Mad Men: Pete Campbell
Jun. 20th, 2012 01:01 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
snick_backupI cannot remember the last time a show gave me so many thoughts. Supernatural I love because it gives me such strong feelings, but only very occasionally does it give me thoughts (Dean in S1, Sam in S4, Sam and Plot Stuff in S6), whereas Mad Men rarely inspires in me any feeling other than sputtering rage but gives me more thoughts - about characters, mostly - than I know what to do with. Not only are these episodes longer than an "hour" of standard network television, but they're really dense. Makes me wish I had the discipline to watch them all twice before I actually sat down to talk about them; I always develop so many more thoughts the second time through.
What's more, although the episodes do have arcs and themes of their own, at this point I'm really more invested in the broad strokes of the character development than in the subtler points in the individual episodes. For that reason, I've decided to quite breaking things up by episode and instead break them up by character, because I have Big Thoughts about developments for, hmm, at least five right now.
So here, have all my thoughts for Pete Campbell through 1.07 Red in the Face.
I wouldn't have thought Pete Campbell had a single character beat that could inspire me to sympathy. However, "New Amsterdam" just about managed it. He's being told by his father, his father-in-law, and his entire culture that he has to make something of himself, "be a man," and yet he's stymied at every turn. His bosses don't listen to any of his ideas, even when they're good ones (though, let's be honest, it's not like that's a common occurrence), and when he goes straight to the client with them he very nearly gets thrown out on his rear. Neither his father nor his father-in-law take his chosen career seriously. His wife, coming from money and being daddy's little girl, barrels right over Pete.
I can't help but think that, in terms of cultural critique, Pete represents the male side of the equation of, hmm, maybe the Betty Draper problem. Pete's bound and determined to live up to his culture's standard of what he should be. Unlike Betty, however, he's bad at it. Betty is anxious and uneasy in her success as the model housewife, but Pete is an utter failure as the up-and-coming ad executive he desperately want to be. Everything in his professional and home life frustrates his attempts to live up to the standard.
What's more, because his standard is all about power and material success and nothing about manners or dignity or care of others, that frustration manifests itself in really ugly ways, especially towards his wife, the one person in his life over whom he has a certain measure of power. There are not words for his willingness to send his wife begging her first lover to publish Pete's (clearly rubbish) short story. I doubt it occurred to Pete the awkward and vulnerable position in which this would put Trudy, because awareness of social situations is not Pete's strong suit, but even so the tantrum he throws when he finds out he's "only" going to be published in Boys Life is, well. Remarkable.
Then we have the whole story of the chip 'n' dip, which I still do not fully understand. Pete's totally unashamed of the the dish, shows it off to everyone, and tells the same story every time: he and Trudy received two of them as wedding presents, so he's returning one. We assume he's returning it at Trudy's request. His attempt at a manly manipulation of the customer service girl is an utter failure, but he redeems his masculinity by taking a rifle in exchange and showing it off to everyone in the office (by pointing it at that them, and dear heavens, I have never wanted to smack that boy upside the head so hard – preferably with the rifle – as in that scene).
The bit where he outlines to Peggy all his serious manly dreams (and demonstrates for us why he's never gotten anything published) is, uh, remarkable. In fact, it harked back to several classic speeches by notable cinematic characters of yore:
And also,
And yet. After dutiful husband Pete Campbell returns the wedding present and manly Pete Campbell buys himself a hunting rifle, he goes home to his wife screaming at him for getting rid of the serving dish at all. Presumably there really were two (or else he was very mistaken?), clearly he must have taken it upon himself to return it, and once again his best scheme – for which he took a fair amount of ribbing from peers and random department-store shoppers alike – crashes and burnes.
If Pete were in a different show, he'd be the woobiest woobie to ever woobie, but here he is only petty and selfish and oblivious. He reminds me a little bit of Gaius Baltar in that way: he's a character who steadfastly resists sympathetic whitewashing.
Pete Campbell, y'all: a petulant, self-centered little boy who tries to live up to his culture's standards of manhood without any encouragement or guidance in how to do so.
Original entry posted at Dreamwidth. Feel free to reply here or there. (
DW replies)
What's more, although the episodes do have arcs and themes of their own, at this point I'm really more invested in the broad strokes of the character development than in the subtler points in the individual episodes. For that reason, I've decided to quite breaking things up by episode and instead break them up by character, because I have Big Thoughts about developments for, hmm, at least five right now.
So here, have all my thoughts for Pete Campbell through 1.07 Red in the Face.
I wouldn't have thought Pete Campbell had a single character beat that could inspire me to sympathy. However, "New Amsterdam" just about managed it. He's being told by his father, his father-in-law, and his entire culture that he has to make something of himself, "be a man," and yet he's stymied at every turn. His bosses don't listen to any of his ideas, even when they're good ones (though, let's be honest, it's not like that's a common occurrence), and when he goes straight to the client with them he very nearly gets thrown out on his rear. Neither his father nor his father-in-law take his chosen career seriously. His wife, coming from money and being daddy's little girl, barrels right over Pete.
