Mad Men: Don Draper

[snick_backup]

This is the last, really! Betty will have to wait for another day (and a couple more episodes, probably, because I am IMPATIENT). Again, spoilers through 1.07.

Y'all, I do not understand Don Draper's purpose in this narrative.

Every other character who's been given even a quarter of Don's development has clearly been positioned to explore some aspect of the role of gender in their culture. Betty is a deconstruction of the perfect housewife, Pete is a deconstruction (I believe) of the ambitious young businessman, Joan exploits her gender, and Peggy (though we haven't seen much of her lately) is still learning to negotiate the expectations and limitations implied by hers.

So what's Don a deconstruction or example of? I... have no idea.

What strikes me particularly about each of those other characters is how, distinctive and individual though they are, each clearly represents as a product of their environment. They function as much as symbols of the various failings of the society in which they live as they do characters in their own right. What little of their history we're given serves mostly to reaffirm their status as representatives, not individuals.

On the other hand, Don feels in some ways to me to be the only truly specific and individual character on this show. Yes, he's the veteran (at the tail end of WWII, I guess? that doesn't quite jibe with his and Roger's dinner conversation in 1.07, but I think Korea would have been too recent? or possibly I'm misjudging his age), and yes, he's the successful professional man suffering from suburban ennui (woe is him, say I), but what we've been told so far of his past seems aimed to set him apart as a product of his individual circumstances – primarily his family life – rather than, as is the case with all the other characters, a product of greater social forces.

I don't understand the purpose of this special treatment. This show is both so very intentional in its design and writing of its characters and so aware of male privilege in general that I have trouble imagining it privileging its male protagonist in the narrative this way without some reason. I just have no idea yet what that reason is.

--


(I'll say this, though: Like Joan, Don is not a person to cross, as Roger Sterling learned to his chagrin. Y'all, oysters and cheesecake? And gin? I was feeling some sympathetic nausea before we even got to the stairs. :P)

Original entry posted at Dreamwidth. Feel free to reply here or there. ( DW replies)

Comments

[zanthinegirl.livejournal.com]

Don became "Don" in the Korean war. I hadn't thought about the timing before, but you're right. It's a little off, isn't it? for his age I mean.

[snickfic]

Yeah. If we go by actor age, for example, that means Don/Dick was born in '24, which puts him at twenty-six when things started in Korea. I had the impression he was younger than that, from the picture/comments with his half-brother. But maybe something later on in his backstory will enlighten me.

[kikimay]

I believe that Don is the decostruction of the american man. Even in his feautures (his face, his eyes and body in general) he seems the "perfect american man", always on top of the chain, always winning, with a perfect life and a perfect wife.
Except that it's not like that.
And Don still can't be happy with his life. He creates desire for items, but, at the same time, his captive in this system that makes you desire things but can't really satisfy a deep existential need. I think that Don is like that and I find his character very, very interesting.
Generally every character in Mad Men is just great, complex and makes me think a lot.

[lettered.livejournal.com]

I believe that Don is the decostruction of the american man.

Agreed!

[snickfic]

I think my problem with Don as the deconstruction of the American man vs. the other deconstructions is that, as you say, his deconstruction boils down to, "You can have it all and still be bored." I find this much less compelling than Pete's problem of "You're supposed to be this and you're not" or Betty's problem of "You've been warped by society's lies about the source of your worth." A story about a man being slowly smothered by his own success and privilege just makes me roll my eyes. My sympathy, it is minimal.

But possibly there's just more going on with Don than I understand yet. There must be; I have no idea what all these flashbacks are for.

[penny-lane-42.livejournal.com]

I say a hearty amen to all of this. Don has always been the least interesting thing about his own show.

[lettered.livejournal.com]

Don feels in some ways to me to be the only truly specific and individual character on this show.

I felt this way for a while, but looking at your breakdown of character roles, isn't Don a deconstruction of the ideal father figure/businessman/etc? Pete is a deconstruction of the same, but in a different direction--that is, Pete is essentially a failure, and Don is a success. But we already know by this point that Don isn't who he says he is; he has a shady past, and as you say, he's in continual existential crisis, and his home life isn't great. The cool thing about Don is--well, with Betty, we-the-viewer all understand exactly what is wrong, and why her life isn't making her happy. That's because our society today has a very different idea about what women "should" want.

However, in today's society, the idea of what men "should" want isn't as different, and yet it's no longer quite what is was then. We know that a happy family, a big house, a well-paying job, class, charisma and charm aren't all there is, but there is still this essential question of what more is there, and that's never been answered. I think the show has difficulty addressing that, but I also think that we as viewers have difficulty addressing that, because there isn't an answer to fall back on. I don't know if I'm even making sense.

Man, every time I climb fire escape stairs I think about Roger Sterling. Btw I love that dude.

[snickfic]

As I told someone else above, maybe my problem with Don as a deconstruction is that I just don't find his problem very compelling. My sympathy for a man being slowly smothered to death by his own success and privilege is not very great. Perhaps this is because, as you say, ideas of what men "should" want haven't changed as much as many other ideas we see on display here. I can see how that would be a significant narrative problem, but I just don't see yet how what the show is doing with Don is really engaging with that problem. Basically, right now it feels like the show is trying to give him the woobifying manpain treatment, and it's a very poor fit.

[lettered.livejournal.com]

Oh, I can definitely see that. And like I said, for a while, I did feel like he was more "special" than everyone else without really exemplifying anything in particular. But I always did like him. I do think this improves vastly later on, though.

[angearia.livejournal.com]

Hmm, I never thought about this before, but I'll take a stab at it.

WAIT.

Okay, I have an answer, but I can't explain it till you get further in the season. BUT I think it will make sense and fit in with your musings on the deconstruction of gender roles and the exploration of how socialization affects all these characters.

Also, that stairs scene is one of the most brilliant scenes. Just perfect.

[snickfic]

Ha ha! I'm pretty sure roommate and I will finish the season this weekend, so no doubt there will be more thoughts, and you can share.

Ugh that stairs scene. I mean, it made perfect sense and all. But :P

[ever-neutral.livejournal.com]

and yes, he's the successful professional man suffering from suburban ennui (woe is him, say I)

lol, amen.

Yeah, I agree with other posters that Don is meant to be a deconstruction of the ideal of masculinity. But I'm with you. My ability to muster sympathy for someone's PRIVILEGE isn't great, lol. Especially when that privilege is presented front and center. Like. He's the lead. Everything revolves around him. BUT WHY. ;\

[snickfic]

Especially when that privilege is presented front and center. Like. He's the lead. Everything revolves around him. BUT WHY. ;\

Exactly. He's already the lead in his world, in his own head, in so very many stories in which his type appears. Why does he need to be the lead in this story? Wouldn't the deconstruction of the trope he represents actually be better served by being less in the limelight?

However, other posters suggest that the handling of this gets more interesting later.

[penny-lane-42.livejournal.com]

(woe is him, say I),

SERIOUSLY THOUGH.

[snickfic]

Hee.

Also, hey you! I see you are reading the flist again. \o/

[penny-lane-42.livejournal.com]

I am hopefully back for good! I missed y'all!