Alex Balk, Smoker
Carol Diehl, Art Critic
Matthew Gallaway , Novelist
Megan Lubaszka, Architect
Angela Serratore, Historian
Tim Siedell, Ad Man
Natasha Simons, Writer
Christina Perry & Derrick Gee, Designers
Dave Wilkie, Ad Man
Here’s a gorgeous clip of Blue Room sung by Perry Cumo.
Over living room cocktails this tune comes on the radio and Betty recalls how much she loved the song in high school, then tries to coax Don into dancing. Don smirks and says Cumo “makes everything sound like Christmas.”
But then he relents, takes Betty’s hand, and serriptiously grabs her ass.
Ah, afternoons with Don!
“I’ve never seen one that game!” Sal says to Don about particularly gregarious stewardess?
“Really?” Don replies with a knowing glance.
Behold!
“The six of us rented a hosue together out there. The pilots called us the ‘sexy six.’ They always looked at you in a sexual way. You know, you’d walk into the cockpit on your first day and they’d say, “This is a test to find out if you’re a virgin,” and they’d have a gyro and they’d make it spin, and then they’d say “Aha, you’re not a virgin.”“
These skies are prettttyyy friendly, fellas.
(via ”The Fifties: A Women’s Oral History.” Brett Harvey. Harper Collins. 1977. New York)
Grin and Bare It: Performers love party food!
The Utz television campaign that featured the trash talking comedian Jimmy Barrett as the spokesman was likely inspired by the Lay’s and Cracker Jack ads.
Young & Rubicam built a campaign for Lay’s around beloved comedian Bert Lahr a.k.a. the Cowardly Lion from the wizard of Oz. Lahr appears on a soundstage when the devil (Bahr dressed up in a Halloween-y red costume) says to him‘: Betcha can’t eat just one.’ Bahr tells Beelzebub not to be absurd and then crunch, crunch, crunch, Bahr can’t stop digging into the bag. The voiceover says “You can eat a million of them. But nobody can eat just one.” The campaign was a big success and carried on for years.
Doyle Dane Bernach’s most popular commercials featured Broadway actor Jack Gifford doing inspired bits nonsense bits that won the affection of kids and adults. In possibly the most famous spot, Gifford is a priggish school teacher who admonishes his student for eating Cracker Jacks in class and snatches the candied corn away from him. Moments later, Gifford is palming the snack into his mouth. “When it comes to Cracker Jacks,” the voice over says, “some kids never grow up.” Their comic appeal combined with sturdy production of gave the spots an endearing quality rather than a patronizing one.
Though Utz didn’t use comedians in any television campaigns, their logo of a plump cheeked girl smiling while elbow deep in bag of potato chips has the same effect: child like indulgence in snack food. Who care if it’s bad for you! It’s fun! In both these ads the performer doesn’t sacrifice his identity for the product: Gifford and Bahr’s whimsical personas enhanced the appeal of the product.
If Marlboros are for Cowboys then Lucky Strike is For Magical Men.
Leo Burnett, creator of the Marlboro man, was once asked why he smoked Marlboro cigarettes. Burnett responded: “ I guess my feeling is pretty well summed up in the remarks of the vice-president of a competitive agency. When asked why he was smoking a not-too-popular brand of cigarette: ‘In my book there is no taste or aroma quite like bread and butter.’ “
This ad is from the 1936 Lucky Strike print campaign.
“The draperies may be brightly colored and gaily patterned. The Colonials used fewer draperies than we do today, but, without marring the atmosphere, we may use, with good effect, pretty chintzes in the small patterns.” Suggested window treatments were often simple scrim or dotted Swiss with a white cotton ball fringe.
Do not fuck up the simple scrim, Don!
“During the 1920s, manufacturers flocked to the market with various pieces of furniture designed to satisfy this desire for tradition and stability. Such furniture as butterfly tables, Windsor chairs, and candlestands abounded. Vignette decorating strategies included a wingback armchair with a small splay-legged table for reading or enjoying the fire. Other pieces included drop-front secretaries and plate racks.”
Ah! Tradition and Stability, come get it while it’s hot!
![When you think of the prototypical 1960’s home you might think of something space- agey. All streamlined, geometric and monochromatic. Or maybe something shaggy with dingbats. But how wrong you would be (shame yourself. do it now)!
