Madmen

I finally watched the premier of the new season of Mad Men. The show picked up where it left off: an intriguing mix of the eerie and mundane with plenty of twists and turns. Brilliant manipulation of character.

fenris_lorsai noted a LJ community where there was a lively discussion about the lack of race-issues in Mad Men . I read many of the posts and started to get increasingly angry. I am annoyed by people unfamiliar with the creative process (from idea to actually getting a show on the air or a book published or whatever) casting aspersions on creators-- calling them cowards for not addressing race (and other issues).

In many ways they are the same pestilence as meddling network executives who exert their influence on a popular show: "He's too black." "There has to be a love interest/cute robot/precocious kid." "Make it funnier." "I know! Have him water-ski off a ramp over a bunch of sharks!" Fortunately, they have less power than net execs.

These do-gooders are late-to-the-job kibitzers trying to interfere with an artist's vision. If Vincent van Gogh were alive today these same people would be criticizing him for not dealing with (insert issue here). They have chutzpah to try to force their agenda into any creative work. They act as if creator Matthew Weiner had some moral imperative to create a show that, "made a difference," rather than a writer who parlayed his hard work on The Sopranos into getting a chance to create his own show-- a personal vision of characters and situations and the world he grew up in.

Getting a show on the air? No easy feat. Much easier (and more likely) to win a lottery. Weiner's focus was on putting everything he had into this project: story, character, the setting-- to give it the best chance possible of being picked up. When an author or artist does this, making the world a better place is not high up on the list of priorities. Executives want entertainment, not social change.

The cheap retort to those people insisting on their agenda being represented is to tell 'em to get their OWN show on the air, have it be a critical success, and "make a difference". Suggestions are fair game, but not bullying or pressuring them into your demands.

Getting back to Mad Men: this show still has me hooked. MM is the only show I make an effort to watch when it first airs. One caveat: if you haven't seen it, you may to watch it from the beginning to understand all the nuances. A person who is willing to just accept things on the screen and have faith that over time they will understand what the heck is going on, could probably just jump right in (or just read the Wiki article on it, spoilers and all, to catch up).

Madmen

I finally watched the premier of the new season of Mad Men. The show picked up where it left off: an intriguing mix of the eerie and mundane with plenty of twists and turns. Brilliant manipulation of character.

fenris_lorsai noted a LJ community where there was a lively discussion about the lack of race-issues in Mad Men . I read many of the posts and started to get increasingly angry. I am annoyed by people unfamiliar with the creative process (from idea to actually getting a show on the air or a book published or whatever) casting aspersions on creators-- calling them cowards for not addressing race (and other issues).

In many ways they are the same pestilence as meddling network executives who exert their influence on a popular show: "He's too black." "There has to be a love interest/cute robot/precocious kid." "Make it funnier." "I know! Have him water-ski off a ramp over a bunch of sharks!" Fortunately, they have less power than net execs.

These do-gooders are late-to-the-job kibitzers trying to interfere with an artist's vision. If Vincent van Gogh were alive today these same people would be criticizing him for not dealing with (insert issue here). They have chutzpah to try to force their agenda into any creative work. They act as if creator Matthew Weiner had some moral imperative to create a show that, "made a difference," rather than a writer who parlayed his hard work on The Sopranos into getting a chance to create his own show-- a personal vision of characters and situations and the world he grew up in.

Getting a show on the air? No easy feat. Much easier (and more likely) to win a lottery. Weiner's focus was on putting everything he had into this project: story, character, the setting-- to give it the best chance possible of being picked up. When an author or artist does this, making the world a better place is not high up on the list of priorities. Executives want entertainment, not social change.

The cheap retort to those people insisting on their agenda being represented is to tell 'em to get their OWN show on the air, have it be a critical success, and "make a difference". Suggestions are fair game, but not bullying or pressuring them into your demands.

Getting back to Mad Men: this show still has me hooked. MM is the only show I make an effort to watch when it first airs. One caveat: if you haven't seen it, you may to watch it from the beginning to understand all the nuances. A person who is willing to just accept things on the screen and have faith that over time they will understand what the heck is going on, could probably just jump right in (or just read the Wiki article on it, spoilers and all, to catch up).

Madmen

I finally watched the premier of the new season of Mad Men. The show picked up where it left off: an intriguing mix of the eerie and mundane with plenty of twists and turns. Brilliant manipulation of character.

fenris_lorsai noted a LJ community where there was a lively discussion about the lack of race-issues in Mad Men . I read many of the posts and started to get increasingly angry. I am annoyed by people unfamiliar with the creative process (from idea to actually getting a show on the air or a book published or whatever) casting aspersions on creators-- calling them cowards for not addressing race (and other issues).

In many ways they are the same pestilence as meddling network executives who exert their influence on a popular show: "He's too black." "There has to be a love interest/cute robot/precocious kid." "Make it funnier." "I know! Have him water-ski off a ramp over a bunch of sharks!" Fortunately, they have less power than net execs.

These do-gooders are late-to-the-job kibitzers trying to interfere with an artist's vision. If Vincent van Gogh were alive today these same people would be criticizing him for not dealing with (insert issue here). They have chutzpah to try to force their agenda into any creative work. They act as if creator Matthew Weiner had some moral imperative to create a show that, "made a difference," rather than a writer who parlayed his hard work on The Sopranos into getting a chance to create his own show-- a personal vision of characters and situations and the world he grew up in.

Getting a show on the air? No easy feat. Much easier (and more likely) to win a lottery. Weiner's focus was on putting everything he had into this project: story, character, the setting-- to give it the best chance possible of being picked up. When an author or artist does this, making the world a better place is not high up on the list of priorities. Executives want entertainment, not social change.

The cheap retort to those people insisting on their agenda being represented is to tell 'em to get their OWN show on the air, have it be a critical success, and "make a difference". Suggestions are fair game, but not bullying or pressuring them into your demands.

Getting back to Mad Men: this show still has me hooked. MM is the only show I make an effort to watch when it first airs. One caveat: if you haven't seen it, you may to watch it from the beginning to understand all the nuances. A person who is willing to just accept things on the screen and have faith that over time they will understand what the heck is going on, could probably just jump right in (or just read the Wiki article on it, spoilers and all, to catch up).