Around the dial - coming attractions and more!

Just a note to remind everyone that next week is the Classic TV Blog Association's annual Summer of Me-TV Blogathon.  Yours truly along with some of the finest classic TV bloggers around will be writing about some of the shows that make Me-TV one of the few networks worth watching.  You can read all about it here, but that's no substitute for reading about them all next week.

Outspoken and Freckled says goodbye to Mad Men, and I'll take this opportunity to admit once again that I've never seen a full episode of the series.  That doesn't mean I'm unaware of it though; I've read many a review at the A.V. Club, and I've got to admit that last week's last scene sounds pretty clever.  Now that I know how it ends, will that ruin it for me if I ever watch it?

Cult TV Blog introduces us to the world of Charley Says, and though I don't understand much about it, I really enjoyed reading it, as usual.  I think there are some very perceptive comments about the '70s as well; I, too, find it too easy to forget how fatalistic the 1970s were.  That doesn't mean things aren't bad today, but it seems as if we're always convinced that the light at the end of the tunnel is an oncoming train.

Sorry to read that The Old Movie House is closing down, at least temporarily.  Get well soon, Tom!

Comfort TV introduces us to yet another exhibit in the Museum of Comfort TV: the Hoyt-Clagwell Tractor that Oliver and Lisa Douglas rode on Green Acres.  I know the Museum is all in the mind, but when it becomes a physical reality call me, David - I'll be glad to work there!

Television's New Frontier: the 1960s takes us back to one of the iconic shows of the '60s: My Three Sons.  I remember watching that show in my youth, though my memories are more of the show's later years, when I was too young to realize that Beverly Garland really was quite a babe at one time.

Television Obscurities will have another great TV Guide review up on Friday, but as of the time I'm writing this (late Thursday night) it isn't up yet.  So when you go over there, don't forget to read this piece on the wonderfully-named "new obscurities" of this television season.

Every single site on the sidebar has something worth reading, so just because I only gave you a handful here, take some time to look at the rest of these sites as well.  But make sure you remember to come back here tomorrow for another trip into the past of TV Guide. TV  

Summer reruns: What's in a name?

When people find out I write about television, especially from the era of the 50s and 60s, I’m inevitably asked whether or not I’ve ever seen Mad Men. The truth of it is: I haven’t. I’m not really sure why; I did see an episode early on, but for whatever reason I decided I wasn’t going to make it appointment television, the way I have, say, Top Gear.

There was another reason as well; I've always been apprehensive about programs (or books or movies) that attempt to recreate a period from the past while applying the conventions or mores of the present.  From what I've read, this does happen from time to time, which may or may not affect your enjoyment of the program, depending on your perspective.

I've always thought that if you wanted to see how things were in the '50s, the best way to do it was from the media of that time.  A television show, or magazine article, or newspaper advertisement, from that era, is as likely to tell you something significant about the time as anything we can contribute now.  That doesn't mean there isn't room for historical analysis, as it were - often, we can't gain perspective on a given period until we've had a certain passage of time.  But, and I think this is crucial, we need to apply our modern sensibilities to our understanding of it, not our portrayal.

In other words, we know that society's treatment of women and minorities was often lacking in this time period.  We know this because of a certain enlightenment, a deeper understanding of human rights, the examples set by others.  But if the screenwriter is to accurately portray these events, he cannot allow that knowledge to inhabit the minds of his characters.  Otherwise, he runs the risk of allowing the portrayal to become not insightful, but ironic.  And you often wind up not with a snapshot of a moment in time, but an allegory.  Nevertheless, I can appreciate what I've heard and read about the quality of Mad Men, and I've kept up with the talk about it enough to have a somewhat good idea of what it's about and where the various storylines go, so I'll probably rent it at some point and watch it from the start.

But I have to admit that my appetite has been whetted a bit by this wonderful post from the always-interesting Stephen Bowie, who speculates on how one would have cast Mad Men if it were being made in the same time period in which it takes place.  It's great fun looking at the names Stephen and his readers come up with (be sure and read the combox!) - some of them major stars, others character actors who pop up in small but crucial roles in so many of the series of that time - and by imagining how they'd play the role, it gives us a pretty good idea of what these Mad Men characters are like, even if we haven't seen the show.

We can, and should, do this with other shows as well, but in reverse: imagine who would play Lucy and Desi, or Colonel Hogan, or The FBI's Lew Erskine, or Mike Nelson in Sea Hunt.  The list, and the fun, is endless.  Be sure and check Stephen out, and then be prepared to check out Mad Men as well - maybe you, too, will find yourself doing it earlier than you'd planned.

