No sound? Is this happening to anyone else?

No problems for me.

Really like the MAD MAN show. But too much smoking, I know its for effect, but its overdone and is very distracting.

Can anyone tell me which episode Crista Flanagan will first appear in?

Most of the show seems miscast. Great idea but they just missed it...and now the wife is going to therapy ? I swear this reaks of Sopranos undertones...The next episode hopefully will redeem...till then..

I had to chuckle at the daughter running around with dry cleaning bag over her head, and the seatbelt-less children climbing over the front seat and in the foot well in the backseat.

Hey, we turned out just fine.

Expected much more from a show from 1960. Actually quite boring ,you need to expand on the caracter played by Christina Hendricks .

With the possible exception of Don (and I'm still not sure about him), I can't believe that any of these guys are players on ANY level in the ad biz of 1960, much less one in New York City. Again, other than Don, they're all to broadly drawn. They're caricatures, not characters. And I agree with Bill...way too much smoking, even for an era when smoking was more commonplace.

"Really like the MAD MAN show. But too much smoking, I know its for effect, but its overdone and is very distracting."

You're either young, or have amnesia.

People smoked...EVERYWHERE.

They smoked in their offices, in their homes, in doctor's office waiting rooms...they smoked in department stores, they smoked in the movie theatres...

And cigarettes were advertised as actually being good for you!!!

And speaking of advertising, cigaretters were advertised pretty much everywhere.

Especially on TV.

There was an ad for Winston cigarettes with Fred Flinstone. The Flintstones was on Prime Time TV.

The show Mad Men is a very insightful glimpse not into the future, but back in the not so distant past.

As the son of a Madison Ave creative director, I have to laugh. My dad worked for BBDO during this time and he says the show is complete BS, except that they got the decor of the offices right. Sure they drank and smoked, but the portrayal of how things went is totally overblown. It was an intense, high pressure job and there was alot on the line, but they didnt act that way. He also says that he NEVER heard the term "Mad Men" either. My mom was also a million times more sophisticated than the portrayal of the wife of the ad guy too. It's too bad everyone is buying this. I work in the TV biz myself, so I recognize that in an effort to "dramatize" things, a bunch of suits thought this would be good TV. Well, it seems the critics, who are probably too young to have any reference, bought it hook, line and sinker as well. Well done suits, but too bad its just another unrealistic drama...

I love this show, reminds me so much of my childhood and like the previous comment, people did smoke that much back then, my pediatrician smoked when I got my checkups. Everyone in my family smoked, constantly. I don't know much about the advertising business, but the show itself is COOL. I love the decor. I am also appalled at the way the men behave towards the women, I don't think it's changed all that much in nearly 50 yrs, they just seem to veil it a bit better. Midge and Rachel do seem a little ahead of their time, but the men act pretty much like the men of today.

My mom saw a psychiatrist in the 60's and ended up taking her own life after years of Librium and Shock Treatments. I find this storyline very compelling for personal reasons and find Don's feelings about it just like my father's, he doesn't understand or truly seem to care much, except how it might affect him.

I can't wait to see what happens next and I'm also thankful that by the time I entered the workplace things had changed somewhat. We've come a long way, baby! Or have we?

Does anyone know the artist of the print in Don's office? Kandinsky, perhaps?

Liked the first one maybe because I was drunk and so hyped up from the "advertising". But this one was blah and I felt like I was watching a soap. I dont know. Maybe I wasnt ready for the slowed down style of "lets show everyone how the wife of the suit is feeling". I will give it one more chance but I was totally let down. Oh, where was the sexy woman who walked away in dramatic fashion last episode who got my attention? She is hot. Well I see where they were going with this episode with the whole "what do women want" but that was the WHOLE episode. I am not giving up!

I truly hope the set designers/prop people for MAD MEN get this message. The show is fantastic and every detail seems correct--except one.

They're using IBM Selectric I and Selectric II typewriters in the secretary pool. The problem? The Selectric I didn't come out UNTIL 1961.

The show, if I'm correct, is supposed to start in 1960, right?

I don't mean to sound pedantic, because this really is a great show. Kudos to the entire production crew for bringing this period to life. BUT FIX THE TYPEWRITERS, WILL YOU? They're distracting.

I think the show has a lot of potential, but my impression after the first episode has not changed much since viewing the second: There is too much reliance on hindsight - for humor and insight. Instead of snickering at the smoking and the plastic bag, and being appalled by the sexism, and generally going for the "wasn't everyone so much less enlightened back then?" gag, I would like to see the show stand on its own as a period piece without apologies for the idiosyncracies and idiocies of the time. Some of the characters seem well developed, but for the most part seem two-dimensional, and I think that is because our generation of "enlightened" hipsters has stereotyped them as two-dimensional. But I don't think they were. I think they interacted in a different manner which, like our own present way of interacting, had an up side and a down side.

I dunno about this show. I think it could be really REALLY good. Just too many unlikable characters. Sure, Tony Soprano cheated on his wife, gambled relentlessly, murdered, etc... but he was an endearing guy in a strange way. This show is just chalk-full of unlikable people: makes it a tough hour to endure... maybe having a couple of the guys actually be decent human beings or the mother having half a brain (child with bag over head, mother oblivious except her dry cleaning may be dirty - ok I get it was the 60's. People may not have known what they know now but they weren't idiots) Scenes like that aren't funny or enlightening... all it does is dumb down the characters and seem like it is trying to make some statement about the era which it isn't. It is making a statement about the character as a neglectful idiot mother. Plastic bugs could suffocate people just as much in the 60s as it could today. Sorry that scene bugged me and the show is starting to bug me. I hope we get to see more dimensions from these characters who all seem very one-dimensional at the moment.

Very good show. I work in advertising and I'm an African-American so this so is really interesting to me. The only black folks i've seen so far are providing some kind of service ( office food guy, waiter and bath room attendant). It's funny to see how cocky the main character is... I can't wait until somebody bust his bubble!

>> "You're either young, or have amnesia.

People smoked...EVERYWHERE.

They smoked in their offices, in their homes, in doctor's office waiting rooms...they smoked in department stores, they smoked in the movie theatres..."

