Mad Men: Nostalgia of a non-idyllic past

Cigarettes, drinks and Don Draper (John Hamm). Mad Men managed to take the 1960s and 70s culture, society and anxieties closer to the heart of those who have never lived in such reality. By picking up on the crazy world of advertising during television’s golden age, Matthew Weiner turned a topic, that at first might seem uninteresting, into a cult TV show, where glamour meets infidelity, mental distress and indulgence. Mad Men introduces to its audiences the most charismatic and complex characters that despite their complicated and far from idyllic lives, makes one wish to experience such corrupted truths.

Through a sophisticated and detailed use of the mise en scène, Weiner’s television series, produced in 2007, presents the look of a classic television show, from its highly studied costume design that varies as the narrative progresses, to set design. Through wardrobe, Mad Men paints the picture of a whole generation and culture. Whereas Betty Draper/Francis (January Jones) dresses depict a generation that idolised Grace Kelly, Megan’s (Jessica Paré) more daring and young looks are illustrative of a new culture born out of television and growing sexual liberation. Adding to this, the show presents a compelling narrative where characters are round and the plot complex. From Don to Sally Draper (Kiernan Shipka), each of these have a past that reflects on to their present life, influencing the behaviours and choices they make. For this, despite not having been a commercial television series that attracted the masses, Mad Men became a cult show that captured the attention of a dedicated niche audience that conferred it such status.

As the narrative progresses, it is all as good as in the beginning. Deep, concerning, critical and nostalgic. As you watch it, you just wonder, are the creators reminiscing on a time they haven’t lived, or are they just analysing and criticising both the good and bad things that happened in this period? It is indeed a good question, and the answer is far from being black or white. There is a whole scale of grey in between it. On a first instance, there is glamour. John Hamm paints the perfect picture of a mysterious, compelling man that is heightened by his smouldering look, wise words and the permanent cigarette in his mouth. At the same time, he is an unfaithful husband, a troubled man who has lied, but also worked his way into becoming a successful ad man. With this being said, Weiner picks up on the spread-out sentiment of nostalgia of the 2000s, using it as a tool through which he reflects on the past and criticises it, providing a demystification of the idyllic American Dream so characteristic of the postmodernist movement. The question that remains is, have we become nostalgic of a non-idyllic past?