Friday, October 22, 2010

Mad Men and Glee are the Same Show

If I say that Mad Men and Glee are the same show, you’d probably think I was joking, but you’d be wrong. Aside from the fact that one is a drama and the other a comedy, there is little to distinguish the two, other than cosmetic differences like art direction, music, style, tone, etc. I know you’re not going to see Peggy Olson running down the halls belting “R-E-S-P-E-C-T” any more than you’ll see Sue “The Rock” Selvester crying her eyes out in the ladies room because one of the boys touched her in the funny place. What I’m talking about is the narrative core. The moral compass that guides the shows, and they can both rest comfortably on the same foundation like a house with two designs.

The meaning of life on Mad Men seems to be this: Those guilty of the greatest sin are those who live their lives and behave in ways true to others yet contradictory to one’s own personal beliefs and desires. Following the dogma of society instead of staying true to what you know is right – to what you feel is right in your gut.

And wouldn’t you know it? That’s the meaning of life on Glee, too.

*****

Glee is not just about some idealistic teens going through some trivial, You-Just-Don’t-Know-Me, outcast, Breakfast Club kinda thing. If it was, the teachers and parents would either be villains or would hardly factor into the equation at all. Fact is, they are just as big of players as the kids on the show and they seem to act like the kids -- and usually less mature, not more.

But Glee wouldn’t work as a drama. Rachel’s character, for example, is a control freak driven to such an absurd degree that no one would put up with her, even if she does get a slushy in her face everyday; they barely put up with her as it is. But in the hyper-reality of Glee, her pain and passion endear her to the audience and make her sympathetic, especially given how naïve she constantly proves herself to be. Puck would appear more out-of-place than he already is in the Glee club, Finn’s inability to man-up would come off as annoying, and Mercades, Kurt, Tina and the literally insane but comically hilarious Britney would all wind up being stereotypes that serve no purpose but to disappoint us. No, they work great as stereotypes BECAUSE it is comedy. How else could you realistically bring all of these identities together (at all, much less to sing and dance) unless it took place in an absurd realm?

And that, very clearly, is the real fantasy that brings us to the tele, isn’t it? The fantasy of us all just dropping our nonsense and one day getting to be who we want to be, love who we want to love, and no longer kowtow to spurious notions of society’s approval. That’s a tall order, even for folks on Glee. What holds them together as friends at all is an intangible proof (the Glee club) of connectedness, yet when they hurt each other, it is out of fear of societal retribution (i.e. “I’m a cheerleader and that makes me popular and I can’t lose that,” or “I say I’m doing what’s best for Glee club, but really I just want the spotlight because if I’m not in it, they will think less of me,” or the more obvious, “If I’m in Glee club, the football team will beat me up.”).

At the beginning of the show, no one is where they should be. Will is in a suffocating and, at times, traquilizing marriage, Emma is spineless, Ken is a douche, Rachel is hopeless and broken and Finn is a tool.* There is actually a good deal of cruelty on the show when you think about it. The first episode is like walking through a house at night just after the power goes out, and then at the end of the episode, the kids do their first number without the help of Mr. Shuster. They pull it together by the former representation of cruelty himself, Finn, and like the lights suddenly coming on again, the kids all sing together with heart. They wear the same costumes, as if no one is more important than the other and everyone brings something to the table. All the shame and pain is left at the door for the first time ever. Our social anxiety goes away, and for once, we get to be somebody.

*****

For adults, the men of Madison Avenue are a more palatable expression of the same anxiety, but there is little reprieve. Yes, in reality, adults really are just as petty as kids are often given all the blame for. Because, think about human history: traveling to faraway places to say, “mine!” upon stepping on each bit of land and disregarding its inhabitants? Slaughtering an entire sect of religious folk who pray to the same invisible man in the sky as you, but kinda differently? Slaying kings, and even denouncing monarchy altogether, only to relish in the spoils of aristocracy inherited by our gluttonous bourgeois ancestors? Sounds like kids playing in the sandbox to me. Any time can look at the time before it and go, “ha! How childish we were!”

