'Mad Men': Honestly Madison Avenue

So we’ve reached the end of the line, the last stop on the 5:15 that dumps all us lumpen souls off in the blank suburbia of Other TV. Back to your regular programming, folks, the siren call of Manhattan business life in 1960 is silent for now. The good news: “Mad Men"'s season finale was a triumph for tonally sophisticated TV and it’ll be back before you know it.

Alright, got your dirty martini in hand? Let’s dive in… this week, we get extra insight from creator Matt Weiner, who chatted with me in great detail about the last show. Weiner is unpretentious and open, yet respectful of his muse. Sometimes he’ll pontificate on a character’s motives, other times he’ll simply repeat the mantra, “It’s in the show.”

On Wednesday night, the Paley Center for Media hosted a screening of Episode 12 and a discussion with the cast and creator (pictured, with Matt Weiner on right end) of “Mad Men.” Immediately upon arrival, I was whisked into the green room, where the stylish crew was hanging out, along with their mothers, spouses and managers. Two giant platters of cheese and fruit remained unperturbed, but a dozen or so bottles of red wine were uncorked and expeditiously drained. Yep, it was my kind of crowd.

Vincent Kartheiser, 28, is a total clown and a deep thinker, often in the same minute. During our chat, the Minnesota native who’s lived in Hollywood for the last 10 years constantly told ridiculous fibs involving a secret affair with Mel Gibson (wait till Us magazine reads that!), Justin Timberlake rocking it at clubs with a peg leg (don’t ask) and showing up to the “Mad Men” auditions in drag (nope, more like a suit). I can’t print most of the funny stuff, but what Kartheiser shared about his character, the sometimes smarmy, sometimes sweet, sometimes vicious accounts manager Pete Campbell, is far more valuable anyway.

[Q&A after the jump]

For Dan Bishop, the South Pasadena-based production designer of “Mad Men,” every frame of TV that we absorb in a post-work haze on our couches has the potential to be beautiful photography.

One of Bishop’s favorite examples in “Mad Men” happens near the end of the ninth episode. Betty Draper sits in her kitchen smoking a cigarette. Minutes later, she steps outside in her nightgown with a BB gun and shoots her neighbor’s pigeons.

Yep. This week was a rerun.

Zzzzz…

But wait!

In the next few weeks, I’ll be featuring interviews with important members of the show. I know I already want to interview production designer Dan Bishop. Why? Well, I really have a sweet spot for '60s modern, for one thing, and I figure he'll know where to get the best boomerang coffee table in L.A.

At Episode 9, “Mad Men” is purring along like Draper’s Buick. I’m enjoying the ride, but I’m eager for our destination. Where will the season finale take us? So many plot developments: Draper and Betty; Draper and Rachel Mencken (don’t think for a moment she won’t reemerge draped or feathered in something fabulous); Pete and Peggy; the barely closeted Salvatore and office vixen Joan … where will they be a mere handful of weeks from now? The only storyline we know the end to is Nixon’s. The “Mad Men” characters should count on a better fate, but then again, who understands the whims of TV writers?

Don’t you love it when the TV universe grants your wishes? I’ve been cheering for “Mad Men” since that first, full-lunged pull on Draper’s Lucky Strike, but I’ve also been demanding rewards for my loyal viewership. In no particular order, I asked for more sexy scenes sans girdles, more sassy ‘60s humor, less wretched sexism, and will you finally please get the whole “Salvatore is gay” plotline up and running because that thing’s been lingering so long it’s starting to smell.

Shiny presents were torn open on all three points, and ribbons strewn around the most powerful of “Mad Men” themes: Everyone’s identity is mutable. Nothing is what it seems. We love our masks, and if you try to rip them off, or even move them aside to see a little bit of our real lips, our real teeth, we might scratch your eyes out. Or at least deliver a tear-jerking swipe at the nose.

 

This episode, dare I say, was blessed, magical, sent from the stars.  I’m almost reluctant to blog about it in case I jinx the start of a winning streak.  If you haven’t seen it yet, you’re probably thinking that something big happened.  It didn’t, but that’s OK.  Sometimes the best TV is delivered in moments -- big, clever, imaginative moments. Funny, dark, odd moments.  So yeah, as far as plot stuff goes, last night was no big deal, but as far as style, scene and character development?  It was a beauty to behold.

Let’s talk about it moment by moment, shall we?

The saucy, skittery women of Draperville don’t have it easy. They get mocked for going ga-ga over lipstick. Their bodies are seen as fresh meat for the vulturous Mad Men. They’re not taken seriously when their hands seize up (as in Episode 2). But this week’s episode gave them all a chance to shine. Even if it was just the mellow glow that might come off a rose-gold brooch, it felt good, slightly victorious.