I can't help but think that, in terms of cultural critique, Pete represents the male side of the equation of, hmm, maybe the Betty Draper problem. Pete's bound and determined to live up to his culture's standard of what he should be. Unlike Betty, however, he's bad at it. Betty is anxious and uneasy in her success as the model housewife, but Pete is an utter failure as the up-and-coming ad executive he desperately want to be. Everything in his professional and home life frustrates his attempts to live up to the standard.
What's more, because his standard is all about power and material success and nothing about manners or dignity or care of others, that frustration manifests itself in really ugly ways, especially towards his wife, the one person in his life over whom he has a certain measure of power. There are not words for his willingness to send his wife begging her first lover to publish Pete's (clearly rubbish) short story. I doubt it occurred to Pete the awkward and vulnerable position in which this would put Trudy, because awareness of social situations is not Pete's strong suit, but even so the tantrum he throws when he finds out he's "only" going to be published in Boys Life is, well. Remarkable.
Then we have the whole story of the chip 'n' dip, which I still do not fully understand. Pete's totally unashamed of the the dish, shows it off to everyone, and tells the same story every time: he and Trudy received two of them as wedding presents, so he's returning one. We assume he's returning it at Trudy's request. His attempt at a manly manipulation of the customer service girl is an utter failure, but he redeems his masculinity by taking a rifle in exchange and showing it off to everyone in the office (by pointing it at that them, and dear heavens, I have never wanted to smack that boy upside the head so hard – preferably with the rifle – as in that scene).
The bit where he outlines to Peggy all his serious manly dreams (and demonstrates for us why he's never gotten anything published) is, uh, remarkable. In fact, it harked back to several classic speeches by notable cinematic characters of yore:
DR CHUMLEY: I'd go to Akron. Akron! Oh, yes. There's a cottage camp just outside Akron... in a grove of maple trees. Green, cool, beautiful. That's my favorite tree. And I'd go there with a pretty woman. Oh. A strange woman, a quiet woman. Oh, under a tree. I wouldn't even want to know her name, while I would be just...Mr. Smith. Then I would send out for cold beer.
ELWOOD [aka Jimmy Stewart at his Jimmy Stewart best]: No whiskey, huh?
DR CHUMLEY: No. Then I would tell her things. Things that I've never told to anyone. Things that are locked deep...in here. And as I talked to her, I would want her to hold out her soft white hand and say, "Poor thing. You poor, poor thing."
ELWOOD: How long would you want this to go on, Doctor?
DR CHUMLEY: Two weeks.
ELWOOD: Two weeks? Wouldn't that get a little monotonous, just Akron, cold beer and "poor, poor thing" for two weeks?Harvey, 1950.
And also,
GASTON: Picture this: A rustic hunting lodge, my latest kill roasting over the fire, my little wife massaging my feet, while the little ones play on the floor with the dogs.Beauty and the Beast, 1992.
And yet. After dutiful husband Pete Campbell returns the wedding present and manly Pete Campbell buys himself a hunting rifle, he goes home to his wife screaming at him for getting rid of the serving dish at all. Presumably there really were two (or else he was very mistaken?), clearly he must have taken it upon himself to return it, and once again his best scheme – for which he took a fair amount of ribbing from peers and random department-store shoppers alike – crashes and burnes.
If Pete were in a different show, he'd be the woobiest woobie to ever woobie, but here he is only petty and selfish and oblivious. He reminds me a little bit of Gaius Baltar in that way: he's a character who steadfastly resists sympathetic whitewashing.
Pete Campbell, y'all: a petulant, self-centered little boy who tries to live up to his culture's standards of manhood without any encouragement or guidance in how to do so.
Original entry posted at Dreamwidth. Feel free to reply here or there. (
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-06-20 08:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-06-20 10:20 pm (UTC)(I gotta say, though - $22 for a kitschy serving dish? That's serious money back then!)
no subject
Date: 2012-06-21 12:02 am (UTC)OOOOH I LOVE IT. This was fun to read! I'm only just coming around to liking Pete very recently, rather than merely finding him marginally less unsympathetic than most of his co-workers.
no subject
Date: 2012-06-21 12:15 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-06-21 12:24 am (UTC)ha, that's an excellent description. He is pretty pathetic and horrible and pathetic at being horrible. but that is one of my FAVORITE THINGS in fictional characters? so I like him a lot.
no subject
Date: 2012-06-21 04:02 am (UTC)I am so excited you are watching Mad Men! I just finished season 4 (the latest season) and am still in love with the show as ever. I think after Breaking Bad that it is probably the highest quality show on TV. And it certainly pulls no punches.