TallGrrl, even though your comment wasn't a reply to me, I would respond with this: the point made wasn't about *where* people smoked but, rather, how much. Even in the early '60s, smoking was at something like 60% of the adult population. And, while that's about 3 times higher than it is today, it still shows that not everyone was a smoker. 4 in 10 *weren't*. And those who smoked weren't all chain smokers.

Yes, smoking was everywhere. Yes, images of smoking were everywhere, as well as advertising for them. That's not what's being observed here. We're commenting on how many people are smoking and how they are never seen not smoking.

I *am* old enough to have experienced that era and many in my family and within my parents' circle of friends smoked. But for most, not incessantly. Even in 1960, a chain smoker stood out and people (even other smokers) took note of it (typically to say that someone was a "nicotine fiend" with the suggestion of a lack of control). That's the part about the portrayal of smoking in "Mad Men" so tiresome -- already.

What's up with Sal and his gayness? The sashaying down the hallway, the sketching of shirtless men, the ambiguous comments (especially the "I know what you mean" he gave that girl at the bachelor party) in the hallway. Am I the only one picking up on this? And where will this be going, if anywhere?

"Yes, smoking was everywhere. Yes, images of smoking were everywhere, as well as advertising for them. That's not what's being observed here. We're commenting on how many people are smoking and how they are never seen not smoking."

Dave,

Sorry, but 40% is still a minority where I'm from. Even if everybody's smoking in every scene, I think what really bothers people's sensibilities is the fact that people smoke wherever and whenever they'd like. In bed, in the office, while pregnant, etc. Nowadays, my friends who smoke, don't smoke inside their own houses. They're constantly being given a guilt trip by the media and rude a-holes about how they're killing themselves.

The smoking in this show is not without consequences. We've already seen the head of Lucky Strike coughing up a lung, and Francine Hanson is pregnant!

Next response is to Johnny:

No. You're not the only one picking up on his gayness. I think he's gay, and it's going to develop in later episodes.

I'm not from the era in Mad Men, but what I am getting from those that are seems to suggest that this show isn't very accurate when it comes to the Madison Avenue Advertising scene but perhaps it is accurate to 1960 (and I must stress "1960" not "1960's") American corporate culture overall? At least slices of it?

Maybe the dirty little secret about the show is that there is little input from those who were actually on Madison Avenue in the Ad industry during 1960 and just careful research about the broader (or perhaps a deceptive veneer of careful research going beyond nothing but the physical artifacts of the period and a caricatured simpilistic assumption of how things were that we have been taught over the last 30 years post 60's era). I'm not saying the general sensibilities and prejudices portrayed wrong but people were just as psycholgically complex as they are now, perhaps more so due to having to repress so many things about themselves... (hell maybe we have to repress more things about ourselves now?)

Potential innaccuracate portayal of the Ad scene on Mad Ave New York, doesn't neccesarily mean one should reject the show out of hand as its broader commentary on the period overall and the inevitible comparison's of today's society.

One way of looking at the show kind of sheds light on how much society may not have changed and just how our more base desires and primal urges have been repressed (fear of the other, sexism/desires) in the workplace yet still exist yet have been "driven underground". Not that that is a bad thing but to remain cognizant of the fact that these supposed hurdles we have overcome still exist just not out in the open.

Books could be written on the subject so I will shut up now as one blog post will not give the overall subject its due. (especially this sloppily put together one).

Which perhaps maybe some expect too much of the show? After all, after you put in all the ads you are talking about a 30 minute or show with only so many episodes spread out over several months. Maybe its a little much to ask for the creator to get every bit of Mad Ave Ad culture correct when it IS an overall portrait of the era in some ways beyond just the Ad industry of the era. I think we can forgive them that it takes a little more than the time allowed to unpack all the ins and outs of an entire period in a 30 minute episodic TV show.

Isn't it enough that they are trying to address the subject with a certain depth and attempting to unpack some of the broader implications that are inherent? I don't see many TV shows trying to address any era let alone 1960 with this level of depth (or any depth for that matter) Compare Mad Men to most shows you see on TV (not academic treatises and biographies about the era) and you see the questions that it asks us and the depth it goes into. You can only do so much on a 30 or so minute TV show. And Mad Men definitely go further than most.

Anyway as I said before its a little much to tackle in one comment. Whole careers could be devoted to the subject as they are in Academic circles.

I truly enjoy this show. And to all of the critics that think the show is over dramatizing the naivety of the characters or the lack of social consciousness, take a chill pill. As a person that grew up in the sixties, the show adequately represents the people and views of that era. People DID chain smoke in public; there were NO seat belts; children DID freely play in cars while in motion; pregant women DID smoke and mothers DID have afternoon "tea" parties with their friends while their children carelesly played with toy guns and dangerous household objects! We did not know that plastic bags could suffocate you - it took several deaths before the public became aware of that danger. These things went on all across America. Also, the fact that African Americans are portrayed only in servant roles is because for the most part, those were the only jobs readily available to African Americans back then. As for how the men treat the women as second class citizens in the workplace - they didn't know how to treat them any other way. The era of political correctness and social consciousness had not arrived on the scene, yet. So I applaud the writers and producers for unveiling this era when people were insensitive to others and politically incorrect. It is an eye opening lesson for our younger generation and a walk down memory lane for the older generation. Although it may be difficult to understand, but people in that era lived in darkness and it was not until the social revolutions of the mid-sixies and seventies did they start to wake up.

Tell me that wasn't a plastic bottle of Ketchup sitting on the kitchen table in the last episode. Let's get it right people.

Dave, you are right on the money. Thank you for your comments. This was everything that was happening in my world during the late 50's and early 60's, to the letter. My Dad was an art director for his entire life, and this show is so accurate regarding advertising agencies. I got in the racket briefly during the 70's and you can have the men of that era as well! I think this show rocks, I just love it. It gets better with every viewing, it is spot on and has terrific writing, cast, sets and very strange story line. In the first episode, I had no idea Draper was married until the last scene, did any of you? Everyone has a secret, it's terrific television. So rare these days!

I hope this show has many years and is not just a mini series of 6 episodes.