We look at the Fifties the same way, gawking at our gross errors. If we look at ourselves today, we can’t take TOO seriously how childish we still are, but back then

Don Draper is about the most masculine guy on television. Just ask
these guys. For men, he’s certainly a fresh character to replace decades of sitcoms featuring the babbling buffoon of a husband who is always overshadowed by his far more intellectually superior wife. No amount of Die Hard movies can stave off the hunger men have to be men in today’s day and age. Whenever you see a man in a current TV show opening closet doors or looking through drawers or cabinets (like Mr. Shuster), he’s probably looking for his balls.

Having said all that, it may seem strange that a man can find this in a show which accentuates the moral destitution of being “masculine.” Perhaps this is because it also accentuates the moral destitution of being “feminine.” It’s disappointing by today’s standards to see a woman so willingly treated in such a tawdry fashion. It’s bad enough to see a woman victimized, but a woman who is a participant in her own malady? Well, if not for origins of this in early patriarchal society, it might have been different. Fact is, women have always been thought of as property by men. I don’t like it any more than the next person, but it’s the truth. It warms my heart to think that I live in an age where this paradigm is shifting, but it puts men in very awkward position as a result.

I have only seen a few episodes, but so far, this gender issue plays on the center stage. Other matters, though, like race and class, are also at stake. For instance, how can one prattle on with his buddies in the presence of a probably-Negro servant who says nothing, and continue in that act despite the fact – and probably because of the fact – that his silence and compliance is expected by and required by the beliefs of the group? How can one be made to feel good about doing this except that he has learned a creed which contradicts his biological tendency toward compassion? He’s standing right there. He’s a human being, not a plant. But, there are consequences to reaching out to the one who is perceived to be the most inferior in the bunch (even when everyone is white and male). Sounds a lot like high school, actually.

Take this picture: Don Draper’s wife is depressed, and we 60 years later know why. Don probably knows why too, but the cue he gets from society is, “send her to a shrink.” So he does. He probably doesn’t want to because he knows it won’t help, but he does. Guys like him get paid to whisper sweet nothings into every woman’s ear from sea to shining sea (and by whisper, I mean plaster onto billboards everywhere). So if he can’t believe that any real happiness exists for her, how can he expect her to find it at all? And how can he truly be happy when she so clearly isn’t?

The point is that the problem would not exist at all if neither played by the “rules.” The rules are the problem in Mad Men and also on Glee, making both shows very postmodern. Take a bunch of America’s most typical yet admittedly ridiculous character-types and throw them all into a high school, shake, garnish with a mint leaf and serve on ice. What a tasty treat! No wonder this show is so goddam popular. Nobody likes what all of these rival ideologies have turned into in this country, but it’s what we’ve got. By their own admission, the women’s lobbies in Washington have very little left to do. The government only has jurisdiction over public jobs and spaces, and laws have been made to protect women and minorities in all of those areas. They accomplished their goal. Now, all that is arguably left is the cultural space and the private sector. But postmodernism is all about offering up for scrutiny any and all traditions, beliefs, trends, histories and systems.

Glee clearly satirizes the concept of democracy in favor of a more sensible Take-Off-The-Funny-Hats-And-Just-Be-Reasonable approach. When asking Emma on a date, Ken says, “I’m a good man, Emma. I’ll treat you right and I’ll put up with your crazy. They won’t fire me ‘cuz I’m a minority so I’ll always be able to provide for you.” Gawsh! What a charmer. And Sue Sylvester is a feminazi willing to invoke the sexism card because some of Shuster’s students used her copy machine, just like Terri thinks her hopes and dreams are being trampled on because she and Will can’t afford a fancy grand foyer for the house they shouldn’t buy (but ultimately shall if Will doesn’t open the right drawer and find his balls in time). All of this, as if to say, "This world is insane, and I can either get comfortable and be invisible or rock the boat and be hated."

*****

I noticed this parallel between the shows fairly quickly, but probably because I happened to have watched them back-to-back one day. I might have noticed it anyway, but I’ve since discovered this trend in most of the popular shows that are on television now, even if they don't have the same overall Meaning of Life as Mad Men and Glee. These shows have everything to do with living two lives: the one that makes you who you are, and the one that others want/expect you to have. It is this latter that causes all the chaos and conflict, because as I said, it is only when you are not being true to yourself that you are “at fault,” according to the ethics of the show’s universe.