Watch your language

I've remarked before about how Mad Men is one of those shows many people assume I watch, and are invariably surprised when I tell them I've never seen it.  Like any good blogger, though, this doesn't stop me from having opinions about it.

One of the reasons I don't feel compelled to watch Mad Men is that, no matter how well it's done, it's always difficult to look at the past from the present.  When you look at a time period out of context, you're bound to view it through the filter of your own personal experience, applying the mores and customs of your time.  There's nothing wrong in admitting that - rare is the individual who can so inhabit that they don't let these prejudices show through.*

*Although, of course, it can be distorted and exaggerated for effect - usually due to an ideological bias.

In the case of Mad Men, I'd say offhand that if you want to see what the early 60s were really like, you'd probably be better off watching an episode of Route 66.  There you get the past unvarnished - as it happened, so to speak.  And that's always been my take on the matter: if I really wanted to revisit the 60s, I'd do it by watching a program made in the 60s.  Not only do you get the past in its original context, but even when you get a less-than-accurate portrayal, you get the benefit of seeing the contemporary-to-the-time  prejudices and stereotypes that tell you as much about the era as the program itself.

I bring this up because of an article I recently ran across.  I may be late to the party - this Atlantic piece was written over a year ago - but I think it speaks, far better than I could put it, to this very issue.  In "The Foreign Language of Mad Men," Benjamin Schmidt points out that the one area in which the show falls most short of the mark is in its use of language.  Specifically, the writers cannot completely bridge the cultural language gaps between the 60s and today, and in doing so they alter (subtly, to be sure) the internal structures, if you will, of these characters.  A sample:

As a historian, though, I'm particularly interested in the show's language. In my research, I've been struck again and again at just how profoundly language changes from decade to decade. New expressions, phrases, and meanings are constantly entering into English. How true to the jet age could Mad Men's dialogue really be? 

Schmidt puts it to the test through a computer program designed to analyze the use of particular words and phrases from books, TV programs and movies of the 60s, and compare them to Mad Men. As one might expect, there are certain words and phrases that pop up here and there that just don't belong, but these are relatively minor. What stands out, though, is that subtle aspect I mentioned. (By the way, you really need to read the whole article because it's quite provocative, but suffer me these few minutes to make a particular point.)

Schmidt mentions several phrases that don't fit the time period, either because they're presented in the wrong context or because they didn't enter the popular lexicon until a few years later.  But one thing he does deal with goes to the heart of what I wrote about at the beginning - the need to view a time period in context. Specifically, it concerns the difference between the words "need" and "have."

That raises an interesting question: can even the most common phrases disturb the environment if the vocabulary is too heavily weighted towards the modern? What seems to be the most ubiquitous mistake in Mad Men is so frequent as to be invisible: the phrase "I need to." Modern scripts set in 1960s, including Mad Men, use it constantly: it's about as frequent as everyday words like "good," "between," or "most." But to say "I need to" so much is a surprisingly modern practice: books, television shows, and movies from the 1960s use it at least ten times less often, and many never use it all. Sixties dialogue written back then used "ought to" far more often than modern imitators do. I checked several movies and TV seasons from 1960 to 1965, and all use "ought to" more often than "need to"; every modern show I could find set in the '60s does the reverse.

As Schmidt points out, this is more than just a question of getting the idiom right.  It strikes at the heart of our Oprahified culture, one in which "feeling" and "needing" are the norm.  Earlier, Schmidt mentioned that a review of over 100 Twlight Zone scripts shows that the phrase "feel good about" is never used even once.  Now, picking up on the use of "need to," he makes the point of how this distorts, ever so subtly, the actual cultural dynamic underlying the use of specific words and phrases:

Even more than anachronism, a core theme of Mad Men is the lost art of personal reserve, self-effacement, and mystery. When Don Draper says, "Tell Jimmy I need to talk to him" in season 2 instead of "I have to talk to him," it hits a slightly more narcissistic, self-revealing note than it should. A baby boomer might set up a business meeting by invoking his personal needs; but a member of the "silent generation"—particularly one living a double life like Draper—doesn't talk about himself quite so readily. If Mad Men used "need to" at the 60s rate, all those characteristics would be stronger.

Perhaps I'm letting my inner nerd show through, but I find this kind of detail endlessly fascinating, for in the use of "need to" rather than "have to," we once again filter the past through our own particular perspective.  We can't help it.  True, a little more research might have taken care of this particular detail, but one can never fully rid themselves of the present, which demonstrates the usefulness of going back to the original source documents - or, in the case of television, original era programming - to find the rhythm, the tenor of the times.

