"Mad Men" -- *Final* Season Official Thread (possible spoilers) (part 2)

Discussion in 'Visual Arts' started by Ken_McAlinden, Dec 8, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. BEAThoven

    BEAThoven Forum Resident

    Location:
    New Jersey
    People think the song "All You Need is Love" is a beautiful statement about peace and love. Are they being manipulated by a company trying to sell a piece of plastic? It's all commerce.
     
    JimC likes this.
  2. lschwart

    lschwart Senior Member

    Location:
    Richmond, VA
    What's being sold in that case is the recording itself (not the object that is it's medium). Commercial, absolutely, but not the same as an advertisement that attempts to sell a soft drink by associating it with certain ideas about authenticity and universal human harmony. I'm not sure if there's a moral difference in there somewhere, but they are different matters.

    L.
     
    ampmods and RayS like this.
  3. Rfreeman

    Rfreeman Senior Member

    Location:
    Lawrenceville, NJ
    I like Coca Cola (ok the diet variety these days)
    I like videos of hippie chicks on a grassy hill
    I like songs about teaching the world to sing in perfect harmony and then buying it a soda.
    This is heart warming stuff folks.
     
  4. Rfreeman

    Rfreeman Senior Member

    Location:
    Lawrenceville, NJ
    But then I've been known to segue my original tune "Love in Summertime" into the Bumblebee Tuna jingle.
     
  5. BEAThoven

    BEAThoven Forum Resident

    Location:
    New Jersey
    Correct, but then the argument could be made that if that song was strictly about "the message," then it would have never been released as a single. "The message" was being monetized to sell a product -- the Beatles' new piece of plastic. The profits went to the band/companies not the "cause," as it were. The song was never "free."

    I could argue that the Beatles merely used that (almost) worldwide satellite broadcast as a mere television commercial for their forthcoming single. The Beatles "sold a vibe" on their commercial and everyone "felt good" and went out and bought the product.

    The song is the Beatles' product, and the slab of wax was its packaging. Lennon and McCartney would have never written these songs if they didn't function as "product."
     
    Vidiot, Jose Jones and JimC like this.
  6. Rfreeman

    Rfreeman Senior Member

    Location:
    Lawrenceville, NJ
  7. ampmods

    ampmods Forum Resident

    Location:
    Boston, MA, USA
    That's kind of a major generalization. The thing someone is buying is the art itself. Not what 'the art' is trying to influence you to buy. That's a pretty big distinction I think.
     
    TheiPodAvenger likes this.
  8. lschwart

    lschwart Senior Member

    Location:
    Richmond, VA
    Yes. It's a commercial matter in both cases, but the thing being sold and the activity of selling itself is different. I'm not saying that makes one better than the other in any particular way--I don't know. But if we're going to evaluate then, we need to have a clear sense of how they're different.

    L.
     
    Last edited: May 22, 2015
  9. Not easily manipulated but influenced.
     
  10. Most of the original audience in 1971 already drank soft drinks. The coke spot influenced many to switch to coke or it validated their already selection of coke.
     
  11. JimC

    JimC Senior Member

    Location:
    Illinois
    I agree with you completely.
     
  12. smilin ed

    smilin ed Senior Member

    Location:
    Durham
    Too true, but we like to idealise our heroes and their motives, don't we?
     
    JimC likes this.
  13. dirwuf

    dirwuf Misplaced Chicagoan

    Location:
    Fairfield, CT
    The alternative ending...

     
    TheiPodAvenger and 905 like this.
  14. Folks are just sticking bad ads on the end . Still waiting for that brilliant alt ending someone will come up with.
     
  15. albert_m

    albert_m Forum Resident

    Location:
    Atl., Ga, USA
    Jokes, aside there doesn't need to be an "alt" ending. The ending is good.
     
    GentleSenator, NorthNY Mark and JimC like this.
  16. NorthNY Mark

    NorthNY Mark Forum Resident

    Location:
    Canton, NY, USA
    I finally saw the last three episodes last night (and got caught up on all the commentary). Wow. If nothing else, we have to admit that this ending was brilliant in provoking discussion about the nature of advertizing, of enlightenment and "the real thing," of desire for change, or for self (and other-) acceptance, and the relationships among all these things. I actually don't see Weiner's comments (at least the excepts I've seen) as "explaining" the ending as unambiguously as people are taking them; furthermore, regardless of what he may or may not say, the ending was edited in a way to make ambiguity inevitable, which is what allows conversations like these to go on.

