Choosing the past or future: The latest episode of Mad Men

There will be spoilers for the most recent episode of Mad Men below.

Here, I’ll give you some space to scroll past.

That should be enough. Someday I’ll figure out how to include a “cut” in Blogger.

Am I just getting wiser to the writers’ thematic tricks, or was it all a bit obvious this week? The episode was called “The Hobo and The Gypsy”, and the first connection I made, of course, was to little Dickie Whitman’s encounter with a hobo waaaaay back in the day. I believe that was in Season One. But the Gypsy?

I’ve learned to watch the show by asking myself, “What is the theme of this scene? What are they trying to say?” and in every scene in this episode, the characters were being asked to make a choice between either their past, or their future. Annabelle, the rich horse-farm client (and past lover of Roger Sterling) was trying to salvage the past reputation of her daddy’s business. And she was trying to reclaim her past fond memories of Roger in pre-war Paris. For the first, Don tried, oh, how he tried, to sell her on the idea of abandoning the past by changing the name of the dog food that her beautiful horses became. Let go of the past and create a new future – it’s obvious to us why Donald Fucking Draper would see that as the ultimate solution, right?

And Roger’s choice, too, was for the future – his beautiful young bride, Jane, instead of his beautiful old lover, Annabelle. Or so we were led to think; never once did Roger mention his wife by name when turning down Annabelle. “You’re not [the one]”, he said, implying or allowing Annabelle to infer that the one was, in fact, Jane. But then what are we to make of Roger taking the phone call from poor Joanie, asking a favor? “You want to be on some people’s minds,” he said, “Some people, you don’t.” He liked the idea of being on Joan’s mind, didn’t he?

Dr. Greg, Joan’s husband, was also clinging to the past – he wanted to be a surgeon, but didn’t make the cut. Apparently being a psychiatrist isn’t good enough for him, in spite of all Joan’s coaching and prep work on his behalf, so he blows the interview. So intensely is he hanging on to the past that he signs up for the Army, his one chance to still be a surgeon… and blinds himself to the future escalation of war in Vietnam. He thinks his Army pay and rank of Captain will be enough to protect him.

Joan, who is fighting for the future she always imagined (a capable and upwardly-mobile doctor husband to care for her needs), has her past dreams rubbed in her face when Dr. Greg whines “You don’t know what it’s like to want something your whole life and count on it and not get it, OK?” Oh, my, yes, she does, and right now that thing she’s wanted her whole life is crying like a spoiled kid on her couch. And she promptly smacks that thing she’s wanted her whole life over the head with a vase. She realizes her past still has some influence, in the form of Roger, so she makes a call for help, since Dr. Greg isn’t getting it done.

Who am I leaving out? Oh, right, the big showdown between Betty and Don. This part of the story was many-layered; Donald Fucking Draper represents the future, an identity created out of whole cloth, a poised, confident, take-charge guy, versus Dick Whitman, a scared, poor, self-loathing man trying to escape his roots. Donald F. Draper works in shiny, new, Manhattan, in a tall skyscraper, with the rich and powerful kings of corporations; Dickie Whitman worked on a farm, and then dug ditches in foreign lands as a lowly foot soldier.

Betty, his wife, and their three kids and giant house in upstate New York are Donald Fucking Draper’s past; Suzanne, the schoolteacher, Donald Fucking Draper’s newest, and closest-to-home, fling, with whom he’s ready to run off with, is his future.

Donald Fucking Draper’s Cadillac is his future; the photos and documents he keeps in a box in his desk, that Betty finds, is his past.

But when Betty confronts him with the evidence of his past, instead of choosing one or the other, he finally chooses both, and confesses (mostly) to Betty what he’s been hiding from her since before he met her. He didn’t tell the whole truth – it wasn’t the Army’s mistake that gave him the name of Donald Fucking Draper, it was his own act – but he told enough, and it was clear that he was ashamed and afraid of what it all meant.

