled and cruel at times, which are not endearing qualities. To be honest, while I was astounded at Don's hypocrisy in Shut The Door, Have A Seat when he said, "you're so good, but everyone else is bad" to Betty, I also felt a tinge of pleasure when he said it to her. Someone finally pointed out how sanctimonious she is. On some level, I'm hoping Betty gets a dose of reality in Season Four, so she'll start to grow up a bit and see how the world isn't so black and white like she thinks.
Deb!
Great post. The bit about the Psycho switch: brilliant!
Because I'm drawn to stories, I don't necessarily need to "like" the people in them. And I've said that I loved terrible people, like Jerry Lundegaard in Fargo: not just a villain, a bumbling one. Now there was a character with real consistency. Jerry wasn't just a mediocre employee: he was a mediocre father, mediocre son-in-law, even a mediocre crook. He couldn't even lie well.
Ahhh. Jerry.
But I also love surprises, which is why I loved Tony Soprano. It was the writing, it was the directing, it was Gandolfini (who is seriously great): but that character could turn on a dime. Gandolfini was a big man who could be light on his feet, but also produce the "menacing rhino plod" of the late series. He wasn't conventionally attractive, but Tony was incredibly sexy. And there was a Tony Soprano smile that was the most frightening thing I think you'd ever want to see.
The character of Dickie Greenleaf, in The Talented Mr. Ripley (the book more than the film), is also magnetic to me — and a touchstone for how I feel about Don Draper. As a former victim of identity theft, I'm fascinated by the idea of a person who can slip into and out of another person's skin so easily. And I love that both book and film of Ripley leave us in the very deliberate dark.
In comedy I look for the same things: consistency, and surprises. This is probably why I love Inigo Montoya so much.
Don wouldn’t have as many opportunities to be “bad” if he looked like George Costanza. Betty does a lot of coasting on her looks, too.
I agree with Donny Brook here. I want interesting characters. Delineated by good lines–spoken by actors who show some depth. If someone is dull, dull, dull–even though they can’t help their dullness because of their sad, overprivileged upbringing–I don’t want much screen time wasted on them. Let them fly off to happiness on another show!
@ #20
So happy you brought up Ripley! That film always reminds me of MM: the story, the style, the characters…
Thought of Lipp sisters and Basket Cases while at http://www.phillipscollection.org/collection/roth…
and especially BertCoo!
Thanks everyone for your insight and sharing. Holy cow, I love these comments. I can't adequately respond to all the things that gave me insight and enjoyment, so I'll settle for quibbling.
Personally I don’t agree with the “supporting and forgiving the white male†viewpoint – I think white male empowerment is depicted very negatively on Mad Men, not as something we should support.
I said the culture at large encourages that; not Mad Men.
Don really didn’t “troll around†that much. He’d apparently courted Betty & we saw him pursue Rachel. But Bobbie forced herself on him.
There's also Midge, Joy, and the woman (or women) referenced by Bobbie. And Bobbie pushed herself; she didn't "force" herself. Don consented.
Sympathy is part of human nature. It’s what makes us root for the underdog in Rudy, and at the same time cheer for the getaway gang in The Italian Job (original, please). Entertainment drama evokes feeling by showing multiple facets of a character and drawing you into their lives, whereas in real life we might not cheer for the bank robbers to get away (like we do Jason Statham).
We don’t always side with the main character, but then you wouldn’t have a hit show on your hands. The audience sides with Dexter and with Jack Bauer because everyone wants a hero among us.
But let’s be level peggy here: would we really root for Don if Jon Hamm wasn’t such a pretty face? If Andy Sipowicz on NYPD Blue was trolling around looking for something on the side, the audience would have hated him…instead he was drinking himself to death, and we sympathized and clung to hope that he’d pull it together.
It does help if the actors are pretty, but most actors are pretty. If the writing and acting are done right, your scumbag character can be made sympathetic no matter what. Just about every character on The Wire was either a drug lord, addict, corrupt politician or bad cop, but I pretty much loved every one of them. And they weren’t all gorgeous.
I realize I'm coming to the party late, but what the hell…
My attitude about Mad Men's, or any work's, characters, is closest to Donny Brook's than to most who have posted in this thread. It isn't affected by "what they do;" that is to say, I don't judge them as I would human beings…. because that's not what they are, no matter how skillfully their presentation of them may make them seem so.