Ah, so we’ve finally started to dig into the black-coffee-and-a-trenchcoat mystique that is Don Draper, our gimlet-eyed ladies' man, advertising visionary and owner of at least $5,000 in cash stashed in a locked desk drawer. “Mad Men” has been teasing us with tiny details, but Thursday’s show gave us the biggest peek into his past yet. The clues are admittedly baffling. Whatever the big deal is, it doesn’t seem to be as awesome as anything like a serial-killer twin brother who comes back from the dead. More like a really nice brother who would like to have lunch from time to time. Oh, the horror!!

Thursday night’s episode was a journeymen’s show – nothing too flashy happened (c’mon, did you really think Pete Campbell was going to carry that sad little cardboard box all the way downstairs?) but it planted some important seeds, and not just plot ones either.

“Mad Men” is starting to get smarter, nicer and a little more comfortable in its wingtip shoes. That said, it could crank up the knobs a little bit. How about more witty repartee? And a smidge more camp a la those pulpy novels that were so popular in the day? And more hats like the delectable confections seen atop Rachel Mencken’s head? Don’t fear going overboard, “Mad Men.” There can never be enough of any of these things. And don’t feel like you have to be so serious all the time. We like to laugh.

I hate to say it, but the effervescent buzz “Mad Men” had in last week’s premiere went just a smidge flat with this second episode. Who let the fizz out? Draper’s wife. Although January Jones’ performance is appropriately muted, with hints of complexity to come, our time with Betty, a fragile, wide-eyed blond whose pretty little hands have been seizing up for no apparent reason, felt a little bit forced. Essentially, Matthew Weiner yanked us out of the Mad St. bar and pushed us onto the 5:15 back to the 'burbs before we had a chance to slurp down that third martini.

Now I like a show set on a freaky desert island (that may or may not be a dream or possessed by spirits or whatever) as much as the next person, but I also enjoy a meaty work-place drama. But I'm burned out on the usual hospital, courtroom or, heaven forbid, some temperamental Brit’s kitchen. “Mad Men,” AMC’s new hourlong drama from Matthew Weiner (“The Sopranos”), is set at the fictional Sterling Cooper ad agency in 1960 and comes with all the stifling accoutrements -- nylons, neckties, meetings clouded in cigarette smoke -- but it’s pretty fresh in general and especially for a period piece.

Speaking of those, haven’t we been deprived long enough? I loved “Deadwood,” but HBO shot and stuffed that hoary beast a while ago. Before that, I remember being thoroughly rocked by “The Wonder Years,” but I was in junior high and a lot of things -- hamsters, grape soda -- rocked me then. And I’m still trying to forget the dull, oversimplified “American Dreams.”

“Mad Men,” on the other hand, is sharply complex, showing the fizzy light and the Brylcreemed dark in everyone and everything.

'Mad Men': All together now

On Wednesday night, the Paley Center for Media hosted a screening of Episode 12 and a discussion with the cast and creator (pictured, with Matt Weiner on right end) of “Mad Men.” Immediately upon arrival, I was whisked into the green room, where the stylish crew was hanging out, along with their mothers, spouses and managers. Two giant platters of cheese and fruit remained unperturbed, but a dozen or so bottles of red wine were uncorked and expeditiously drained. Yep, it was my kind of crowd.

Vincent Kartheiser, 28, is a total clown and a deep thinker, often in the same minute. During our chat, the Minnesota native who’s lived in Hollywood for the last 10 years constantly told ridiculous fibs involving a secret affair with Mel Gibson (wait till Us magazine reads that!), Justin Timberlake rocking it at clubs with a peg leg (don’t ask) and showing up to the “Mad Men” auditions in drag (nope, more like a suit). I can’t print most of the funny stuff, but what Kartheiser shared about his character, the sometimes smarmy, sometimes sweet, sometimes vicious accounts manager Pete Campbell, is far more valuable anyway.

[Q&A after the jump]

For Dan Bishop, the South Pasadena-based production designer of “Mad Men,” every frame of TV that we absorb in a post-work haze on our couches has the potential to be beautiful photography.

One of Bishop’s favorite examples in “Mad Men” happens near the end of the ninth episode. Betty Draper sits in her kitchen smoking a cigarette. Minutes later, she steps outside in her nightgown with a BB gun and shoots her neighbor’s pigeons.

Yep. This week was a rerun.

Zzzzz…

But wait!

In the next few weeks, I’ll be featuring interviews with important members of the show. I know I already want to interview production designer Dan Bishop. Why? Well, I really have a sweet spot for '60s modern, for one thing, and I figure he'll know where to get the best boomerang coffee table in L.A.

At Episode 9, “Mad Men” is purring along like Draper’s Buick. I’m enjoying the ride, but I’m eager for our destination. Where will the season finale take us? So many plot developments: Draper and Betty; Draper and Rachel Mencken (don’t think for a moment she won’t reemerge draped or feathered in something fabulous); Pete and Peggy; the barely closeted Salvatore and office vixen Joan … where will they be a mere handful of weeks from now? The only storyline we know the end to is Nixon’s. The “Mad Men” characters should count on a better fate, but then again, who understands the whims of TV writers?

