My Photo


  • Creative Commons License

« Dan Riehl admits, openly and proudly, that he's a racist. | Main | Filming the sausage being made is very, very expensive, my friends. »

Monday, 26 March 2012


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Here's what I wrote over at The Kugelmass Episodes:

Scott’s posted his take on the episode...It’s great, in that we somehow manage to cover almost none of the same material, and it’s also great because Scott has an uncanny ability to recreate and explain the theory behind the direction. His analysis of Sally’s perspective is a tour-de-force. I guess I would say that the episode still feels smart to me, but it doesn’t feel glamorous, and Mad Men needs to be both. Otherwise it can’t get away with its crimes against our modern sensibilities.

You make a great case for Sally as the surprise protagonist of the show. The problem is that she's never going to be old enough to write copy (at least, not more than once or twice in special episodes), and the show's depiction of the creative process has always been, for me at least, a big part of its appeal.

Did you read Sloane Crosley's piece in Esquire? It's mostly plot summary, but she does point out that maybe Sally's gaze is a desiring one.

The rest of my post is here. Still no clue how to make this here TypePad recognize trackbacks.

Matthew Schlissel

Brilliant article. Love the insight. And I'd love to find more articles like this...


Ask and you shall receive.


OT: You might enjoy seeing Charlie Stross, riff on some of the iconography of the Santorum campaign.

The comments to this entry are closed.