    Was Don's smile ("a Coke and a smile") a sign of enlightenment, or a return to his most cynical tendencies? Might there be a relationship between the two interpretations? If it is him being completely cynical, does that represent a betrayal of the counterculture, or an argument about a fundamental flaw within the counterculture that led to the "Me Generation?" Was the ad something his character goes on to create, or [and/or?] a moment of resonance, reminding us that the desires we have for this character and his fate, as well as the sixties and "its" fate, might be related to the very desires that the Hilltop ad originally evoked and/or manipulated? What do WE want for Don, and from him? And relevant to this forum discussion, what do we want that ad to mean now, and to have meant in 1971?

    Pure brilliance on Weiner's part, IMHO.

    I think the references to John Lennon and "Imagine" in this thread have been very interesting, and I think the parallels run even deeper than has been acknowledged so far. In an earlier comment from a few weeks ago, I remembered Don's raising the needle in the middle of "Tomorrow Never Knows," interpreting it as his refusal to surrender to the void. I was interpreting "the void" in a negative sense as the emptiness of youth-oriented consumer culture ideals that Megan seemed to be chasing just as Don was seeking something more meaningful ("the Real thing"), but I also acknowledged that "the void" could be understood as a state of enlightenment. How interesting, then, that the closing scene of the series depicts Don literally "surrendering to the void." And what we are all debating is whether that void is positive and enlightening, or empty and cynical. This is, I reckon, the central conundrum of the series, and, implicitly, the series's idea of the central conundrum of life.

    To what void does Don surrender here? It may be, on some level, acceptance of his own weaknesses. Throughout the series, Don "misbehaves," and he feels shame about it, and tries to do what he "should" do (remarry and stay faithful, spend more time with his children, etc), but inevitably fails and self-flagellates (is it an accident that he turns to the overtly Catholic Sylvia at one point?). It seems that not only does Don (possibly) learn to accept who he really is in this episode (which is not a hippy guru, but even more so, NOT someone about to return to a life centered around marriage and children), but almost everyone else in his life seems finally to accept this as well, from Betty calmly informing him (now that she has studied psychology) that his absence is now what is normal, to Roger, Stan, and Peggy all referring to his absence-taking as "what he does," without any hint of bitterness or desire for him to do otherwise. Betty accepts that he is not really "home" with them, while Peggy realizes that he is always home at the office with her. Roger seems to have come to a certain self-understanding--that we keep walking through doors hoping to become something different--in therapy, and has presumably accepted that we won't ever become that other, better thing (by the way, didn't a song by The Doors get snuck in here, further resonating with the motif of the refrigerator door, perhaps?). Don's enlightenment is to reach the same self-acceptance. All we can do is accept our own limitations, and reach out to touch or hug others who are struggling with the same issues. Leonard is the opposite of Don in some ways, and exactly like Don in others (and, as someone pointed out somewhere, "Leonard" is an anagram of "Real Don").

    The coke ad, then, is both enlightened and cynical--if we see it as Don's creation, it represents what Don is best at, which is arguably about selling things based on people's desire to walk through the doors of change to a brand new them. To some extent, he acknowledges that the new goal is no longer about achieving a perfect self or a perfect family, but the simple pleasures of being kind to those around you. But yeah, it's still in the service of selling a product, tellingly (in keeping with the theme of "the void") one based on empty calories.