Breaking Bad is a good example. It starts off much the same way as Glee: an emasculated man whose dreams are being crumbled by sanitized suburban existence. The show’s grand gag is that to be good, you have to break bad. It defines good as being alive and in control, even of one’s own death. Especially of one’s own death, which will NOT be cancer - not if Walt has anything to say about it.

On Dexter, the hero only feels alive when he’s got someone seran-wrapped to a table. He witnessed about as much horror as one can, and as a small child, so it is very difficult for him to take the ethics of society all that seriously. He has his own code, the Code of Harry, which he sticks to. Much of Dexter’s character arc results from his willingness and ability to stick to this code. He is also another fantasy of ours: the man who doesn’t just let killers and rapists slip through the legal cracks; he gets ‘em. We all know it deep down while we watch, just as we watch the Glee-clubbers be who they really are, that we wish we could do the same.

For Mad Men, easier comparisons can be made to shows like The Tudors, where the caste system literally determines how people should speak to and interact with each other. Everyone wears funny outfits and those at the top are frivolous, loquatious punks. It does begin with Henry VIII after all. I don’t much care for The Tudors, but the show still carries with it the absurdity of following tradition (war and monarchies) versus following what’s best (peace and democracy).

I would also point to The United States of Tara, House, Dead Like Me, Deadwood, Six Feet Under, The Sopranos and, begrudgingly, Weeds for main characters whose heroism comes from their disregard for traditional morality and their ability (or inability) to be who they want and struggle with life’s questions in their own way. The effect on each of the characters is much more limited on these shows than it is on Glee or Mad Men, but it's there.

The meaning of life on House, for example, is: Everybody lies. Start with that, says the show. To that end, ONE of the characters (House), as a result, goes to great lengths NOT to listen to anyone because everyone’s full of shit. He has an obsessive interest in any case concerning sociopathy, psychopathy, schizophrenia, asperger's, autism and tourette’s. Why? Because they are all social conditions whereby the patient is no longer expected to behave by social norms – which is more or less how House lives his life anyway.

*****

All this is to say that the popularity of these shows suggests something about us as a people. We seem to be generally dissatisfied with who we’ve become, or rather who we still are. The shows don't say this, the popularity of them says this. To some degree, I think this has been the case for a long time. Probably as far back as the dawn of civilization. Really, this is all to do with the Hero's journey. He is the one that goes beyond and into the forbidden territory and brings back the boon for us all to have. He goes into the territory we would never dare go, and when he comes back, we can go, "see that wasn't so bad." That is why we watch shows where the hero acts more like a villain but is still a hero. He's rude, he breaks the law, he lies, he cheats, he swindles, and still he's the hero because he does it so we don't have to. But all of these things are only bad in the context in which they are done. Jesus was crucified because he was seen as a villain in his time. Remove "his time" from the equasion and what do you have?

These shows are popular, I think, because we get to see what it's like if a certain alien belief system (a misanthropic doctor, a drug-dealing science teacher, a kingpin with anxiety, etc) were suddenly dropped into the current spectrum of acceptable thought. We don’t watch Mad Men because we like looking at our dirty laundry, but because we are miserable. If Don Draper is the best ideal we can strive for, and he lives in a time and place we clearly ought not to return to, what does that mean for us? It probably means we fear the future, or the pain of having to change. Men don't want to be castrated any more than women want to be property, it's that simple.

And it’s good that we can find humor in the absurdity of public schooling and modern adolescence, but why should the optimism of Glee be just a fantasy? We all know that kids are cruel, and maybe that will never change, but we can at least see our own general intolerance and cruelty reflected in such an environment. Like saying, "ah, yes! Great that we are not racist anymore. But those sand-niggers... fuck those guys!" Muslim kids, like ALL kids, just want to be liked and loved, like everyone else. That is just that simple, too.

We may never see any Muslims in Glee club, but hey, at least we're not living in the fifties!

*For those who haven't seen the show, only these last two are students, and they have gone through the most change on the show.