Curvacious Women - Mad Men

Mad Men sucks the viewer into the virtual world of a 1960's New York advertising firm from the first sound and image experienced. The soundtrack has a stunted pre-emptive quality to arrest our attention to the discomfort of the unpredictable nature of a large advertising firm in the sixties in New York. Coupled with this is the minimalist presentation of the introduction sequence for the show. Stark vector lines and silhouettes litter the screen as a male image plunges from on-high into the abyss that is framed by oversixed sexualized images of the female anatomy. This is accompanied by the stunted soundtrack to give a feel of introspection and doubt about self and society.

This begining sequence of the show lends itself to analysis as satire. The overemphasis of the female anatomy as sexualized and oversized implies that the creators are giving us a commentary on the time and the society.

AMC is owned by Rainbow Media Holdings which is a subsidary of Cablevision which is the fifth largest cable provider in the U.S. Marx would not be impressed by the control of the means of production by such a huge organization but when we look deeper we learn that Cablevision is owned by the Dolan family in Long Island. The husband and wife team head the company with three of their six sons. This is a family owned business and Mr. Dolan was one of the founders of HBO. He sold his interest in HBO. Mad Men is the first original drama produced by AMC. Although the emphasis in the research leads us to believing that Mr. Dolan is the owner it is pointed out also that Mrs. Dolan is an equal player.

In Mad Men this overlooking of the contribution of women to society/the work-place is apparent. Mr. Dolan was born in the twenties so it can be assumed that he was involved in the reality that gives the impetus for the virtual world of Mad Men. It is this living through the experience and being a team in the work place with his wife that, from the Marxist perspective, may lead us to believe that Mad Men is a satire of the whole society of the sixties in an advertising agency in New York.

However, to analyze from the Gramscian perspective, this presentation of a sexist society as a satire is far enough removed from the time period to allow us to see and learn but to not let it influence us in the present day. The ease at which we are allowed to see this as a critique of the society of the sixties in an ad agency is indicative of the Gramscian idea of giving a little to quiet the masses. One could argue that this show could be set in the present day (with a few changes) and it could bring to our attention the continued sexism of our society (among other things). While talking to a friend about Mad Men and describing the show he responded "yea they (women) still cry in the workplace, it is still the same. But no man is allowed to cry." He proved to me that sexism is still alive and well.

The lighting of the show is of a chiaroscuro nature almost all the time indicating hidden agendas and deception. The flat lighting is used to show the multitude of secretaries who are all female and all the same i.e. easily replaced.

The dialogue has many examples of sexism: "Ladies love them magazines," If you do the right thing you'll be in the country not working at all," Men who design it (typewriter) make it simple enough for a woman to use." It goes on and on.

The camera angles when shooting men are generally at eye level with even balance. When shooting women the camera angles are usually below eye level and accentuate the curves of the female anatomy. Generally the shots are from the side or the back and many times index vectors of the (stupified) men direct our attention to the female anatomy.

While this does show men in a negative light and one could argue that these aesthetics admire the female anatomy, Gramsic would suggest that it is a satire only to the point where we can see the hypocrisy, but that it is not moving society for change. If it was to move society to change then it should be about the present day. Looking at the past allows us the comfort of subconsciously thinking that this is not how it is today but how it was in the past. To have a positive impact on society we would need to look at the present but perhaps the show would be too uncomfortable for the population to realize the wide spread sexism that is alive and well today. Gramsci would conclude that the removed time period is distant enough to placate society and hold the status quo.

But maybe this team, the Dolan family, do intend us to interpret the show as relevant to today. Maybe it is up to us to interpret the timeliness (or timelessness) of this production whether it is a satire or not. Equality of the sexes is not evident in society today. To admit this in 2008 is a strong step in the direction of evaluation and possible growth.

Maybe Mad Men will continue and grow and change. Maybe it will move forward historically and show us how little has changed since the sixties in relation to women's rights and equality. Maybe this show will tell us something and we will have a Marxist moment of truth for growth in society.

And maybe the Gramscian notion of a little carrot will keep us in our comfortable sexism of 2008 while we watch the "terrible" sexism of our past - the sixties.