When Television Triumphed: Mad Men

The relationship between television and cinema has always been more competitive than complementary. Where one succeeds, the other tries to ride the coattails; where one innovates, the other wants to steal the glory. For nearly a century the two have warred over audiences, and the last decade or so has largely been a stalemate. Financially, cinema continues to win, but this is largely a result of increased ticket prices more than increased attendance; then again, you could say that television has pulled ahead, but this too is largely a result of increased subscription price and ubiquity rather than increased viewership. In any case, the lines are being blurred. "TV" and "movie" are not so distinct any more; and in a future where the format will most likely be streamed rather than projected or programmed, there may eventually be no distinction at all.

I have always been a film guy. I used to literally watch a movie every day, sometimes more. And in my formative viewing years, I would pick a director and watch his ouevre obsessively, poring over details to find what made him (un)successful and unique (you can imagine how long this took me when I was studying Woody Allen)... But now I'm not so sure that's the case. My movie-watching habits have waned since graduating film school. Generally I'm more likely to see a movie a week; in any case, certainly not one a day. So few are worth the time or money that I've become much more of a TV-watcher.

There are two reasons for this: (1) decreased quality in film options, and (2) vastly increased quality in television options, as well as accessibility. In my view, there are now distinct strengths belonging to both TV and film, and TV has not only bridged the gap, it's actually overcome it - whereas in decades past I would have easily given that edge to cinema. Movies have almost always been about spectacle in some form. They made their mark by simply being more - bigger budgets, bigger screens, bigger stars, etc. This is not to say that all movies are big-budget eye-candy, just that movies usually cost more than TV shows and as a result tend to look better. Television, on the other hand, was the underdog; it had less to work with, in just about every category. And for the most part, I'd say that's still the case. Where television was able to take the lead is in the fact that it finally found the strength of such limitations: creative storytelling and strong writing. A whole series of one television show may never compare budget-wise to a big Hollywood actioner, but where the TV show can really shine is when it takes that time to really develop and understand its characters; TV's strength is in its patience and longevity rather than its spectacle. Television writing has gotten so good, in fact, that I'd be willing to say you're far more likely to find engaging, interesting drama on the small screen instead of the large. (I still have never - and will never - watch "reality" TV, so don't expect anything but diatribes for Jersey Shore and their ilk.)

One of the shows I've just started - despite it having been around some time - is Mad Men. Like so many television shows, I'd heard a lot about it, but subconsciously said "That's not for me" and came up with various reasons to avoid it. The same happened for years with 30 Rock, and now it's one of my favorite shows. I don't know why I do this; I think on some level I don't want to go along with the crowd. I've been burned so much by popular media (whether music, movie, or television) that I tend to avoid it for as long as possible. Once something continues to garner approbation for years, however, then I'll finally cave and give it a shot. Not every show is that lucky, so if word of mouth is strong enough, I'll venture into the more obscure/cancelled shows as well (a veiled reference to the excellence of Firefly, Dave).

Anyway, onto the show proper... My initial impression of Mad Men was that it was more form than content. People tended to focus on the glamour of the show more than the drama. So I was hesitant. I am happy to report that Mad Men does, indeed, deserve the accolades bestowed upon it; and I say that after some careful thought and consideration.

[Disclaimer: I've only seen Season 1, so don't hold it against me if there is a steep dropoff in quality and I'm praising something that doesn't deserve it.]

Truth be told, I was not impressed with the first few episodes. Don't get me wrong - they weren't bad. They weren't even mediocre. They were good. But I would not have called them exceptional. I was expecting exceptional. The writing team had created some interesting, flawed, human characters, but it seemed like the first half of the season was a kind of trial run - as though they weren't sure exactly where this was going.

This does, of course, give them places to go in future seasons - which is obviously why they gave this initial set-up - but for a viewing experience it does leave certain elements feeling disjointed. Betty Draper, for instance, I've still yet to get a handle on. At times she was bent on asserting herself, claiming her place in society and her marriage, and generally getting on board with all manner of feminist ideals... but then she spends just as much of the season willingly and happily deferring to husband Don and relegating herself to the role of stereotypical housewife.

Mad Men's strength is in the way it utilizes stereotypes while subverting them and exposing their darker side, however, and it is in the second half that the show really came into its own and established itself as a key player in high television drama. The production had always been impeccable - and after the ball was rolling, the material really had a chance to shine and capture the wide range of emotion and experience had by each character. I love Peggy's arc throughout the season, and the final few episodes with Don are something special. Mad Men did not start out as great television; it earned the right to be called great television.