In conclusion, Schmidt reminds us that "The language of the past is fundamentally a foreign one. Scriptwriters and novelists can try to mimic it, but can never speak it like a true native."  However, even in this case there's a felix culpa, a happy fault that rewards the cultural archaeologist.  For, says Schmidt, "In the end, the show's departures from the past may let us see just how much everything has changed even more than its successes."

So the next time you watch Mad Men, keep in mind that the show is not a documentary, that what you're seeing is a fusion of two eras.  And then see if you can find an episode of Route 66.

Around the Dial

Quick hits on the stories you should be reading:

Noir and Chick Flicks has a piece on 25 films featuring strong women.  You can catch most, if not all, of these movies on TV.  I do tend to like strong women in films - my preference is for Bette Davis and Barbara Stanwyck, as opposed to, say, Katharine Hepburn and Lauren Bacall.  And don't forget some love for Veronica Lake!

As part of his latest post, Thrilling Days of Yesteryear has some good info on the latest in classic DVD releases.  The final season of Perry Mason is a given for me; I'll probably take a pass on Sugarfoot; and one of these days I'll have to invest in a well-remembered show from my childhood, Combat!

The Broadcasting Archives at the University of Maryland reminds us that the new season of Mad Men is approaching.  As I've written in the past, Mad Men is one series I've never taken the time to get into, despite the fact everyone assumes it must be my favorite show.  Perhaps one of these days, after I've exhausted the DVD sets on which I've already fallen hopelessly behind.

Yesterday was National Chocolate Mousse Day and nobody told me about it!

Finally, at The Classic TV History Blog, Stephen Bowie covers the "other" ABC war drama of the early 60s, The Gallant Men.  I've heard about this show before but never paid that much attention to it, but Stephen's article does something only the best articles do - it intrigues me, perhaps enough to check it out on DVD. 

Be sure and check these blogs out, but don't forget to come back here on Saturday for this week's TV Guide review! TV  

What's in a name?

When people find out I write about television, especially from the era of the 50s and 60s, I’m inevitably asked whether or not I’ve ever seen Mad Men.The truth of it is: I haven’t. I’m not really sure why; I did see an episode early on, but for whatever reason I decided I wasn’t going to make it appointment television, the way I have, say, Top Gear.

There was another reason as well: I’ve always been apprehensive about programs (or books or movies) that attempt to recreate a period from the past while applying the conventions or mores of the present. From what I’ve read, this does happen from time to time, which may or may not affect your enjoyment of the program, depending on your perspective.

I’ve always thought that if you wanted to see how things were in the 50s, the best way to do it was from the media of the time. A television show, or magazine article, or newspaper advertisement, from that era, is as likely to tell you something significant about the time as anything we can contribute now. That doesn’t mean there isn’t room for historical analysis, as it were – often, we can’t gain perspective on a given period until we’ve had a certain passage of time. But, and I think this is crucial, we need to apply our modern sensibilities to our understanding of it, not our portrayal.

In other words, we know that society’s treatment of women and minorities was often lacking in this time period.We know this because of a certain enlightenment, a deeper understanding of human rights, the examples set by others.But if the writer is to accurately portray these events, he cannot allow that knowledge to inhabit the minds of his characters.Otherwise, he runs the risk of allowing the portrayal to become not insightful, but ironic. And you often wind up with not a snapshot of a moment in time, but an allegory. Nevertheless, I can appreciate what I’ve heard and read about the quality of Mad Men, and I’ve kept up with the talk about it enough to have a somewhat good idea what it’s about and where the various storylines go, so I’ll probably rent the DVDs at some point and watch it from beginning to end.

But I have to admit that my appetite has been whetted a bit by this wonderful post from the always-interesting Stephen Bowie, who speculates on how one would cast Mad Men if it were being produced in the same time period in which it takes place.It’s great fun looking at the names that Stephen and his readers come up with (be sure and read the combox!) – some of them major stars, others character actors who pop up in small but crucial roles in so many of the series of that time – and by imagining how they’d play a role, it gives us a pretty good idea of what these Mad Men characters are like, even if we haven’t seen the show.

We can, and should, do this with other shows as well, but in reverse: imagine who would play Lucy and Desi, or Colonel Hogan in Hogan’s Heroes today, or Lewis Erskine in The FBI, or Mike Nelson in Sea Hunt. The list, and the fun, is endless.e sure and check Stephen out, and then be prepared to check out Mad Men as well – maybe you, too, will find yourself doing it earlier than you’d planned. TV