The psychiatrist session was spot on; he doesn't say a word during the entire hour (analysts aren't supposed to), then later gives a full report to the husband behind the wife's back: "You've got a very anxious young woman there." Of course, the implication is that she is abnormal because she should be enjoying her perfect Suzy Homemaker life, and the fact that she doesn't is her problem, not society's.

I love the final shot of the kitchen oven in the distance. Scary! And the idea that you could get cancer simply by inhaling your psychiatrist's second-hand smoke for a year or more is also "in the air". At least he doesn't smoke a pipe or a cigar. Many did.

As far as the overt sexual harassment is concerned, it hasn't disappeared, just gone online (see the following link.)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,2051394,00.html

I get harassed constantly just walking down the street in my city unless I'm wearing a ton of fleece or burqa-like ensembles. It's just that now the harassment has been relegated to undocumented immigrants and blue-collar workers who aren't afraid of lawsuits:

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/07/18/have-you-been-harassed-on-the-subway/

the smoking is not working because it is not being handled well in the scenes by the actors or directors so those scenes become only about the smoking, and "gimmicky". there is a way to handle that where whatever is being said in the scene, or the "meat" of the scene is in the foreground and the smoking is just like background music. when all we are paying attention to is the smoking, then it usually means nothing much else is really happening in the scene. maybe there is just not much happening in the scenes in the way of plot or dialogue so the smoking becomes the foreground. and yes it is disrtracting in the scenes as the scene becomes only about the smoking. the show is this terrific idea that has not fully found itself or what it really wants to say. the sexual issues within the workplace and elsewhere so far have been about all that it seems to be saying and honestly that is just not enough to keep a show running. there is just not enough at stake in any of the plots or story lines here. sad because the perisd flavor is so darn interesting but extra marital affairs, sexual harrassment in the office, well that is just not enough. that too can be background but the writers have to come up with something more interesting for the foreground to keep anyone engaged for any period of time. so far it is all just line drawing sketches instead of fully interesting fleshed out stories and people. maybe that is the point since it is about advertising men and advertising is like little snippets of life. that is all. but for an hour?? and is there ANYONE we are supposed to be rooting for here?? because i dont think the writers even know who that would be. the 60's were so full of changes, and political thngs going on and this show makes everyone seem silly and only interested in their sexual gratification, with no other interests, and paints the women-even the "working women" to be downright stupid- which by the way- they certainly were not. on some level the producers are a bit anti semetic and anti woman in that the only real business woman is jewish and the only real "independent", non typing pool, outside of the office, career woman seems to spend most of her time in bed, sleeping around with married men. huh?? come on guys! pretty one dimensional. maybe you all need some female writers there??

So far, it's been entertaining. I've been in the agency business for 25 years but never in NYC or a major market. I wanted to be David Ogivly when I was young. Is this an accurate description of how it really was?

Emma, all very well said. However...

>> "the only real business woman is jewish and the only real "independent", non typing pool, outside of the office, career woman seems to spend most of her time in bed, sleeping around with married men. huh?? come on guys! pretty one dimensional. maybe you all need some female writers there??"

Check out the behind-the-scenes "making of" videos (all three parts) that are available on the site here.

>> "I've been in the agency business for 25 years but never in NYC or a major market. I wanted to be David Ogivly when I was young. Is this an accurate description of how it really was?"

Mack, I was in the agency business for 15 years from 1975 to 1990...and have been peripherally associated with it since. I started out in a satellite office of an L.A. agency and ended up with an agency in Boston, doing a lot of production work in NY. 1975 was only 15 years away from 1960, while today is 47 years. The agency people I knew throughout that time were incredibly bright and very 3-dimensional. Imagine how, oh, Aaron Sorkin would have populated an ad agency.

If you wanted to be David Ogilvy, I'm sure you read his writing. You probably read the writing of others, too...Bill Bernbach, Rosser Reeves, etc. Refresh your memory of the work of any of them...and then tell me if you can believe the Don Draper we've seen so far shows any sign of being their equal.

So, far, Tom Shales of the Washington Post has said it best:

"The odd thing about all this is that the content might sound, well, contentious, or at least controversial, but the stories unfold in a dry, drab way and the pacing is desultory. Series directors are fond of long pauses that serve no purpose other than to give the impression that an actor forgot his next line. It's a shark-eat-shark world populated primarily by sea turtles."

Sabrina, you must be 25 years old, this is how it was in the 60's. I had a boss put his hands on my boobs at the chamber of f---ing commerce office where I worked as an editor, and was fired for reporting it to the president of the chamber of commerce. This sort of thing was the norm. I lit up, had a drink, and left!

A few comments:

1) I loved the first episode but was a bit disappointed by the second - do we really need another " poor wife bored in the suburbs they are repressive" story line? Been there done that horse is dead beaten and buried. I'm sick of Hollywood always having this derogatory tone on the subject Plus they are making Betty to be a real dope . . a more interesting and less insulting portrayal of this type of character and this period (e.g. bored housewife in the 50s (ok 1960) but with a brain and real thoughts in her head) would be from the movies "The Hours" or "Far From Heaven" ironically, both played by Julianne Moore. Maybe they need Julianne Moore.

2) RE: Comments about Ossining - those who say a successful executive of that era would never live there clearly don't really know the area - my mother grew up there in part and although she does refer to downtown Ossining as a dump she had always mentioned that the neighborhood of Chilmark, which is referenced in this episode, was a very prestigious area, separated from the rest of Ossining quite dramatically in both geography and sociopolitical status. However, I agree, I live in Westchester, and the train sign bothered me. I am now obsessed with finding out what year those signed were adopted.

3) Smoking - People are saying this is unrealistic -but I really don't think it is. I was born in 1967 and my mother smoked until 1985. ONe time we were viewing slides and laughing because my mother LITERALLY had a cigarette in her hand in EVERY picture. NO MATTER WHAT. Even more surprising, until 1965, when my father quit ( which I think was the second surgeon generals warning) HE had a cigarette in every picture which seems to us (kids) incredible because as long as we have known him he was very anti smoking. FInally, I joined the work force as late as 1989 in NYC in the record business and EVERYONE smoked even then in the office. SO I can only imagine what it was like in 1960. ANyone who is saying it in inaccuate is viewing this through the lenses of 2007 where smoking is so pariahed - that just wasn't the case until fairly recently.