    As to the ad itself, what an amazing Rorschach test it has become in this thread alone! My personal perception, having seen it (or perhaps a somewhat later variation--wasn't there one where they lit candles and sang in the form of a Christmas tree?) as a little kid, was that it told me nothing whatsoever about Coke, or made me want to drink it. Instead, it just came across to me like a wonderful celebration of international goodwill. Now, being older, I completely see the point of those who find it offensive, but I'm more aligned with those who see advertising as inevitable in our culture, and I'd rather see such advertising present messages like that of the Hilltop ad than the messages that play directly on people's insecurities or their desires to "keep up with the Joneses." In other words, I basically share Weiner's expressed feelings about the ad. Its message was one of sharing, and it seemed obvious to me as a kid that the particular product being shared was irrelevant. This does seem related to "the void": in the ad, no claims are made whatsoever about any real or claimed merits (health, flavor, caffeination buzz, etc.) of the product. It is simply a kind of dark void upon which to project whatever feelings of goodwill one chooses to (or not, as in my case, growing up loving the ad, but not Coke itself). How different, after all, is "It's the Real Thing" from "It's Toasted" (significantly, the only other "real" ad campaign Don worked on).

    One final detail I wanted to bring up--I was astounded when someone brought up the image of Betty holding coke bottles from that brief modeling episode, because I had already been thinking of a thematically related image from another episode--the one where Megan does her first commercial (the one for which she betrayed her friend and, in some sense, Don, by asking Don to get her the audition). Significantly, it was the moment at which he turned his back on her and went to the bar where he was asked if he was alone. She was wearing a kind of Heidi-like floral outfit, somewhat (and I admit, only somewhat) reminiscent of the beribboned hippy from Esalen whose doppelganger shows up in the Coke ad. In the cases of both Betty and Megan, those images turned him off (presumably, ringing hollow and making him see them as prostitutes of a sort); he stopped Betty from going further, and allowed Megan to, only to see his fears further realized when she later did the love scene on her soap opera. But now, the "third woman" (this time, a stranger, but one reminiscent of Stephanie, who is kind of a stranger as well) comes along, and Don finally surrenders to the void.
     
    Last edited: May 23, 2015
    sgtmono, Bill, driverdrummer and 7 others like this.
  17. nbakid2000

    nbakid2000 On Indie's Cutting Edge

    Location:
    Springfield, MO
    Absolutely. If it was really just about "peace and love", then they wouldn't have mentioned Coke at all in the ad. Notice they even SAY in the ad to buy their product and in return you'll get peace and love. Coke isn't even trying to hide it. They're literally telling you to buy the product in return for peace and love.
     
    ampmods likes this.
  18. artfromtex

    artfromtex Honky Tonkin' Metal-Head

    Location:
    Fort Worth, TX
    Excellent post. :righton:
     
    NorthNY Mark likes this.
  19. NorthNY Mark

    NorthNY Mark Forum Resident

    Location:
    Canton, NY, USA
    Thank you!
     
    artfromtex likes this.
  20. Jose Jones

    Jose Jones Outstanding Forum Member

    Location:
    Detroit, Michigan
    Not at all. John and Yoko's music (mostly John's) made money for John and Yoko. McCann-Erikson's Coke commercial made money for both M-E and Coca-Cola. Just because one is cloaked in some kind of 'artistic sincerity' doesn't make it any less commercial.
     
    artfromtex and JimC like this.
  21. Jose Jones

    Jose Jones Outstanding Forum Member

    Location:
    Detroit, Michigan
    Of course. Advertising is manipulation. Happy X-mas (War is Over) is manipulation. Commercials that feature puppy dogs and 3 year olds singing with zero singing ability are a manipulation. And just because something is a manipulation for commercial gain doesn't mean it can't be beautiful or peaceful or artistic either.
     
    BNell and JimC like this.
  22. Jose Jones

    Jose Jones Outstanding Forum Member

    Location:
    Detroit, Michigan
    I'm tempted not to buy a series box set, after buying all the seasons individually except Season 6, out of protest for the idiotic decision not to include commentaries on that season solely.
     
  23. Fade to black after the smile. Roll credits.
     
  24. Todd Fredericks

    Todd Fredericks Senior Member

    Location:
    A New Yorker
    After the credits he is the character from "Quantum Leap"...... :)
     
    sgtmono likes this.
  25. ad180

    ad180 Forum Resident

    Location:
    USA
    The difference is that a musician/poet/author can write songs/poetry/novels outside of the industry. Commercials, by nature, are advertising and manipulation, while art, by nature, doesn't have to be a part of that.
     
    TheiPodAvenger likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine