Mad Men: Season Five (1 Viewer)

[Sam Favate]

There's no arguing that this was a riveting hour of television, and one of the finest shows that's ever been on the tube.

That said, the characters and the viewers deserved better. I'm an extremely harsh critic when it comes to killing off characters on any show. Far too often, it's done for shock value, or to goose some emotional response from the audience. To put it simply: Death is easy drama, and we all deserve better.

As people commented here and elsewhere, Lane's embezzlement a few episodes back came out of nowhere, and now we see it was meant to lead up to this. While the suicide may be consistent with his weakness and overall despair, the act that brought it about was inconsistent with the character we'd come to know over the years. So this feels forced. (And one can't help but wonder what the producers' fight with AMC last year had to do with it -- remember that AMC wanted two main characters gone, to cut costs. If that played a factor, the integrity of the decision is even more in question.)

This show is still likely the best thing to come around in 20 years or more. I just wish they hadn't gone down this path.

 

[Jason_V]

Originally Posted by Sam Favate /t/317541/mad-men-season-five/240#post_3934675
As people commented here and elsewhere, Lane's embezzlement a few episodes back came out of nowhere, and now we see it was meant to lead up to this. While the suicide may be consistent with his weakness and overall despair, the act that brought it about was inconsistent with the character we'd come to know over the years. So this feels forced.

I'd have to go back and look for specific examples to argue the case, but the earliest scene I remember hinting at some money trouble with Lane had his wife asking for money to go grocery shopping, I think. That scene had to be from this season, but I don't remember which episode.

Anyway, the point being this: Lane has been keeping financial information from his wife, and everyone he works with, presumably for a long time. Even if it is just over the course of a few months, that chews away at a person. I also understand the reality of television shows: we can't see everything relevant to the story. We have to make some "leaps" to get from point A to point B. In this case, I empathize with what Lane was feeling, first with feeling like a failure to his wife-whom he was not honest with-to telling her no trip this year to the disagreement over their son's school tuition and then the lady he talked to on the phone (the one he kept the picture of).

He could not see an "out," so to speak. So he lied to the lender, took the money and tried to cover his tracks afterward. Whatever else we say about Don, Roger, Cooper and Pete, they are not the easiest bunch to have a heart to heart with. What were Lane's options at that point? Sure, the partners would have most likely helped him, but knowing how easily they mock competitors and each other, would Lane want to potentially put himself in that situation? I don't think so.

Lane has access to the books, no one else does. He felt he could swing this transaction without anyone knowing. Cooper found it through pure dumb luck. Was that his only option? No, but it is the one he took. Once a person goes down the path, they are fully committed to it.

I don't feel it's forced, in the end. Just because we don't see everything going on doesn't mean it's not happening (ie. the continual fighting between Sally and Betty...a little of that goes a LONG way).

 

[ScottH]

So do we know around what everyone's salaries are? I always assumed Lane was right in range with Don, but not on the level of Roger, but apparently that wasn't the case.

I think they revealed Don's salary at one point, but I believe it was at the old firm.

And we know Joan was making around $25k before the "promotion".

 

[Patrick Sun]

I think Peggy was making around $12,000/year before the bump at the new place.
How do we know Joan was making $25k?

 

[ScottH]

Originally Posted by Patrick Sun /t/317541/mad-men-season-five/240#post_3934732
How do we know Joan was making $25k?

When Lane approached Joan about the $50k she made a comment along the lines of, "That's twice what I make in an entire year."

 

[Sam Favate]

Originally Posted by ScottH /t/317541/mad-men-season-five/240#post_3934737

When Lane approached Joan about the $50k she made a comment along the lines of, "That's twice what I make in an entire year."

I think she said "that's four times what I make in a year." That would be more consistent with 1960s salaries. Unlikely an office manager at a small firm made $25,000 in 1966-67.

 

[Patrick Sun]

I remember "4 times" as well, so about $12,500 for Joan before partnering up.

 

[Quentin]

I don't know if I'd say "Don's whole life is a lie". He became someone else to begin a new life...but, his life since that (at least professionally) is built upon real accomplishments. As far as the firm being in danger? Maybe in the past...but, there is now no longer anyone who can prove he was ever anyone but Don Draper. The secret is closed. He IS Don Draper now and there is nothing to threaten him.

 

[Michael Henry]

"How It Feels To Watch Mad Men Total Your Car Company"
Jaguar sounds off...
http://jalopnik.com/5915516/how-it-feels-to-watch-mad-men-total-your-car-company

 

[TravisR]

^ It seems like they have the right attitude towards it. They didn't like some of the jabs but understand that it's a TV show.