I've enjoyed watching this show if only for the sets and suits. I do think the creator saw "The Apartment" too many times and has based this show heavily on the theme in that movie. The Apartment was a comedy, but it also had some depth. I'm finding it difficult to get beyond the visual with Mad Men b/c these characters just don't feel real; the words that come out of their mouth don't sound real.

I agree with the other posters that there's too much smoking. Last night, every character was lighting up in every scene. Yes, people smoked everywhere in the 1960's, but they didn't smoke constantly.

Why is Don the only experienced executive at this agency other than the 2 partners? Most of the men seem to act like school boys walking around, then they take meetings with important clients. Nope, doesn't work for me.

I doesn't make sense to me that everyone at the agency talks about how mysterious Don is, but then you find out he's married with kids. How are you mysterious if you have a family in the suburbs and people at work have met them? They should have kept Don single.

Oh, one more thing, the actress playing Betty seems way too young - I would imagine that character had to be at least 30 if not older, and the actress looks (and probably is) 22. Yeah, OK, the whole Betty story and character is BUGGING me! Still will keep watching though!

Caro, I agree that the actress playing Betty is too young. She looks younger than the Peggy character. Last night she looked way too young to have schoolage children. The neighbor looked like her mother.

The Betty character is lifeless and didn't deserve a whole show. She's not even a good actress and there's no chemistry between she and Don. I guess they just wanted a pretty blonde.

The IBM Selectric Typewriter was introduced in July 1961. This was the typewriter with the rounded styling. The squared off styling of the IBM Peggy is using is the Selectric II and it was not introduced until several years later. This show is supposed to be 1960. You should not even be using a Selectric. Get it right folks.

Show's great. My wife worked in big city insurance back then; tight dress, short hemline, bullet bra, beehive hair, a 5'1" hard body blonde. In job interviews she was asked if she were planning a family and what kind of birth control she used. Once her boss pulled her onto his lap hoping for some after hours action. She couldn't report it to anyone.

I wanted to see if anyone noticed the commercials....where there would be a product "factoid" and then the commercial following the fact would be FROM the factoid. I LOVED it! I even slowed down my TIVO to read them.

Anyone else notice it? Where can I read more about it?

Yup, I saw that. Seemed like another variation on Pop-up Video (and how many years has that been?), only for the advertisers. Most of them I already knew. And if you didn't already know that the purpose of TV programming is to deliver eyeballs to the advertisers in a commercial break, this should confirm it for you.

I really loved the first two episodes.

Being in my mid-50's, I wasn't an adult then, but I do remember the "zeitgeist" of that era, and this series captures that perfectly..

That was the glamorous world many of us aspired to -- and/or later rejected and rebelled against. The series reflects both sides of that era's mythology, and how it resulted in the love/hate relationship many Baby Boomers had with the "Establishment" of the time.

Plus, the casual sexism, racism, homophobia and general acceptance of WASP arrogence are realistic too...I can remember clearly when it was startling to see a woman or an African American being allowed into position of responsibility; or how being Jewish was a stigma...etc. That was just "The way things are."

If you're of a similar age, you probably also can remember how strange the changes in those accepted attitudes seemed at the time. Drinking was done casually and was even considered a badge of honor....remember the big deal that was made when there was first awareness of the dangers of drunk driving?

And, on the darker point mentioned in the promotional videos -- We haven't really changed all that much since then. We're just more covert about those underlying attitudes....Hang around a bunch of guys (or I guess women) in unguarded situations, and you'll hear much worse than is expressed in the series.

All in All I'd say mad Men manages to be both entertaining on a superficial, while also being thought provoking about who we are as individuals and a society in 2007.

dave i am with you about these men having to be bright. and the other thing is "sharp" and competitive and talented and creative. these men are dull! where are the story boards for the campaigns, where is any preperation for client meetings? i just cannot believe this guy to be the best in his business. is it all in his head?? don't the clients usually get to preview the campaign ideas before they show up to meetings. are we suppposed to think it is all "off the top of his head" improvisatorial in front of the clients??it is very very lacking in showing anything about what these agency men do to keep their place in a top agency. and sloooooowwww is right. it is n.y.c. for goodness sakes!the PACE is all off.has anyone on this show ever worked or lived in n.y.? slow lunches, slow talk, slow table service. it is just not TRUE. when lunch time comes in n.y.c. you rush for the nearest door to the nearest coffee shop, walking and talking at the same time-along the way-FAST! the pacing here is like a long nap. how long does anyone have to decide where they are having lunch? or eating? or what about catching a train to ossining. so far this draper guy is like hanging out in every scene. including his mistresses apartment. like does he ever have to really do any WORK?? or get anywhere?? when does he EVER really put together any ad campaigns at all?? he hangs around at the office. then hangs around his girlfriends , he hangs around in every scene with no urgency at all- like maybe we could at least get the sense he as to catch SOME train at SOME point? or have to go SOMEWHERE, ANYWHERE-that in itself is a hectic event. he is just not ever going anywhere or even moving, it seems. have any of these writers ever had to run and catch a train at grand central station? if they had a scene of him there he would probably be sauntering through there also. it is all just so casual. and in the 60's there were many jews in advertising. i believe GREY advertising agency was started by a jew. it was not all anti semetic wasps running everything. and there were women too .not just typing pool women. this is some male fantasy show. not the real deal. the women are either nerdy secreteries, or big boobed red headed office sleep arounds,or neglected wife and mother types (sadly written to just look stupid and vacant by these writers-which is totally unfair), independent spirted mistresses who are "above" wanting anything other than a sex partner and some pillow talk. does anyone care about anyone on any other level?? these characters are not so much out of any great brilliant writer creativity but rather some weird neurotic male fantasies.not one woman her to threaten them.all these women serve them in some way or another. the only woman who does not perform some service to them and who has a business and is a somewhat of a threat since she is a potential client is a jewish woman. interesting.... MOSTLY where is the business of advertising here?? it is never dull but this show makes it seem so. NO ONE with this slow vacant uncreative, un go-getter personality would last a day in any real advertising job. the writers have made them boring and the actors seem bored trying to interpret these dull characters. and all the men only think of is who they can harrass or get into bed next. are we supposed to think that ANY business goes on here at all? it really dumbs down everyone in the era and especially in this particular profession.

