What happened to Mad Men?

I know this blog is meant to publish poetry, so please excuse this abuse. I'd like to talk about a television show that once named its episodes after Frank O'Hara books, interspersed mentions of poetry, fiction, philosophy and art throughout its first four seasons and grappled with interesting, if not subtle, commentary on American social change in the past 50 years.

"Mad Men" has returned after a 17 month hiatus only to massively disappoint its hoards of (perhaps too) devoted fans. One obvious outcome from the drawn-out negotiations between creator Matt Weiner and network AMC was that the series lost some funding. The show, once famous for its unmatched glamor and mouth-watering shots that had all the polish of a box office film, turned up for its fifth curtain call looking tacky, too bright, and unfinished. The sound left something to be desired, too, with that contemporary remix of the theme welcoming us back from the surprisingly frequent commercial breaks.

But perhaps it is not quite fair to fault the creators for their loss of funding. I do, however, fault them for their loss of direction. While watching last night, I kept wanting to comment on the poor acting before realizing how impossibly trite the dialogue was. Lines seemed alarmingly inconsistent with what I knew of characters from past seasons. Tough, no-nonsense Joan crying to Lane about missing the office? Lane, who had an African American girlfriend last season, making racist remarks? Don being sappy and disinterested in work? Even Pete's petulance seems to have lost all its conniving bite. Who are these people? It honestly looked like a crude parody of its self. I'd also like to know if Don's employment of "cool" and "what's up" were in line with the meticulous historical accuracy viewers have come to expect from this show.

Worst of all was the two hour episode's treatment of women. "Mad Men" was once praised for its sensitivity to the women's movement. Stephanie Cooontz, among others, argued that "Mad Men" did well to remind female viewers how recent oppression was. In the past few months these intimations seemed to become particularly poignant as American women watched certain people try to turn the clocks of progress back. Now, I doubt that Nelle Engoron, who contended that when "Mad Men" inundated its episodes with vignettes of beautiful women suffering terribly, it bordered on the pornographic, could have predicted the vulgar turn the series took in Season 5.

Did the creators think they could cover the gross lack of plot by placating their audience (whom they clearly have a high estimation of) with objectified images of women in their underwear? More sensual than sexual, the wild appeal of the past four seasons had been how subtly and tastefully they dealt with desire. To have Harry (who had been alternately blundering and sympathetic) now make degrading and explicit sexual remarks about one of the central female characters without any humor, punishment, or insight from another character was a telling thread. The show is no longer about social commentary on past eras; it's voyeuristic sensationalism about a time when minorities and women suffered greatly.

Men should be mad, too. The show has abandoned its project to show the complications of manhood: the burden of the breadwinner, the moral disconnect between the office and the home, the often-damaging environment of paternalistic bullying, etc. to reduce its male characters into two camps: witless, sexist frat boys and mushy, Nicholas Sparks-inspired new husbands.

Last season left us with Don Draper artfully putting his meditations into writing. I find I no longer care about the so-called "moral ambiguity" of our hero. Friends, I ask you: what happened to Mad Men?

-Erin Lynn