AMC Takes Credit for an Easy Out

There was much ballyhoo when AMC announced that Mad Men would contain two more minutes of commercials in season three. The initial response from the faithful was one of shock and horror. Fans of canceled shows may have thought this a great problem to have, but two minutes less of a show known for it's languid pace could leave the devoted feeling shortchanged by the end of one of these brisker episodes. Of all the outcries, this one from go-to Mad Men blog Basket of Kisses summarizes the issue elegantly. Who would want to do without Don's Carousel speech just for more ad time? Not even Don, I would think.

This decision by AMC put show creator Matthew Weiner in an awkward position: certainly he would want to fight against efforts to curtail his show, but when that show is built on an appreciation for the best advertising has to offer, quarreling about greater ad content could come off as disingenuous at best and snide at worst.

Luckily, Weiner benefits again from airing his show outside of the major network structure. Certainly it was no surprise that AMC came up with a compromise that pleases everybody, and a good thing that they have the elastic airing schedule that allows them to simply let the show run past 11pm. Creator is happy, fans are happy, advertisers are happy. AMC emerges as the good guy. Right?

It is a decision that is easy for AMC to make and look good for making. But did they really have a choice? Negotiations for Weiner's return as show-runner took longer than expected (although, as Don tells Roger about the Cuban Missile Crisis: "We don't know what's really going on. You know that.") and while they may have played some political brinkmanship in an effort to get the best possible deal, there was never a real doubt that Weiner would sign to return. But from a PR perspective, is there anyway they could be seen as forcing the creator of their signature show into a position of artistic compromise?

The interesting thing about this move is that AMC gets to take credit as the great compromiser, all for a decision that major networks make anyway. Not that any of the Big Three (I still refuse to look at Fox as anything other than an upstart--call me old fashioned) let shows air past their scheduled run-time as a standing order, but it does happen. I can't tell how many times I've had difficulty programming one show on my ExpressVu receiver because the previous show's end-time is listed at one minute past the top of the hour. I can't help but see this as anything other than an attempt to stem the tide of switchovers from a strong lead-in to a fledgling show.

In the end, everyone is happy and we all get to enjoy Mad Men in it's full glory come August 16th. And I suppose that's enough to give AMC a pass on this one. But barely.

AMC's "Mad Men" Continues TV's Legacy of Poorly Representing the Mentally Ill

An op-ed piece I wrote before realizing the show was actually set in the 1960s. How embarrassing.

To: AMC Exectives
Re: The oak-panelled asylum presented on your Mad Men television atrocity

Dear sirs (and I use that term lightly),

When will Hollywood's efforts to marginalize the mentally ill ever end? For too long have we suffered through representations that veer from the cuddly (My Name is Bill) to the demonic (I Am Sam). Now we are "treated" to a weekly excursion into the laughably ill-informed depiction of those who struggle with mental illness. Rampant sexism? African-American servants? Mental institutions are government run, gentlemen. None of those activities have happened in one since George Bush Sr. was in the White House. And I'm not even going to touch the whole smoking indoors thing.

This cavalier attitude is best displayed in your choice of title: Mad Men? Do you know how long the mentally ill have fought to elude this sort of label? Anyone with a mental health issue is suddenly "mad", like the inmates of a decrepit 18th century asylum. Is your take on this issue solely informed by Amadeus and Quills?

Have you gentlemen not learned your lesson from other films that have engaged in shameless "insanity" bashing (not to be confused with "Insanibash", my favorite bathroom cleanser)? Or have you forgotten what you should have learned from that movie? You know what I'm talking about. You've clearly seen it and cribbed from it without compunction, and I think it is well past time you admitted your plagiarism, a crime almost as craven as your treatment of the insane.

Yes. I'm talking about Crazy People starring Dudley Moore and Daryl Hannah. For shame.

It was released in 1990 and clearly held sway over a young Matthew Weiner when concocting his episodic travesty. Oh, you're going to play coy? A film about an advertising executive who has a nervous breakdown and only then starts authoring so-honest-it's-irresistible ad copy? Come on. The only different between Dudley Moore and Jon Hamm is about three feet. Otherwise, they're feathers from the same cuckoo bird. Which is I'm sure how you would put it.

The plot twist introduced later in the film also bears strongly on your inexplicably accolade-ridden show: Dudley Moore brings fellow inmates along with him to the advertising company and they all start writing bluntly honest copy. The only difference is that writer Mitch Markowitz and director Tony Bill thought to give each of these by-rote misfit characters their own issues; on your show, they all think they're stuck in the 1960s. At least the film had originality going for it.

I insist that you withdraw this loathsome show from your airwaves and put on something that takes on the issue of mental illness with more intelligence and tact, like Obsessed or Two and a Half Men.

The truly "mad men" of the world will thank you.