 

[Sam Favate]

Does anyone know what the advertising looked like for the real Jaguar circa 1966?

There's a few on this page: http://madmenunbuttoned.com/ but not sure of the dates.

EDIT: Here are some more, with dates: http://www.cartype.com/pages/4136/jaguar_ads

 

[joshEH]

Some writer just said that Lane basically "Britished himself to death," and I think that about sums it up pretty damn nicely.
For me, this season's only misstep has been Don's murderous fever-dream subplot. The rest has been, if not perfect, an extremely thrilling exploration of where these characters can go. I think each season has been a lesson in exploring a story's universe, but this feels like a quantum leap. It's almost as if the extra months gave Weiner additional time to push the storylines to their very edge.
What's the over/under on Pete suggesting the firm be rechristened "SCDC"? I'm taking "by :25", if there's a pool going.

 

[TravisR]

^ Once again, I'm probably showing my lack of knowledge about business but I thought with Joan's deal, the company would be called "Sterling, Cooper, Draper, Pryce, Harris".

 

[Patrick_S]

It's very common for a company that is named after the founding partner’s to keep its’ original name even as new partner’s are added and old ones leave.

 

[Garrett Adams]

Prior to his hanging himself I had a low probability guess that Lane was the falling man shown in the opening credits.

 

[Aaron Silverman]

There's no arguing that this was a riveting hour of television, and one of the finest shows that's ever been on the tube.
That said, the characters and the viewers deserved better. I'm an extremely harsh critic when it comes to killing off characters on any show. Far too often, it's done for shock value, or to goose some emotional response from the audience. To put it simply: Death is easy drama, and we all deserve better. 
As people commented here and elsewhere, Lane's embezzlement a few episodes back came out of nowhere, and now we see it was meant to lead up to this. While the suicide may be consistent with his weakness and overall despair, the act that brought it about was inconsistent with the character we'd come to know over the years. So this feels forced. (And one can't help but wonder what the producers' fight with AMC last year had to do with it -- remember that AMC wanted two main characters gone, to cut costs. If that played a factor, the integrity of the decision is even more in question.)
This show is still likely the best thing to come around in 20 years or more. I just wish they hadn't gone down this path.

I agree 100%. In fact, the revelation this week that Lane's money troubles were entirely due to his having invested all of his money in the firm made his embezzlement that much harder to swallow. He didn't just mess up his personal finances; he put too much money into the company. Going to the other partners with that information wouldn't have been nearly as embarrassing as simply admitting having money problems. The whole subplot has been one huge left turn after another.
As for forcing him out -- Lane is an equity partner in the company. Can he simply resign like that? What happens to his ownership stake?
With the possible exception of Megan, for whom it isn't a major part of her story arc, Lane was the only main-focus character this season with any real sense of honor (again making the embezzlement hard to believe -- then again, sometimes you think you know someone and you really don't). He'd become a viewer identification character, the way Peggy was in the early seasons. I'm not happy to see him go.
As for Glen. . .I'm getting the feeling that the character *isn't* intended to be so creepy -- he's not written that way. It's the stiff acting that makes him seem like a weirdo.

 

[Aaron Silverman]

Just had the darkest thought: With Lane's salary now off the books, I wonder if they'll now be able to pay bonuses?

They need to hire a new finance chief RIGHT AWAY or they're in deep doo-doo. Despite Lane's competence and frugality, the firm was still in tight financial straits. They're going to have to pony up for someone equally capable.

 

[TravisR]

As for Glen. . .I'm getting the feeling that the character *isn't* intended to be so creepy -- he's not written that way. It's the stiff acting that makes him seem like a weirdo.

Glen generally seems like a nice kid but his psuedo-relationship (chaste as it is) with Sally is really weird due to their age difference. Not to mention, the past when he watched Betty pee or wanted a lock of her hair. I'm not saying he's Charles Manson but he's an oddball.

 

[Charlie Campisi]

As for forcing him out -- Lane is an equity partner in the company. Can he simply resign like that? What happens to his ownership stake?
.

Yes, but they have to pay him his equity value. A partnership may be dissolved by any of the partners and then they reform it as a new partnership without the exiting partner. They have to appraise the value of the partnership (prior to the Jaguar billings) and then pay him the net value of his percentage.

 

[Aaron Silverman]

Travis, I forgot about some of the weird stuff in Glen's early years with Betty, but I suppose we can chalk that up to youthful confusion. What exactly is the age difference? it's only a couple of years, isn't it? Remember how much younger Sally's mom and stepmom are than her dad.
Charlie, thanks for explaining that.