>...do we really need another "poor wife bored in the suburbs they are repressive" story line? Been there done that horse is dead beaten and buried.I'm sick of Hollywood always having this derogatory tone on the subject.Plus they are making Betty to be a real dope . .a more interesting and less insulting portrayal of this type of character and this period (e.g. bored housewife in the 50s (ok 1960) but with a brain and real thoughts in her head) would be from the movies "The Hours" or "Far From Heaven" ironically, both played by Julianne Moore.

Moore also played a 50's housewife who was smarter than the role she was trapped in the movie, THE PRIZE WINNER OF DEFIANCE, OHIO.

"...do we really need another " poor wife bored in the suburbs they are repressive" story line? Been there done that horse is dead beaten and buried."

Are you kidding? There are any number of contemporary women who have bought right back into the "Dump your career for perfect happiness as a wifey/moo" trap--and are finding out that it is a much a dead-end for them as it was for their mothers and grandmothers. This problem never really goes away; it just goes underground for a while.

>I'm sick of Hollywood always having this derogatory tone on the subject.Plus they are making Betty to be a real dope . .

The show hasn't given up all her backstory yet. But in what way is she a dope? She's sheltered and puts too much faith that husband is always right...but the writers have made it clear that that is what she has been raised to do.

"I'm sick of Hollywood always having this derogatory tone on the subject"

Shoot, Hollywood has done so much to make non-married, childfree women feel abnormal that it needs to provide a corrective viewpoint more often than it does. :) It's denial to say that Hollywood always has a "derogatory" tone about this subject. For a lot of women, this kind of life was a trap, and it would be inaccurate to portray all the good of it and none of the bad.

I really like the show but I don't think there is a single character that I like. The men are all pigs and the women are all so self centered and insecure. The seen where the child had the plastic over there head drove me nuts maybe it was just to reference the time but it creeped me out. In addition when the wife was in the accident, her kids seemed to be an afterthought. I don't care if they didn't have seat belts any parent at anytime is first going to worry about the kids.

Also the one character that is played by Bryan Batt is obviously gay and hiding it I'm sure that will make a great story line in the future I just hope they handle it better than the horrible gay story line in the Soprano's. How stereotypical could you get. (Let's go antiqing with our biker chef volunteer firefighter) Please! Anyhow so far I am a fan I just hope it lives up to it's potential.

Kudos to the styling team - perfect clothes, interiors, colors and hair. I have been working in advertising in NYC for close to 30 years, many of them spent in a building identical to the one being used.

Also thanks for ressurecting the memory of Ratazzi's. Many an ad campaign has been presented off of Ratazzi's cocktail napkins on blurry mornings after.

I must also add I personally fondly remember rolling around inside cars without restraint as a kid, and being raised by women who lived strictly by the rules of what they had been taught women should do and be. My job was to break every one of them. So though I don't personally remember that kind of sexism in the office, I do remember the time of the perfect suburban housewife and divorcees being discussed in hushed tones.

I LOVE the show, and my appreciation is sharp owing to my having worked at Ogilvy and Mather/New York in the '80s.

About the show, I read somewhere about how much the art directors and set design people did painstaking research as regards the details of the Madison Avenue agency office in the early sixties. Despite that, there are a two details that bother me and deserve mention:

The first is the fact that the offices on the show are missing several key props that no office in advertising would be without; great clumps of failed layouts, type galleys, tissues, mock-ups and presentation story boards. On the Account Supervisor's shelves, color-corrected product "heroes" hold pride of place cheek-to-jowl with those fat, black binders filled with Client Media Buys or chron'ed Client Conference reports.

The second complaint I have is the use of the WRONG IBM Selectric typewriter used and shown extensively throughout the show. In fact, the rounded, lozenge-shaped model preceded the squarish Series II model, which didn't even become available until the late 70's or early 1980's at the earliest. IBM also produced them in several pastel colors like antacid green, brick red, buff blue in addition to the band-aid brown. I know it's a minor detail, but it bugs me and it's an easy fix. The beautiful, iconic rounded Series I IBM Selectric typewriter is very easy to find, just go to any Thrift Store.

Believe me, everyone smoked like crazy, drank, hung out at Rose's, Michaels Pub or Rattazzi's. Worked hard as well. There were no Blacks,Jews,Asian,or Women in any positions of responsibility or power. Even after the creative revolution when Doyle Dane Bernbach was born, the testosterone level remained high, and all this creativity just sold soap,cereal,cars,drugs, and Presidents.

The smoke is not an illusion.

While many of the sexist behaviors pointed out in the show didn't surprise me, one of them appauled me! When Betty goes to see a psychiatrist, and then the doc discusses it with her husband, it not only reminded me that confidentiallity is not what it is now, but more specifically, that the doctor would NOT have discussed Don's session with Betty! Peggy being a sex toy to the men in the office was one thing (that still happens), but for women in general to be treated as objects or possessions or children that had no power over their own lives, well, that angered me! We may have come a ways, but we still have far to go!!!

I absolutely love this new show. I grew up in the 50s and 60s worked for ad agencies, was morbidly dependent upon men (before women's lib and for too long after!) and oh that smoke and cigarettes in everyone's hands! I love it but you ought to have more bouffant hairdos of the 60s (the hair worn by women is much too sleek!) and the women's clothing is also not of that period. Furthermore, it would be good to show a more busy office with real files and layouts on some boards, etc.

Finally, I wrote a novelized memoir about that period called "Someone To Watch Over Me," about three women growing up in the 60s in New York -- it would make a great TV series. You can find it at Barnes & Noble or order direct from me, the author, at RebornAngel.com.

Judi McMahon

I am with you all the way. The possibilities for character development are endless as you have set Don up to look rigid, cocky, creative, conflicted and flexible in two brief episodes. He is obviously struggling with his wife's condition at least because it may upset his orderly life, yet doors are open for him to walk through in exloring who he really is. New character possibilities are endless too....new clients, competitors, in-laws, parents and siblings of main characters, troubled children, new liaisons it is a treasure trove.