So when Bobby Draper went from choosing the astronaut for Hallowe’en (the future) but ended up being the hobo (the past), he was mirroring his father’s choice. And the two oldest Draper kids were the hobo and the gypsy at the end of the episode, with their father standing, nonplussed, behind them, again, the symbolism to me was of the past (hobo) and the future (gypsy, complete with crystal ball). The look of satisfaction on Donald Fucking Draper’s face when their neighbor asked him, playfully, “And who are you supposed to be?” tells me that the choice has been made.

What an amazing episode of a masterfully-written show. I particularly liked Amanda Marcotte’s analysis, as well as Silkstone’s recap over at Open Salon, if you want to read more in-depth on the many levels of metaphor and details that go into this show.

“Where The Wild Things Are” (2009)

Carol, the angry almost-leader of the Wild Things, has taken his King, Max, on a tour of all the things Max is King. Carol has shown Max the forests, the deserts, the beaches, and up into the mountains.

Hidden up in the mountains, in a cave, is a miniature mountain range; each mountain a tall, pointy, white-capped sculpture of twigs. Hidden in the twig-mountains are small clay replicas of the Wild Things.

The dream logic is impeccable – of course there are tiny mountains hidden in the larger mountains. Carol is a Wild Thing, a monster, anarchic, free in a terrifying sense. But of course he has spent some of his creative energy to craft and control a tiny world that’s a lot like the larger one he can’t control.

And in a moment of vulnerability, he has taken his King to see his handiwork.

Max, of course, is a human boy, who has donned his wolf suit and run away from home. Max’s mom is overwhelmed with work that she has to bring home, and is now dating a “friend” since Max’s dad is absent. Max loves his mom and needs her attention more than ever, but he doesn’t have the experience or language to know why, exactly.

So Max ran away, and sailed the wide ocean, and found where the Wild Things are.

The Wild Things are pure id – raw need, and rage when their needs are denied. And Carol is the second-most dangerous one of them all (the first being the bull-like Wild Thing who almost never speaks, just groans and chuffles and looms). But showing off his twig-mountain sculpture to Max, he bares a sensitive soul.

“Do you know that feeling,” Carol says, “where your teeth are all falling out? And they start to fall out faster and faster?”

Aha, I thought, hearing that. It’s explicitly a dream. Almost too explicit. But the pull of the images on screen, and the connections I made to the feelings invoked by the Wild Things’ monstrous visages, and surreal dialogue and their dysfunctional, wounded, bipolar interactions, entranced me.

I’m more prone to dreaming that my teeth are rubber and I’m unable to chew. Or that I have wads and wads of chewing gum that is stuck to my teeth, and I pull and pull but there’s more and more, filling up my mouth and threatening my ability to breath. But I’ve had the tooth-falling-out dream, too.

And I have the strong feeling that tonight, again, I am going to visit the same place that Spike Jonze, Dave Eggers, and Maurice Sendak have pulled their words and images from.

Maybe I’ll learn something tonight, like it appears Max did.

Traditionally funny

I remember my dad taking young me to the Memorial Coliseum to hear the Great Bird of the Galaxy himself, Gene Roddenberry, talk about Star Trek, which was, at the time, one of my passions. I don’t remember much about what Roddenberry said – hey, it was many years ago: 30? More? – but I do remember the Star Trek Gag Reel.

The Gag Reel was a film they showed at the end of Roddenberry’s talk, and it was made up of bloopers and funny bits from the classic Star Trek show, the original run. This was before any of the movies had been made, so classic Star Trek was the only Star Trek.

In the gag reel, I saw Scotty shoveling stuff into the warp engines (he was going pretty fast; must have been at least Warp 5); I saw McCoy and Nurse Chapel shaken around, causing the good doctor to grab Nurse Chapel’s, um, nacelles; I saw Spock break up and laugh again and again. And more. It was delightful, and a wonderful memory for this old nerd.