What I judge is how affecting and valid the portrayal of their actions is in a purely dramatic sense: how truthfully they're written, how vividly they're played, how effectively they're shot, edited, and directed.
Having said that… the more flaws a character has, the more interesting I find them and the more I tend to be drawn to them, because human flaws are the raw material of drama. To take one of the most obvious examples: I would loathe a living person who behaves the way Peter Campbell does; I find the character itself endlessly fascinating.
Don really didn’t “troll around” that much. He’d apparently courted Betty & we saw him pursue Rachel. But Bobbie forced herself on him. And Suzanne definitely let him know she could be had before he took the bait. We saw him turn down a couple of easy lays. Of course, he was still responsible for being in adulterous relationships, whether or not he made the first move. But I’m interested in seeing how he develops next season–to his new company, his urban environment & his weekend fatherhood. And not just whether or not he finds Twoo Wuv; there is more to life than Suburban Soap Opera.
But I’m also interested in what Joan, Pete, Peggy, Roger & the others do next year. (Gosh–most of the cast is above average in the looks department. That’s show biz!) I hate Pete for his almost-rape of Gudrun, but I can’t hate him totally. Roger lost me with that Blackface crap–but won me back again with his wit. And his delayed wish to be more than The Rich Kid. I can even see a bit of what Joan saw in Greg–although I still hope he goes away for a long time & let’s Joan grow. And I really hope to see more of Sal (& Kitty). They all have stories to tell.
As one of the few who are watching the last episodes of Dollhouse with fascination, I think I can say that not everybody needs a “hero.” Of course, we’re the minority; that show won’t be back for another season.
(Would Betty’s fans be so sure she held hidden depths if she looked like Kathy Bates?)
@10 DonnyBrook, I agree. Most actors are pretty, but as I mentioned about the Sorpanos I found Tony very sympathetic quite often and though James Gandolfini is attractive in his own way, he is no Jon Hamm. I also think the actor who plays Greg is kind of cute but I can’t stand his character, then again we’ve never seen anything to make him likable, I also think the actor who plays Paul (blanking on his name) is nice looking but the character he plays, I find him funny but don’t sympathize with him too much .
Oh and John Slattery, totally silver fox, used to find him funny but couldn’t STAND him for most of this season, and I’m warming a bit again but doubt I ever like him to the extent I like Don. Now maybe if this was the Roger show and followed him, I’d feel different.
#12 – great point about Gandolfini in the Sopranos…he’s no Jason Statham:)
I can’t stand Greg’s character – and really, does anyone like him? We’re not supposed to like him. He’s a total weenie, and for our Joan we want a strong man who will treat her well. We want Joan and Don to have an office fling (even though Don wouldn’t get involved in the office) because on the exterior, that’s the guy we want her with.
I disagree about Paul though…I sympathize in that his heart is in the right place – we see that in Nixon vs Kennedy in his tender moment with Joan. You want him to be a better writer, want him to get the girl, and want him to find happiness. I’m sadly afraid that we won’t see any more of him though – and really, it would detract from the show if he had anything more than marginal success. MW won’t sell out his characters like that.
I remember seeing an interview with John Cleese once, where he talked about an audience poll for favorite characters in “Fawlty Towers.” Manuel was the most favorite, and Sybil the least. His theory was that the more control a character had over his or her fate, the less the audience liked him or her.
I can’t help it. I can’t fully like or appreciate Peggy as a character because every time I see Elizabeth Moss I think “scientologist!” “scientologist!” – I guess it’s a deal-breaker for me. Sad.
Great post and comments!
I think the anti-hero comes out of America's experience in WWII. Though that was a just war, people endured horrors. War is horror. Everyday people discovered people and maybe they themselves could be cruel beyond imagining, and the winner of the war unleashed a new weapon that terrified everyone.
the end of the war was the beginning of a new one that used phrases like "mutually-assured destruction."
With the ability of newsreels to make the world known to people, the idea of a "restorative three act drama" in which anything can happen as long as order is restored by the end of the third act, probably seemed a little absurd to some people who couldn't quite square that experience with the one they had lived through or seen.
Nostalgia is wanting to pretend those things didn't happen and the world didn't change. Sort of like technicolor Bye-Bye Birdie vs. La Notte. no, not birdie. Seven Brides for Seven Brothers.
"novel" form television seems to flow from this same disparity in sanctioned views vs a comment on the culture of the late 20th c.