Cool Show!! The attention paid to details regarding the general sets, props, and costumes are unbelievable.I love seeing plain vodka/gin martinis! It is like watching my parents and their friends socializing and drinking at the parties that were held at the house in which I grew up in. It brings back loads of memories! For me, this is worth the watch.

I find the episodes very entertaining, and fun to watch. It is the soap opera of the summer.

Two issues I don't see addressed yet. Twice, in the woman's lounge, we see women uncontrollably sobbing. Is this a result of the blatant sexism and roaming hands they experience in the office every day, because of their medication i.e. valium or some other popular mood alterer of the time, the stress of the "technology" they're using, or what? Also, Don's wife's hands shake. Is it a simple case of nerves, are they symbolic of her life spinning out of control, or is there something more medical happening (muscular dystrophy, perhaps?)

A note about smoking: my mother was 40 in 1960 and at that time, she burned through three packs a day. By my calculations, that means she was smoking approximately 50 percent of her waking day, not particularly less than the amount of time the actors on the show are puffing. She smoked while pregnant, while changing the babies' diapers, before, during and after meals -- she'd even stop in the middle of washing dishes to light one up.

I love the show so far. As someone who was born in 1960 and grew up in a WASPy suburb of NYC, I have found almost all the show's period details to be just right.

My first job in a corporate environment, in 1980, involved working with the older versions of the guys and gals in Mad Men. Even in 1980, a lot of men (especially men who came of age in the 1940s and 50s) smoked ALL THE TIME. It was as common as drinking coffee today.

Those older guys were also completely unreconstructed as far as sexual discrimination went. (My first boss had a statue on his desk that read "Dirty Old Men Need Love Too.") Whenever a new secretary was hired (and they were all women), the guys (married or single, it didn't matter) would find excuses to come by her desk and flirt with her. The flirting wasn't subtle, either.

For those who've complained that the show isn't true to high-level advertising firms, I appreciate the info, but I can forgive a lot if the drama works. As a partner in a law firm, I constantly see things in shows about lawyers that make me want to smash my television. But I do enjoy shows that at least get the FEEL right (The Practice was very good, for example). One thing that Mad Men seems to capture well is the essence of what it's like to be a brain-worker.

I am really looking forward to future episodes.

Intriguing take on neglected film genre,the office drama..ExecutiveSuite,Grey Flannel Suit,The Apartment, Patterns. Too early to tell. Best scene so far was the tracking shots of the copywriter showing Peggy around the office. Dialogue had the world-weary snap of the best of the forties office comedy dramas. I hope Don doesn't wind up with a proto hippie girlfriend at the end..

There's a lot of criticism about how the show relies too much on contemporary stereotypes of the era, which makes it an inaccurate depiction. But the fact that it's probably grossly exaggerated and crafted to shock our PC sensibilities actually gives us a different perspective on our current time period. When I think of the movie "The Ten Commandments," to me it smacks more of the fifties than it does the-year-whatever, B.C.

Anyway, I don't care about historical accuracy - this show OWNS!

I thought episode 2 dragged -- I hope ep 3 picks up the pace.

Loved the kid in the plastic bag!

I agree with the posters that want more character development. For all of us Saprano fans, let's remember it took more than two episodes before we figured out which characters to love and which ones to hate. I just hope the writers recognize that they have a really tremendous fan base building out there, so give us depth-of-characters and intrigue-in-plots in the weeks to come.

There are so many sub-plots that can be developed. There's the secretarial pool - so many stories that can be told there. What about the secretaries in the bathroom crying? We want a glimpse into their lives to understand what they were crying about. There's Don's girl friend. What's her "real" story? Is she truly a liberated woman or is she yet another woman longing for Mr. Right to whisk her away to the suuburbs? Then there's the closet homosexual account executive. When are the writers going to expound on his character to show us the taboo's of homosexuality exceptance in the work place in 1960? Then how can you ignore the social issues of that period? Spice it up a little to show how the agency would deal with the possibility of hiring a qualified college-degreed African American, Jewish person or female candidate into a management position. Also, with all of the blatant drinking in the workplace, which character is going to wind up with a drinking problem? Needless to say, the sub-plots are endless. So give us some characters to "love-to-hate" and plots to chat about each week. We're yearning for that kind of drama!

I adore this show. I was born in 1954 and boy it brings back the memories of men in hats and women in girdles and heels. I agree about the IBM selectric though. I knew there was something off about it. I think they probably would have been using the old manual type that I learned to type on. Gave you STRONG fingers!

Smoking...baseball players smoked in the dugout.

I'm hoping the wife gets put on prescription barbiturates. The generation depicted in this show drank hard and got serious prescription meds (before the dangers were made apparent).

LOVE, the curvy head secretary. I bet she and her agent jumped for joy when this audition came her way! (and the pointy brassieres...)

Jeez, I knew blogs were the death of politics, now they'll be the death of television after reading some of the absurd criticism up above. They're two episodes in, give them a little time to work for gawd's sake...

"They haven't explored [insert actor x] enough." They've had TWO hours so far, and episode guides online make it clear that they'll shift focus between different characters. Are they supposed to have focused on every single character in Episode 1 to meet the standard of perfection?

"They're not all like David Ogilvy" - well, no s***, the guy was a genius copywriter, and all we ever saw was his finished product - and his forte was long copy, long enough that it'd take half an episode to read it. This is television, they have limits.

Is it perfect? No. Is it an accurate rendition of the life of every single ad agency in North America in 1960? No. Did they get the typewriters right to the month? No, but they're damn close - and this ain't "Band of Admen" with historical accuracy on the line, it's a playful show about a bunch of unredeemed fools on the edge of the death of their civilization. Complaining about half the stuff above is like, well, complaining that the Sopranos didn't realistically portray mob heirarchies in North New Jersey. Of course they all smoke too much on a show about 50s-era decadence, for the same reason they all drink too much - because they CAN.