Funny thing, my Aunt was basically Peggy (only 10 years later in the '70's), and is now basically Don (in position, not the horrible person bit) and she even works for one of the rival agencies the show interacts with sometimes. She loves the show and thinks it is a very accurate portrayal of the environment. So there's that, too!
no subject
Date: 2012-06-21 04:03 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-06-22 12:48 am (UTC)I look forward to seeing more of Joan. So far she's been pretty one-note; I feel I know what kind of person she is, what to expect of her. More development will be welcome.
I'm excited I'm watching Mad Men, too! I've heard about it for years, and I always thought, well, sometime. But I've been suffering from TV ennui recently and wanted something completely different, and this has been just the thing. I'm loving it. I love having a show that gives me so much to think about!
That's really interesting to hear that from your aunt! Roommate and I have been wondering how accurate a depiction it was.
no subject
Date: 2012-06-21 04:35 am (UTC)Yup. I'm know I'm in the minority here, but I really have to say that Pete is one of my favorite characters. It's less that I sympathize than that I get it. Well written & acted!
no subject
Date: 2012-06-22 12:48 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-06-21 04:59 am (UTC)I can't help but think that, in terms of cultural critique, Pete represents the male side of the equation of, hmm, maybe the Betty Draper problem. Pete's bound and determined to live up to his culture's standard of what he should be.
THISSSSSSSS. I think Pete is one of the best examples of why this cultural ideal of hypermasculinity (that people like Don Draper make look attractive) is so damaging. He buys into the advertising (ironically enough). He really believes that being the mask is preferable to being real. Thus, he's doomed to fail (unless he accepts that it's a myth).
If Pete were in a different show, he'd be the woobiest woobie to ever woobie, but here he is only petty and selfish and oblivious. He reminds me a little bit of Gaius Baltar in that way: he's a character who steadfastly resists sympathetic whitewashing.
I HAVE MADE THIS EXACT COMPARISON BEFORE. (Also, LOL, we can all hereby conclude that I have the worst taste in male characters.)
Pete Campbell, y'all: a petulant, self-centered little boy who tries to live up to his culture's standards of manhood without any encouragement or guidance in how to do so.
♥ ♥ Well-put, sir. And you have a good ride ahead of you. EXCITE.
no subject
Date: 2012-06-22 12:52 am (UTC)SOLIDARITY. I actually wasn't sure that hypothesis on my part would hold up, so I am tickled to be agreed with.
I HAVE MADE THIS EXACT COMPARISON BEFORE.
We win. :D
no subject
Date: 2012-06-21 04:27 pm (UTC)I agree with your assessment of Pete in this episode, but I do think the character is more complicated. I really enjoyed the early episodes because of the almost transparent outlining of themes ("we're talking about this now, guys!"), but I also really enjoy later eps because that goes away, and everything gets fairly murky.
Gaius Baltar is a great comparison I'd never really thought of, btw.
no subject
Date: 2012-06-22 12:57 am (UTC)so human that I care for him and want him to . . . I don't know. Be happy. Change. Not suck.
Yes! I can't actually like him, because he's so very unlikable. But I do wish he could learn how to not suck; he'd be so much happier a person, not to mention a much more pleasant one to live/work with.
I look forward to a more complicated Pete.
Part of what I like about these early episodes is that, yeah, the themes are a little obvious, but the character work is still so nuanced. We select these scenes between characters to talk about this topic today, but in doing this we in no way imply that this character is defined solely by these scenes. Or so it comes across to me.
no subject
Date: 2012-06-22 02:39 am (UTC)Hee. That's a good example, except that Synder is so "hateable" that he becomes loveable again; he's just so darn funny. I still use his wooly-headed liberal quote all the time.
We select these scenes between characters to talk about this topic today, but in doing this we in no way imply that this character is defined solely by these scenes.
Yes! Imo, the way the show later on doesn't specifically highlight themes is just a different way of doing it, not necessarily the "better" way. Sometimes in early eps I feel that some things are a little facile, but everyone is still really nuanced as you say, and there's no black or white. Later on I sometimes feel that things are so opaque that I'm not really sure what the show is trying to say or whether it's saying anything--but there's still so much complexity that it leaves a lot there to be explored. It's really an exchange, imo.
no subject
Date: 2012-06-22 03:49 am (UTC)This is very true.
I confess, I tend to be more excited about a show (or a work in many many other media) when I'm confident that a) it's saying something, and b) I have a chance of figuring out what that is. Opacity for the sake of Art does not alone appeal to me (although of course it's really this continuum, where what's opaque to me is perfectly obvious to someone else and what's obvious to me mystifies some third person).
no subject
Date: 2012-06-22 05:14 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-06-22 05:17 am (UTC)Also, I failed to say before, but: how lovely to have you about again!
no subject
Date: 2012-06-22 05:24 am (UTC):o)
no subject
Date: 2012-06-22 05:25 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-06-21 05:22 pm (UTC)In other news, mmm good meta. I enjoyed.
no subject
Date: 2012-06-22 12:58 am (UTC)META. I haven't written full-on meta in so long! It's so fun to be watching something that inspires it in me.