The teen drama I loved—although I was long past my teen years when it aired—was Dawson's Creek. I liked it because I grew up on the Atlantic Coast and a lot of that series was very familiar to me. There were times when it felt like the writers must have found an old diary of mine.
Anyway, if you do that comparison (that is to say, match Mad Men characters up with Dawson's Creek rather than 90210, here are the correlations I think you get. (And note how often the character from Dawson's Creek who best matches up with Mad Men is of the opposite sex.)
Peggy Olson=Dawson Leery
Both sort of blunder their way into a career that might have seemed like an unrealistic dream at the outset. Both are the only characters in the show with anything that looks like an actual family. Both are primarily writers in that their role consists mostly of verbalizing—successfully and unsuccessfully—the situation they and others are in. The difference is this: I can't help but think that although Peggy is not a major character, the Mad Men storyline that really matters is hers. That is Mad Men is really the story of Peggy Olson. Dawson is the reverse. He clearly is the main character but ultimately Dawson's Creek was really Joey's story.
[Update: Maybe not. Who is telling us the story of Mad Men? Who is the person who lives through the change but really loves the old values and wants us to understand the importance of old-fashioned values? Peggy Olson, that's who. What Dawson and Peggy have in common is that they are telling us the story not that it is about them]
Don Draper=Joey Potter
Both come from the same sort of background, hick-like families with a missing mother and have difficult relationships with the replacement mother figure in their lives and troubled relationships with their biological fathers. Both reinvent themselves. Now I'll grant you that Joey's reinvention is not based on a stolen identity in the same sense as Don Draper but she does appropriate Dawson's culture and values as her own. Both are also the only characters that appear in every single show in each series. Everyone else is dispensable for a while but you couldn't have either show without these characters.
Betty Draper=Jen Linley
The comparison is so obvious there is almost nothing to say. I can take the text from the Flavorwire site and replace "Kelly" with "Jen" and it's almost perfect. The only things that don't match is that there is no modeling in Jen's life and Jen is portrayed by an actor with real depth and power whereas the two actors playing the Kelly and Betty are just such hot blonde babes with big breasts and the producers were hoping it doesn't really matter that they are only passable actors.
Roger Sterling=Pacey Witter
Both are saddled with an inherited role and are conscious of not having achieved much on their own. Both grease their own and other people's gears with ironic senses of humour. Both seem morally undependable but are actually the emotionally stable characters that others depend on.
Salvatore Romano=Jack McPhee
Both characters are gay, both don't really fit in the story and , in a really odd parallel, their gayness comes out in cultural differences that set them aside from heterosexual characters as opposed to their actually being sexual attracted to men. As a consequence, neither character ever feels convincingly gay.
Ken Cosgrove=Andie McPhee
Both first appear brash and assertive but are actually considerably more sensitive than those around them. Both seem comfortable in their skins and in higher society but something doesn't quite fit. With Andie the problem turns out to be mental illness that is ultimately treated with drugs that allow her to go to Harvard. And Ken? We don't know yet but my guess is that Ken turns out to be gay. (Not that there is anything ....)
Bert Cooper=Grams and Joan Harris=Mitch Leery
Two sets of characters created to provide a sense of real authority on sets that otherwise might have initially seemed too much like frat parties to be convincing drama. They also step in to be either supports or foils when other characters are making important transitions. Ultimately, both characters became redundant once there was a chance for the others to develop some real depth. Attempts were made by the writers to fill out all these characters by giving them adventures and struggles of their own but it just doesn't work. You still have sightings of them from time to time but they aren't doing much anymore.
Anyway, if you do that comparison (that is to say, match Mad Men characters up with Dawson's Creek rather than 90210, here are the correlations I think you get. (And note how often the character from Dawson's Creek who best matches up with Mad Men is of the opposite sex.)
Peggy Olson=Dawson Leery
Both sort of blunder their way into a career that might have seemed like an unrealistic dream at the outset. Both are the only characters in the show with anything that looks like an actual family. Both are primarily writers in that their role consists mostly of verbalizing—successfully and unsuccessfully—the situation they and others are in. The difference is this: I can't help but think that although Peggy is not a major character, the Mad Men storyline that really matters is hers. That is Mad Men is really the story of Peggy Olson. Dawson is the reverse. He clearly is the main character but ultimately Dawson's Creek was really Joey's story.
[Update: Maybe not. Who is telling us the story of Mad Men? Who is the person who lives through the change but really loves the old values and wants us to understand the importance of old-fashioned values? Peggy Olson, that's who. What Dawson and Peggy have in common is that they are telling us the story not that it is about them]
Don Draper=Joey Potter
Both come from the same sort of background, hick-like families with a missing mother and have difficult relationships with the replacement mother figure in their lives and troubled relationships with their biological fathers. Both reinvent themselves. Now I'll grant you that Joey's reinvention is not based on a stolen identity in the same sense as Don Draper but she does appropriate Dawson's culture and values as her own. Both are also the only characters that appear in every single show in each series. Everyone else is dispensable for a while but you couldn't have either show without these characters.
Betty Draper=Jen Linley
The comparison is so obvious there is almost nothing to say. I can take the text from the Flavorwire site and replace "Kelly" with "Jen" and it's almost perfect. The only things that don't match is that there is no modeling in Jen's life and Jen is portrayed by an actor with real depth and power whereas the two actors playing the Kelly and Betty are just such hot blonde babes with big breasts and the producers were hoping it doesn't really matter that they are only passable actors.
Roger Sterling=Pacey Witter
Both are saddled with an inherited role and are conscious of not having achieved much on their own. Both grease their own and other people's gears with ironic senses of humour. Both seem morally undependable but are actually the emotionally stable characters that others depend on.
Salvatore Romano=Jack McPhee
Both characters are gay, both don't really fit in the story and , in a really odd parallel, their gayness comes out in cultural differences that set them aside from heterosexual characters as opposed to their actually being sexual attracted to men. As a consequence, neither character ever feels convincingly gay.
Ken Cosgrove=Andie McPhee
Both first appear brash and assertive but are actually considerably more sensitive than those around them. Both seem comfortable in their skins and in higher society but something doesn't quite fit. With Andie the problem turns out to be mental illness that is ultimately treated with drugs that allow her to go to Harvard. And Ken? We don't know yet but my guess is that Ken turns out to be gay. (Not that there is anything ....)
Bert Cooper=Grams and Joan Harris=Mitch Leery
Two sets of characters created to provide a sense of real authority on sets that otherwise might have initially seemed too much like frat parties to be convincing drama. They also step in to be either supports or foils when other characters are making important transitions. Ultimately, both characters became redundant once there was a chance for the others to develop some real depth. Attempts were made by the writers to fill out all these characters by giving them adventures and struggles of their own but it just doesn't work. You still have sightings of them from time to time but they aren't doing much anymore.
No comments:
Post a Comment