It's interesting. I'm finally watching the S2 DVD commentaries, and when Melinda McGraw was on, she mentioned being shocked that so many people disliked Bobbie, when Don did things every bit as bad as Bobbie and people gave him a pass for it.
I'm sure the double standard has something to do with this for some people, but for me, the difference is that I don't know anywhere near as much about Bobbie as I do about Don. Don acts like an asshole, but we can see exactly what's making him do it. With Bobbie, all I see is her acting like an asshole. Maybe if I knew that Bobbie's mother called her an ugly piece of shit and told her she'd never amount to anything, or that her first husband beat the crap out of her and wouldn't let her leave the house and she escaped with nothing but her life and the clothes on her back and her two kids, I could understand her behavior better. But Bobbie is a minor character and we're not going to get the Don treatment for every character.
Or, see Pete Campbell. Before New Amsterdam, we just saw some brownnosing toady who thought the whole world owed him. Now that we can see that he's the black sheep from a "prominent" family, and he has to make it in business because he's not going to get squat from them besides a name and an education, it's easier to understand him. (Not that a name and an education aren't privileges, mind you, they're just not everything.) Even in the Gudrun episode, which was Pete at his absolute nadir, he knows he's a big fuckup and that he needs help. And at that point in history, his wife (who didn't even know the extent of what he did, just that he'd cheated) couldn't just tell him to get his butt into therapy or she was done with him.
Of course we are set up to like Don. Some of that is given to us in writers code–seeing him at a foreign film in S1, for example. But much of it is because he is smart, clever and right about most of his insights. He is the hero because he has risen from nothing. He has reinvented himself. Everyone character in the show is lost in some way. The ones that are more attractive to me are those who are aware of their condition. So I care little for Betty. I don't see her as insightful. Unhappy Yes. For the most part the women on the show are vastly more sympathetic than the men. The more sympathic men struggle to find themselves, Sal and Paul. Funny thing about Pete, he makes many bad choices but he is attracted to the right women, Trudy and to a lesser degree, Peggy.
It's surprising for me that I have such trouble with Betty
My favorite character btw, is Anna Draper.
Similarly, I think even when Don is a bastard, our hearts tend to stay with him because our POV is with him.
That has not happened with me since late Season 1. Ever since mid-to-late Season 2, my sympathies toward Don has slowly eroded with time.
The only reason I have been more defensive toward Betty in compare to the other characters, is due to the fact that she has been the only character over whom I have shed tears for. It happened near the end of "Shoot". And I believe that she has been unfairly criticized in compare to the other characters. Other than that, I don't really consider her better or worse than anyone else on that show. I don't have any real favorites.
For me it´s Pete I feel the most for. He is like an open book for me, the viewer (I doubt everyone feel the same way) and two entire different characters when he is around other people and when he is alone. Like when he is practically melting down in the couch just losing it after being fired in "New Amsterdam". Or throwing the chicken out of the window, almost swelling with both anger and glee right afterward.
What I like with Vincent´s performance is that it is not a dead moment in that face. Whatever happens on the screen, or doesn´t happen, if he is in the scene, even if he is not in center, he always does something I can watch.
Pete is a douche, off course, and a loser and for me, an underdog. He comes of money and a rich inheritance, but that doesn´t change the fact that he doesn´t have that much else going for him.
It like when Cinderella´s ugly stepsister desperately cuts off her toe to try and fit into Cinderellas small shoe of glass. But shoes like that was never supposed to be for someone like her. And I knew what I was suppose to think. That I was suppose to cheer for the one with beauty and the perfect voice and the sweet personality. The one with all the good traits in the world. But somehow, I wished for something good for the ugly, jealous stepsister too. I guess because my foot wouldn´t fit in that shoe either.
It is the same with Pete. I find him interesting and beautiful and warped.
And yes, despicable and horrible. But he can get away with it because I have also seen that there is more to him. For me, somehow, I feel the most for him when he deserves it the least. When I´m not suppose to.
I am sympathetic to people with whom I can identify in some way. I identify with Betty on a couple of levels. It cannot be easy being married to a man like Don Draper, a good-looking guy who is away from home a lot. Betty has high expectations for others, but I think she expects even more of herself, especially in the area of perfection and beauty. I felt very sorry for her when she was so happy about being back in modelling, only to find the rug pulled out from under her, and never really knowing the reason. She got the job because she was Don's wife and she lost it for the same reason. Although Betty is a 50s and 60s girl, I think she has a lot of the issues that women have today, including eating issues and determining what her role should be in a family and in the world at large.