Kids these days don’t have to traipse off to some distant sports arena to view such things, though. They have the internet bring the gag reels and the talks straight to their iPhones and X-Boxen.

Like this one, for the recent Star Trek reboot:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfRjyRtlDOw&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0]

It’s a tradition that goes back decades. Enjoy.

Brilliant idea

Of course, my friend Ken saw Michael Moore’s movie with me, and apparently he’s been thinking about the movie, too, because no sooner had I hit publish on my previous post than did this video show up in an email from Ken.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bObItmxAGc&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0]

And it’s on topic with at least one of the at least two things I took from Moore’s documentary, which is, “Just how fuckin’ rich is the Catholic Church?”

Not to mention all the non-catholic churches, your Southern Baptists and your Anglican and your Greek Orthodox and your Episcopalian and your Mormons, and even the non-Christian ones like your Muslims and your Buddhists and your Vikings and so on, and so on, and so on. Though I don’t know for sure if the non-Christian ones had their founders specifically telling their followers to give all their money to the poor. But I’m far too lazy a blogger to go look that up right now.

“Capitalism: A Love Story” (2009)

Watching Michael Moore’s latest effort, Capitalism: A Love Story, at least two things occurred to me, at two different points in the narrative.

First, while watching Moore ask the question, “Is capitalism evil?” of successively higher officials in the Catholic Church gave me a strong sense of disorientation. Really, Michael? You’re basing part of your argument against the excesses of capitalism on the opinion of one of the most staggeringly wealthy institutions on the planet?

The Age of Enlightenment caused a shift in power and money from the church, particularly the church allied with government in the form of inherited rule. Capitalism was one of the economic ideas that grew out of the elevation of reason and intellect that was the Enlightenment, so it could be argued that capitalism reduced the Catholic Church’s power and shifted it to business and government.

And yet the Catholic Church is still vastly wealthy; after several Google searches I can’t find a decent estimate of the total wealth hoarded by the Pope and all his minions across the globe. Surely the many fabulous palaces and works of art in Vatican City alone are priceless heirlooms of human history. Would members of such a institution, which has stockpiled uncounted riches for century upon century in spite of its founders’ admonishments to give away all wealth, view capitalism and its ideal of hard work making one wealthy, as evil? Probably so. No shit, Sherlock, as they say.

And for Mr. Moore to use Catholic priests as mouthpieces for his movie to label as evil the economic system that dethroned the Church just invites consideration of what, exactly, on a moral scale, the Church would be. The Church uses its vast wealth to protect it’s clergy from taxes as well as from legal justice (which is the least satisfying form of justice) against accusations of pedophilia and abuse of authority. Oh, and sure, to a degree, the Church does some good work, too, though I’m far too lazy a blogger to go looking for examples. I think the millennia of greed, warfare and injustice would wipe out any good works they may have done.

My laughter at the parade of clergy on the screen was surely not what Mr. Moore intended. To be fair, I was already in agreement with the filmmaker on the morality of capitalism as it has been practiced for the last 100 years or so; I just thought his method of arguing the point was tone-deaf.

Speaking of justice brings me to my second point, where social justice – which is the best kind of justice – makes its appearance in the movie. Moore mentions that our country’s Constitution does not specify capitalism as an economic system, and that leads him to an observation that I have found to be true: for all the love of democracy we have in this country, there is damned little democracy in our workplaces. The standard business is run as a dictatorship. Where workers and employees have any power at all, they have it amongst themselves in the form of electing representatives to negotiate with the exalted rulers known as Management.

But Moore goes one step further, and shows examples of businesses in America that are run democratically: co-ops. He shows a bakery in California whose name I am far too lazy to search for that is set up where every employee is a part owner, and everyone, from the CEO on down, has one full vote in the operation of the business. And Moore claims that this bakery makes money, and lots of it, to stark contrast with titans of industry like Enron, Worldcomm, General Motors, Lehman Brothers, the list goes on and on.

The employees at this business can vote out the management if they wish. In a flash, as soon as they’d mentioned that, I realized just how differently a business would be run if management had to submit to a vote of their subordinates.