And I'm impressed so far, for all my tiny quibbles: it looks good, sounds good and smells good, I'm marry at least three and maybe four of the women who've appeared so far in less time than it takes to start up a Cadillac, and I'm more than willing to wait for another few episodes for the gravy to thicken and the red meat to be served...

What's the rush? Be patient, there's a still a beverage on the table.

Love the show but does anyone know the song they play at the end of the show right as he closes the door?

Love the show but does anyone know the song they play at the end of the show right as he closes the door?

To PF re: the bathroom scene - The women crying in the bathroom was a motif, a common practice in screenplays where one act keeps recurring either to add humor, suspense, or drama. A well crafted motif also adds an extra layer of meaning to a storyline by showing a different facet of a character.

In this case, the show's title was "Ladies Room". After watching the episode, I interpreted the title to mean that women only feel comfortable revealing their true selves in the privacy of the ladies' room. Think about the scene between Betty and the other ad exec's wife in the restaurant bathroom, where Betty confesses that her hands sometimes shake uncontrollably.

"I like it like that," you are absolutely right. Patience is a virtue and this show is truly worth waiting on each week to see how the writer will develop the characters and sub-plots in weeks to come. It appears that many of the viewers are ex-Soprano and/or ex-Six Feet Under fans, so we are a bit anxious and our expectations are running high. Personally, I have rescheduled my "life" to fit around Thursday evenings. It used to be Sunday's. Hope Episode 3 does not disappoint!

I read the majority of comments and notice that Peggy is almost never mentioned...except concerning her typewriter. Maybe the creators should pay attention to this fact. I personally find this actress very unappealing which makes her character very uninteresting. Yet, she seems to be the highest billed female. Maggie Siff and Rosemary Dewitt are much more interesting to watch, in both acting and appearance. A friend expressed the same feelings about "Peggy" before I mentioned my thoughts on the subject. Let the character/actress stay, but please don't make her the focus of the stories. It's very distracting from an otherwise very appealing show.

Okay, I did a little "internet" research to help put the typewriter issue to rest. If you google images to find IBM electric typewriters, you will see the history of IBM typwriters. It clearly shows that the IBM Model C typewriter was introduced in 1960 - ironically it even shows several actual ads from IBM's 1960 campaign promoting the Model C. As previous posters keep emphasizing, the Selectrics were not introduced until 1961, so please change out the set and replace the IBM Selectrics with the Model C.

Not a single likeable character, and the smoking is WAY overdone. I remember those days; lots of folks did smoke, but not 24/7! Annoying and distracting.

And why is the sound quality so poor? It's not a problem on any other station, but we have to keep rewinding just to figure out what people are saying. Very bass-heavy and muffled.

Interesting idea, but poorly executed. Pity.

re: Peggy is almost never

mentioned...except concerning her typewriter.

Peggy reminds me of Garland in her early tentative roles. I think she's the eyes of the writer's sensibiliity of the young woman about to enter the big wide world. Are there any female writers on this project? It actually seems the writers are more interested in the women characters than the men. More to work with. More shades of character or at least social types. The men, at least so far, are all cut from the same cloth. Notice that even the acerbic, "creative" copywriter just wants to get into Peggy's pants. There's lots of channeling John O'hara and Cheever here. not to mention Mary McCarthy's The Group. In short, quality television may be finding its salvation in classic early 60s filmmaking and literature. Intriguing. Discuss.

I've enjoyed reading the comments and I'm glad everyone is enjoying the show. I agree with an earlier poster that so far, the men aren't that interesting; Don is the only one. Possibly the writers were trying to convey the typical male of that generation. Maybe the fact that the men have all the power is enough for right now.

I find the younger men crude, boring and goofy. Can't any of these men flirt and charm the women they encounter? Isn't anyone witty? They're supposed to be creative. More likely than not, these guys would find their future wives in this type of office setting. My parents met and married in a similar setting in the early 60's. Supposedly Joan has had some flings with a few of these guys. What's the motivation for any woman in this office to see these guys outside of the office? Are the women charmed by the insults?

Standing ovation to "I like it like that"

Re Betty--the plot w/her shaky hands can develop a couple of ways. She can get analyzed and fall apart, get liberated--or get more symptoms because she's been misdiagnosed. Even then neurologists knew about how early stage MS and other CNS diseases would manifest; this is true to pattern. (My confirmation is via my brother, who is an MD and a psychiatrist--in fact early stage MS would be the first thing he'd be looking for, not a neurosis.) Hey, maybe Don will wind up in his version of hell with his sick wife, and getting pressured by his would-be bohemian illustrator girlfriend for a divorce.

Have to agree w/ previous posters that even in the tidy confines of Y&RNY circa late 1970s (my first job), most account offices, except management supervisor and up, and creative offices had more stuff on shelves and strewn around.

But what is most telling about the series is that it recreates the semi-military aspect of business management at that time, right down to the "shavetail" account execs.

re: Cleo your comment

I find the younger men crude, boring and goofy. Can't any of these men flirt and charm the women they encounter? Isn't anyone witty? They're supposed to be creative.

Its possible that the men who write this show aren't really familiar with the past rituals of office wooing, wit and charm because they are too busy with their careers. We do not live in a sophisticated age in many ways, and the writers attempts reflect the loss of those social skills. I thought the scene in edisode 2 with the copywriter showing Peggy around the office smacked of the sductive,witty dialogue of the great 40s comedies. Try to see that scene again if you can. Best so far. So there's hope but not much.

re: Horse Badorties, your reply

I agree that the scene with the copywriter showing Peggy around was a great scene. Others have commented on the tracking camera shots (I hope I'm using the correct terminology).

I can see how these guys would get crude amongst themselves, talking about the girls in the office or possibly commenting about a girl walking by on the street. It just doesn't sound right to my ear that they come right out and are crude in front of the girl, a girl they will see day in and day out.

I'm a hopeless romantic. I want Jack Lemmon in The Apartment. I want to see one of these guys swept off of his feet, using all his charm and wit to get somewhere with one of these ladies. Maybe they don't have enough episodes or time to develop their characters and leave the wit and charm for Don.

Great show! That is really how it was. The drinking, smoking, and how women were treated. Just ask your mom or grandmother.

I love it!

