Eme commented on another post about the appeal of the Mad Men as grownups:

The fact that the men are supposed to be real adult men. Yes, I know that when we discuss these things we realize the real adolescent immaturity at (the) heart of the MM men but nevertheless, doesn’t MM in a way celebrate a culture of sophisticated adulthood? Personally, I’m just dying for a grown man to show up onscreen…

This reminded me of something Matthew Weiner said (back at that thing we saw him speak at where we met him and stuff) about how one thing that drives the characters forward is each of their struggles with where they are in their life cycle. That keeping that ‘real’ (no way did Weiner say “keeping anything real”) was how he could guarantee that this series never run dry, or need to rely on over-the-top plot devices.

Pete Campbell and the Greek chorus of Paul, Ken and Harry, are all little boys trying to find the balance between boyhood (dear god, Pete’s pajamas?!!?) and being a man in a man’s world. Pete makes fun of Harry’s lollipop. Also I find it interesting to put them together physically, these men; Pete is visually prepubescent while Paul really feels like a… well, like a fully formed human. But they are all in the same age range; those four in particular.

Weiner was playing with these ideas:

What is the journey of maturity? Where is each character in their life?

He spoke about all the conjecture behind Peggy’s letting Pete into her apartment in the pilot, how everyone was convinced that she was doing it as a career move. But Weiner didn’t see it that way. (Neither did I, ftr.) He said she was 22 years old and he took two trains because he had to see her.

And I take that very seriously.

Advertisements