And in a second flash, I knew what was wrong with government.

What reason can anyone give for not running government agencies and bureaus like a democracy? If Democracy is held to such a high ideal in our country, and the topic of many many beautiful speeches by impassioned elected officials and unelected business tycoons alike, then why are we not running our government agencies like a freakin’ democracy?

Businesses can be run any way the owners want, so I’ll leave them out of the question for now. There are still folk who would prefer to just follow a king and not have any personal responsibility or power. But government? Why isn’t the City of Portland, or Multnomah County, or the State of Oregon, or even the Federal Government itself, staffed and organized on the principle of “One person, one vote”?

If it’s good enough for the country as a whole, why isn’t it good enough for everything?

I’d really like to know. And now, finally, I have a life goal to work towards.

Eight years

It has been more than eight years since my mothers’ death.

Today, for the first time, I wrote down how I felt about it. Or more specifically, how I feel about the reactions of my own family and why that makes me angry.

The thought has been lurking inside my head for all this time, but even I am amazed at how long it has taken me to formalize it.

.

Science Friday – BOMB THE MOON

How could I have the last name of “Moon” and blog at Lunar Obverse and let the NASA LCROSS mission pass without comment? I would not be much of a blogger at all. Perhaps even less of a blogger than I am now.

We threw a bomb at the moon! There’s science behind it, I know, but I secretly suspect we did it just because we could. Does no one else think that the Mythbusters weren’t behind this, even maybe a little bit?

Here’s the video:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVYKjR1sJY4&hl=en&fs=1&]

To all the nay-sayers who said “nay” and worried about shards of molten moon material raining down on us like cold death: you are woefully uninformed and I will find it very difficult not assuming you have difficulty with simple math and finding your ass with both hands.

Yes, I am smug. For a reason. The mass of the Moon is 7.36 x 1016 kilotons. The bomb was 1.4 kilotons. It’s not going to make that much of a difference. Things the size of the bomb we used impact the Moon all the freakin’ time. See those craters? That’s why they’re there, people.

Anyway, yay, science!

Whip It (2009)

Aw, crab, another movie seen and no review has been written.

I caught a 4:40 PM showing of Whip It yesterday after work. It’s Drew Barrymore’s directorial debut, and she has a small role in it as a crazy roller derby chick. There’s a lot of crazy roller derby chicks in it, since the movie is about roller derby and finding a family and doing your own thing and the beauty myth.

It’s a great movie and I loved to see the empowerment message aimed at the female segment of our population, in the form of Ellen Page sneaking off to join a crazy roller derby team and abandoning her best friend to get busted for underage drinking, because, hey why not?

But the most surprising part of the movie for me was discovering that Kristen Wiig, who is known for her one-note deadpan passive-aggressive bit parts, is actually pretty hot when she smiles. Also, she very much reminds me of my favorite stripper, Sharai, especially in the scene where Maggie Mayhem (Wiig’s character in the movie) shows up to practice wearing a long muu-muu; I’ve seen Sharai show up to work wearing something very similar, before she goes up the stairs to Dancer Heaven and comes back all stripperfied.

Weekend

I saw Zombieland over the weekend; I owe myself and y’all a review, since I promised myself I would make a note of every movie I see in a theater. It’s one of my major topics.

But since I haven’t yet completed a review of The Informant!, which I saw earlier in the week, I’m a bit behind.

So I’ll make a note of them, and move on.

I also took a train up to Seattle to catch the very last Mariners game of the season. The tickets were Kevin’s, and our seats were in section 194, high above center field. I took many pictures and a few videos, and will post them when I get a chance to see if there’s anything in there anyone other than Kevin or I would want to see.

Oh, and the Mariners won, 4-3, against the Texas Rangers. Turned out to be a beautiful day for a ballgame!

Oh, and don’t google shiskaberries unless you’re ready for the horrible truth to be revealed to you.