Featured Shows
All AMC Shows
More Shows
Watch Online
Featured Movies
Movies on AMC
Movie Resources
Watch Online
Start a Conversation
Talk is a public forum where you can ask questions and share your commentary with fellow Mad Men fans.
Greek Heroes and Roman Generals
Afflicted soldiers who hide a secret weakness for fear they won't be allowed to fight? Like Don? We seem to have both our Greek Myth and Fall of the Roman Empire coming together in this episode. How many Achilles' heels did you see mentioned in this episode (i.e. people private/secret weaknesses)? And should we be thinking about Trojan horses and assassins in the Senate? (Et tu Brute?)
Thirteen, glad to see you back with awesome posts as always. Some weak/vulnerable points in general...
Don = his past and true identity
Betty = her naivete & selfishness
Peggy = her intense longing for Don's approval & the pregnancy secret
Paul = is beginning to realize that he's mediocre/average at his job, not a naturally gifted superstar like Don... and maybe Peggy too
Pete = insecure and immature in general but tries desperately to hide it and to fit in, deep self-loathing, wants to be a ladies' man but isn't, also craves Don's approval
Roger = his interest in barely legal women has gotten him into hot water a time or two; also can't handle his liquor when it's served with oysters and stair-climbing
Joan = feared she was getting old so she settled for Dr. Rapist and is now stuck with his pathetic @$$
As far as Trojan horses or assassins go... hmm... well, perhaps there could be some possibility of underhanded interference from Duck and/or St. John?
Man, I really need to bone up on my Greek studies to keep up with you all!!
Yes he has to rely on everyone. He is a no talent buffoon who is pretentious and that is why Joan dumped him.
Loves Mad Men -
No. Joan dumped him because he had a big yap. The rest of it came later.
Sometimes I wonder if MW feels like Tolstoy would if he could listen to a series of college seminars on War and Peace. The audience comes up with insights and motivations that never occurred to him when he was writing the book. Too much of what is said is in keeping with Paul's self-gratification.
@Ritt1 "Sometimes I wonder if MW feels like Tolstoy would if he could listen to a series of college seminars on War and Peace. The audience comes up with insights and motivations that never occurred to him when he was writing the book."
Well...
(1) All good writers feel that way some of the time. Not everything they put in is conscious or deliberate--sometimes unconscious things find their way in and readers point them out to the surprise of the writer--and sometimes readers see things completely off the wall and the writer either has to say, "um, no," or say, "Gosh, wish I'd thought of that. Maybe I'll take credit for it anyway."
So, yes, I'm sure he does sometimes feel like Tolstoy. But I think MW, like Tolstoy, would be protesting too much to say that everything we viewers find is a surprise to him and unintentional.
(2) MW worked on MadMen for years and years before it got to television--meaning he was able tor refine it and put in bits and pieces that had conscious and deliberate points and meaning. So I don't think we can say that everything we're seeing "never occured to him." In interviews, he's said that he does pick out and put in stuff with deliberation and a purpose. How surprised can he be when a janitor named "Achillies" rather than "Bob" gets noticed and talked about.
I mean, after two years of seeing discussions on this board, on blogs, etc. (and about the Sopranos before that), and knowing how his viewers take things apart, he kinda has to know that if the show brings up Julius Caesar, especially this close to the Kennedy Assassination, someone is going to take notice. And frankly, I think he's delighted when we do notice--because I think he puts a lot of effort into such details. If none of us noticed or talked about them, MW would likely feel that he might as well be working on Dancing with the Stars.