I identify with Peggy because I know that it was not at all easy to try for a career in the 60s, even with a college diploma and a good attitude and work ethic. Although I have not had an abortion or given a child up for adoption, I can imagine how frightening it would have been in the early 60s to get pregnant outside of marriage. The stigma was so great, I think it would have been almost paralyzing. I knew of a couple of girls who suddenly left to go to a boarding school or tour Europe with a wealthy aunt. Everyone knew they were pregnant and would be back in nine or ten months. But most of us played along, and the adults did, too, because it was such a shameful thing. Few people would admit to an out-of-wedlock pregnancy in those days.
I certainly identify with Suzanne because I worked for a while as a teacher. In a way, I may judge her more harshly than I do Betty or Peggy for that very reason. She is too close for comfort. It was not easy being a single teacher in the 50s and 60s because the values were so different. Teachers were expected to be saints. Dating and sleeping with the dad of a student was considered very bad form then, not at all moral or professional.
It is VERY easy for me to like, even admire, Don Draper, and I know that many men like his style, too. He is kinda like James Bond. He operates on a whole different plane and does things that ordinary men can't do. Joe Scarborough and the other men on morning Joe often talk about how Don is a heroic guy to them because he always knows how to get things done. For instance, he told his brother-in-law exactly how things were going to be after Gene started to deteriorate. He didn't ask, he told. He showed great authority and also caring toward Betty. He clearly took Gene into his home to make Betty happy and less worried. Men like that kind of decisiveness. So do a lot of women.
We all respond to beautiful people. There is just no doubt that pretty women and handsome men have many advantages in this world. Don is a good looking man who knows how to conduct himself in the boardroom or the bedroom. Yes, it is a cliche, but he also has that rough edge and maybe even that mean streak that makes him even more desirable.
Peggy often tries too hard and is far too "earnest" for those around her and for us as viewers. There is something a bit off-putting about her type. We see her as a hall monitor who enjoyed writing the names of kids who misbehaved on the chalk board when the teacher was out of the room.
While Don comes across as a winner in every situation, some of the guys appear to be losers in almost every situation. For some, like his brother Adam, there is simply too sincere and kind a heart to exist in the cutthroat world. He will be devoured by the pain of it. For others, like Paul, there is the feeling that beneath the office worker beats the heart of a slacker, who'd really rather be doing almost anything else and will never truly find his niche. Pete is kinda like Peggy, in that he often tries too hard and is too hopeful. Unlike Don, who makes it happen, Pete works hard and expects others to hand it to him because he is deserving. Don is irritated by his too-obvious attempts to get ahead.
@hudsunn 31, not to be overly pendantic, but Peggy does not have a college education; she went to secretarial school, which makes her rise even more amazing, particularly because there are secretaries in the office, like Joan and Jane, who have college degrees who did not get as far. Well, in Jane's case she got her M.R.S at the office so technically you can say she went further but not on her own two feet (more like on her back
)
I don't see Peggy as "hall monitor" either. When Don wrecked his car, she lent him money to pay the fine & gave Bobbie a place to stay until the bruises healed. Because he had helped her when she was sunk in depression after the birth of her child. She had taken his advice to put it all behind her–long enough to get her out of the loony bin before they decided to try shock treatment. But she figured out, by herself, that she eventually had to process the event.
Peggy is hard to figure out. She didn't fit in back in Brooklyn. She wasn't just another one of the office girls–even before her promotion. Now she's continuing her (secretarial school) education, learning from Don, Bobbie, Joan & even Duck. Her flexibility helps her write good copy & her continuing evolution will be interesting.
Personally, I enjoy characters with depth; I don't have to "like" them. Alas, when the characters have problems that make them flat & dull (or are played by actors with limitations), I do find I can dislike them. I may pity them, but I keep watching for the next scene.
Of course, I'm an old Joss Whedon fan–the heck with "realism." I enjoyed watching an evil mayor who had sold his soul to dark forces so he could evolve into a giant snake demon. Because he was a fount of folksy wisdom, even as he plotted evil deeds…
Fans of Patricia Highsmith will love knowing that there's a new biography of her out this month. Even better: she was a pretty good liar, herself.
Read the review here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/20/books/review/Wi…