Most suburban homes in the early mid-century still clung to a colonial revival decor. Colonial revival (a less frilly but still traditional) style was considered stately, high class, and warm. There would be some flip accents sure (note Betty’s textiles: the curtains and blankets are more on the whimiscal side).
Most homes built in the early 1900’s, like the Drapers, were relatively stripped down and lacked 18th century flourishes of the older homes. To achieve the traditional Colonial style designers and home makers were instructed to “paint the walls a soft tint such as ivory, parchment, green, or apricot.” . Additional touches such as small period details, fabric, lighting, and small Colonial style furniture including tilt-top tables, the rush seated chairs, were encouraged.
In 1924, an article entitled The Charming Dutch Colonial Type suggested: “[I]n the Colonial home, old-fashioned furniture will give a charming atmosphere. Large four-poster beds, higher than the usual bed, fresh dotted Swiss curtains, brightly colored rag rugs, either round or oval shape, will go far towards fitting up an ideal but simple bedroom. Small legged tables or chairs, a little desk, painted or lacquered, may be placed in odd corners of a room of Colonial type, to brighten it up perceptibly. Every piece of furniture which is brought for the house should be appropriate, not only in being Colonial, but also by being well proprotioned to the size of each room. Many homes are utterly ruined, when furnished improperly. If the owner would bear in mind that a good idea is to try to make the furnishings eclipse the architecture and even the grounds, he would never fail in having a beautiful and picturesque dwelling. Simplicity, but good judgment is the keynote.”](http://www.tumblr.com/photo/1280/madmenfootnotes/258785777/1/tumblr_ktqpjnaLpU1qzlum5)
When you think of the prototypical 1960’s home you might think of something space- agey. All streamlined, geometric and monochromatic. Or maybe something shaggy with dingbats. But how wrong you would be (shame yourself. do it now)!
Most suburban homes in the early mid-century still clung to a colonial revival decor. Colonial revival (a less frilly but still traditional) style was considered stately, high class, and warm. There would be some flip accents sure (note Betty’s textiles: the curtains and blankets are more on the whimiscal side).
Most homes built in the early 1900’s, like the Drapers, were relatively stripped down and lacked 18th century flourishes of the older homes. To achieve the traditional Colonial style designers and home makers were instructed to “paint the walls a soft tint such as ivory, parchment, green, or apricot.” . Additional touches such as small period details, fabric, lighting, and small Colonial style furniture including tilt-top tables, the rush seated chairs, were encouraged.
In 1924, an article entitled The Charming Dutch Colonial Type suggested: “[I]n the Colonial home, old-fashioned furniture will give a charming atmosphere. Large four-poster beds, higher than the usual bed, fresh dotted Swiss curtains, brightly colored rag rugs, either round or oval shape, will go far towards fitting up an ideal but simple bedroom. Small legged tables or chairs, a little desk, painted or lacquered, may be placed in odd corners of a room of Colonial type, to brighten it up perceptibly. Every piece of furniture which is brought for the house should be appropriate, not only in being Colonial, but also by being well proprotioned to the size of each room. Many homes are utterly ruined, when furnished improperly. If the owner would bear in mind that a good idea is to try to make the furnishings eclipse the architecture and even the grounds, he would never fail in having a beautiful and picturesque dwelling. Simplicity, but good judgment is the keynote.”
Ok, Footnotes crowd: Let’s get long form! I think you’ll like. From one of the best scenes of the series.
* * *
Man in Fez Hat: Dig Ad man had a heart. Toothpaste doesn’t solve anything. Dacron sure as hell won’t bring back those ten dead kids in Biloxi.
Don: Neither will buying some Tokaji wine and leaning up against a wall in Grand Central pretending you’re a vagrant.
Man in Fez Hat: You what it’s like to watch all you ants go into your hive? I wipe my ass with the Wall Street Journal. …Look at you—satisfied, dreaming up jingles for soap flakes and spot remover, telling yourself you’re free.
Don: My god. Stop talking. Make something of yourself
Midge’s Lover: Like you? You make the lie. You invent want. You’re for them… not us.
Don: Well I hate to break it to you, but there is no big lie. There is no system. The universe is indifferent .
Man in Fez Hat: Man, why’d you have to say that?