Since there was no zero year between the change in calendars between BC and AD, 1960 was actually the last year of the 1950's. This show is acurately depicting that the first few years of a decade are actually more like the prceeding decade. The early senebties still reaked of all the pyched out late 60s crap and so on and so on.

I like the show but I hope that they have a future episode on the idea and creative process that went into putting an expensive ad campaign. It seems like no work is getting done. This is a pressure cooked ad agency after all. Don seems more like a white-collar-guy-stuck-in-a- boring-job than a creative, maverick genius. He mentions that advertising is all about "happiness"....yet he seems so depressed.

First I think the characters are going to become more three dimensional as the show progresses. Even today, with an arguably more even-handed treatment of history, we still have a largely two dimensional understanding of people who lived in that transition between McCarthy and Kennedy. We see people of that era as either heroes or devils, because we see them in black and white reruns on Nick @ Nite, and we want to believe that they were better than that; they couldn't REALLY be that exploitative, smoke that much, be that obtuse. So we cringe because all our expectations about how insightful and provocative this show was supposed to be are being disappointed by stereotypes and distracted by cigarette smoke.

I have been impressed with the show so far. Its swipes at consumer safety faux pas and sexism may very well lead to continuing intriguing storylines about advertisers and the products they represent; as illustrated in episode one featuring the federal(?) ban on advertising favorable medical claims for cigarettes. (Car w/seatbelts--who needs seatbelts, car crash? Anyone...anyone)

Also, while it is possible that a "bored-Suburban-housewife" storyline might be trite, I think the assumption of that direction is premature. We have Betty wondering who her husband is (just as we have Don disarming his creative team by getting a little too introspective in wondering what women really want), and we have a looming physical/psychological problem of unknown origin. Which direction might they take it? Serious mental illness, schizophrenia, or such? Or what about a disease like MS or Lupus? It is still true now, but certainly appallingly true then, that women's medical concerns were often considered menstrual, menopausal, or symptomatic of women's generally hysterical nature (thank a lot Siggy, baby).

Let the show develop, I say.

Enough about the typewriter already ! Either watch the show or don't but get over the typewriter issue ! It is not as if the secretary was using a blackberry or an iphone - it is a typewriter which is basically accurate for the time period !

That said, I love this show and can't wait for the upcoming episodes !

I love this show. I started watching it because I am a HUGE Vincent Kartheiser fan - that's the only reason I'm watching it since I had to buy it on itunes to be able to see it. I really like how this show is turning out.

As a smoker I didn't appriciate the comment that someone made saying that chain smokers have no self control. I enjoy smoking and until it's made illegal to smoke I'll continue to chain smoke. You non smokers like to complain but you sure do love our tax dollars from the sale of cigarettes. I'll bet you every cent I have that people will still get lung cancer if smoking is ever made illegal.

Wow! I've learned more READING about the episode than watching it two times! My 2 cents, episode two had a tough time following the promise of the first one, which was a MONSTER.You can nit pick about signs and typewriters all you want, but the overall tone and themes do correlate rather well for the most part.Last, it is evident that people are watching VERY closely, which is the idea; this is not just some "Tossed off" summer show, and has been made to be watched carefully.I always get more insights the second time through, like any well made movie.Looking forward to seeing where this leads.Cheers! MM:)

I've read the comments about this show and seems to me that many of you are overthinking it. I don't particularly care that the typewriter is one year off, or that there's a plastic bottle of ketchup in someone's kitchen. I think they got the flavor of the era down pat and think they nailed the atmosphere of theh typical upper-middle class home. I was 19 in 1960 and working for a big insurance company in Boston. I was sexually harassed every hour of every day, though I didn't recognize it as such back then. It was just part of daily working life. (And yes, people, everyone did smoke). I also see in the comments that a lot of people are bothered that the characters aren't "developed" enough. Understand that in 1960 most people weren't very instrospective. They didn't know they were supposed to be. The "Me Generation" hadn't happened yet. And I do remember very clearly that important matters in most households were handled by the man of the house; this would include doctors calling a husband to report anything noteworthy about a woman's health. Husbands were expected to the ultimate Alpha males. This meant most wives had no privacy, little self-determination and not much sense of self. A lot of women, believe it or not, were content in that role and would have been appalled by the suggestion that it should be any other way. Other women felt mentally claustrophobic in that role, but for the most part, those women suffered in silence. So ketchup bottles and typewriters notwithstanding, I think the producers of this show got it right. Take it from someone who was there. Unless I've lost my mind over the years, this show captured the way life was in the year 1960.

I agree that the flavor of 1960 was captured by the fact that women were definitely second-class citizens both at the office and in the home. Today, it's laughable that the husband (Don Draper) calls his wife's psychiatrist and the doctor discusses the wife's problems with him. It's also accurate that nearly EVERYONE smoked and drank. My own parents were constantly smoking and drinking along with everyone else. People did not overthink things then as they do today. They got up in the morning, went to work, came home, had a couple of drinks, did the chores, watched a little TV and went to bed. Everyone accepted life as it was and didn't over-anyalze it. In this repect, Don Draper seems a bit ahead of his time, as he appears very moody, introspective, and dark. Really, back in 1960 most people just lived life period. Only writers and actors were dark, not everyday people, at least not for the most part. The thing that gets me is the fact that all Draper seems to want to do is bed the next woman and brood. He always has a rather dark expression on his face and it makes him rather unlikeable. His wife is obviously very inhibited and stifled like so many women of that era who ultimately became pill poppers or alcoholics to escape the limited confines of their roles as "happy" suburban housewives. What a myth that was and still is! The idea that an intelligent lively woman can fulfill her every desire changing diapers and fixing her huband a drink is ludicrous. The series is good, but let's be honest, would we really watch it so avidly if not for Don Draper (he's great eye candy), and the rest of the attractive cast (sans one or two individuals)? I recall 1960 to some extent and it was indeed a holdover from the late fifties. Things didn't really change until the assination of JFK in November 1963, and the arrival of the Beatles in 1964. Prior to that, everyone towed the line and it was business as usual. Afterward, the tightly-knit, gray flannel suit world of Don Draper and the rest of the peopl