* * *
It is so easy to take Don’s side in this moment. History, more or less proves him right. (Plus, it’s difficult to feel sympathy for a pigeon-chested twentysomething in a peasant shirt when he is standing next to Don Draper). The political changes that defined the 60’s and 70’s came about through a combination of disciplined political action — not music festivals.
This idea of counterculture, and the Us v. Them dichotomy has always existed Western Civilization (see supreme court case Jesus v Romans), but this specific bohemian scorn against ‘the ad man’ was fomented specifically during the 1960s.
In the view of Midge’s glassy eyed party guests, society had become overrun with lies and propaganda thanks to hyper consumption fueled by advertising. The world was soiled by injustices (like Biloxi) and yet people were told freedom was to be found in washing machines and Cadillacs. “The system”, then, was considered a huge swindle of images and symbols that repressed individualism and truth. The way to rebel was to renounce symbols of greed, discipline, and uniformity.
The rub? This was done by adopting a whole new system of symbols: a hammer and sickle pin to show your defiance to the rigid McCarthyism of the 50’s, a bare midriff to outrage the mothers who taught their daughters to be polite and find husbands, or even a Paul Kinsey style beard to broadcast the notion that you and your face will not be constricted by the tyranny of disposable razors!
Yet according to Don there is no system; the universe does not care what kind of shoes you do or don’t wear; it will continue to spin mercilessly, unmoved by human turmoil (no one knows this better than a dust bowl farmhand like Dick Whitman). So the counterculture that Midge’s buddies adopted was supposed to build a new world on individual freedom. Now, we have the benefit of being 40 years in the future and seeing that this project of theirs did not work so well: The system of hyper consumerism was not staved off by bearded men in ironic fez hats, it’s actually still thriving!
So then, where does that leave Don? Don is also in revolt, yes? But is his brand of rebellion any more or else authentic than the hippies in the corner? After all this conversation is being had in the apartment of Don’s mistress. Don revels in the same kind of hedonism and rule breaking to satisfy his individuality as the dope smokers do. I mean, the guy shows up an hour late every day, bucks at authority, and has joyless sex with powerful women for what reason exactly? To shake off that creeping alienation that comes from a world living in a world of well disguised lies?
At least his feet are clean when he does it.
Pete Campbell shows his upstart tendencies early on in season one when he takes that supremely German woman’s research out of Don’s trash to try to impress the Lucky Strike executives. Not surprisingly, the research is uber-Freudian in nature, discussing the controversial “death wish” theory.
Freud posited that, after World War One, people’s desire to live was counterbalanced by a sublimated aggressive streak, known colloquially as the death instinct. This instinct stemmed from a form of masochism, a wish to destroy the corporeal body.
Our German lady thinks maybe this can hoity-toity up the Lucky Strike advertising! Don disagrees, because — well because you try to peddle some of that European fancy talk on a farm hand like Don and you know he is NOT IMPRESSED. Pete, on the other hand, is looking forward to an age of counter-intuitive advertising (and relying a little bit on machismo), and applies the research to smoking; if they can’t say smoking is healthy anymore, maybe they should embrace the risks. Maybe a real man would like to destroy his lungs from the inside out! Or something. The idea is definitely raw, and the Lees of Lucky Strike pretty much decide Pete’s a little crazy for even suggesting it.
Although Lee Jr. knows a little something about self-destructive urges, no?
• footnote - by Natasha Simons
Lady Chatterley’s Lover has a unique history of being privately published, banned, pirated, expurgated, republished, and the center of a groundbreaking obscenity trial.
The notorious novel by D.H. Lawrence was originally published in 1928. It was panned by critics who dismissed the work as smut. Beyond containing some naughty Anglo-Saxon slang (rhymes duck and runt), it was the themes of the work — sexual liberation, the crushing heel of marriage, and the securing one’s individuality through sexual relationships— that made European and American censors squirm.
In 1959, thirty years after his death, the novel was re-released. It was a sensation. Within a year Lady Chatterley’s Lover sold two million copies, outselling even the Bible.
Penguin was then accused of breaking obscenity laws in England by publishing the book. The prosecution argued that there was no artistic merit in distributing such morally dubious prose and that the novel was just pornography. To defend the artistic merits of the piece Dame Rebecca West, EM Forster and Richard Hoggart took the stand.
The prosecution failed to make a substantial case against the novel and at one point prosecution counsel asked the jury: “Is it a book you would wish your wife or servants to read?”
Or your steno pool?!