Don’t you love it when the TV universe grants your wishes? I’ve been cheering for “Mad Men” since that first, full-lunged pull on Draper’s Lucky Strike, but I’ve also been demanding rewards for my loyal viewership. In no particular order, I asked for more sexy scenes sans girdles, more sassy ‘60s humor, less wretched sexism, and will you finally please get the whole “Salvatore is gay” plotline up and running because that thing’s been lingering so long it’s starting to smell.

Shiny presents were torn open on all three points, and ribbons strewn around the most powerful of “Mad Men” themes: Everyone’s identity is mutable. Nothing is what it seems. We love our masks, and if you try to rip them off, or even move them aside to see a little bit of our real lips, our real teeth, we might scratch your eyes out. Or at least deliver a tear-jerking swipe at the nose.

 

This episode, dare I say, was blessed, magical, sent from the stars.  I’m almost reluctant to blog about it in case I jinx the start of a winning streak.  If you haven’t seen it yet, you’re probably thinking that something big happened.  It didn’t, but that’s OK.  Sometimes the best TV is delivered in moments -- big, clever, imaginative moments. Funny, dark, odd moments.  So yeah, as far as plot stuff goes, last night was no big deal, but as far as style, scene and character development?  It was a beauty to behold.

Let’s talk about it moment by moment, shall we?

The saucy, skittery women of Draperville don’t have it easy. They get mocked for going ga-ga over lipstick. Their bodies are seen as fresh meat for the vulturous Mad Men. They’re not taken seriously when their hands seize up (as in Episode 2). But this week’s episode gave them all a chance to shine. Even if it was just the mellow glow that might come off a rose-gold brooch, it felt good, slightly victorious.

Ah, so we’ve finally started to dig into the black-coffee-and-a-trenchcoat mystique that is Don Draper, our gimlet-eyed ladies' man, advertising visionary and owner of at least $5,000 in cash stashed in a locked desk drawer. “Mad Men” has been teasing us with tiny details, but Thursday’s show gave us the biggest peek into his past yet. The clues are admittedly baffling. Whatever the big deal is, it doesn’t seem to be as awesome as anything like a serial-killer twin brother who comes back from the dead. More like a really nice brother who would like to have lunch from time to time. Oh, the horror!!

Thursday night’s episode was a journeymen’s show – nothing too flashy happened (c’mon, did you really think Pete Campbell was going to carry that sad little cardboard box all the way downstairs?) but it planted some important seeds, and not just plot ones either.

“Mad Men” is starting to get smarter, nicer and a little more comfortable in its wingtip shoes. That said, it could crank up the knobs a little bit. How about more witty repartee? And a smidge more camp a la those pulpy novels that were so popular in the day? And more hats like the delectable confections seen atop Rachel Mencken’s head? Don’t fear going overboard, “Mad Men.” There can never be enough of any of these things. And don’t feel like you have to be so serious all the time. We like to laugh.

I hate to say it, but the effervescent buzz “Mad Men” had in last week’s premiere went just a smidge flat with this second episode. Who let the fizz out? Draper’s wife. Although January Jones’ performance is appropriately muted, with hints of complexity to come, our time with Betty, a fragile, wide-eyed blond whose pretty little hands have been seizing up for no apparent reason, felt a little bit forced. Essentially, Matthew Weiner yanked us out of the Mad St. bar and pushed us onto the 5:15 back to the 'burbs before we had a chance to slurp down that third martini.

Now I like a show set on a freaky desert island (that may or may not be a dream or possessed by spirits or whatever) as much as the next person, but I also enjoy a meaty work-place drama. But I'm burned out on the usual hospital, courtroom or, heaven forbid, some temperamental Brit’s kitchen. “Mad Men,” AMC’s new hourlong drama from Matthew Weiner (“The Sopranos”), is set at the fictional Sterling Cooper ad agency in 1960 and comes with all the stifling accoutrements -- nylons, neckties, meetings clouded in cigarette smoke -- but it’s pretty fresh in general and especially for a period piece.

Speaking of those, haven’t we been deprived long enough? I loved “Deadwood,” but HBO shot and stuffed that hoary beast a while ago. Before that, I remember being thoroughly rocked by “The Wonder Years,” but I was in junior high and a lot of things -- hamsters, grape soda -- rocked me then. And I’m still trying to forget the dull, oversimplified “American Dreams.”

“Mad Men,” on the other hand, is sharply complex, showing the fizzy light and the Brylcreemed dark in everyone and everything.

'Mad Men': Vincent Kartheiser

Vincent Kartheiser, 28, is a total clown and a deep thinker, often in the same minute. During our chat, the Minnesota native who’s lived in Hollywood for the last 10 years constantly told ridiculous fibs involving a secret affair with Mel Gibson (wait till Us magazine reads that!), Justin Timberlake rocking it at clubs with a peg leg (don’t ask) and showing up to the “Mad Men” auditions in drag (nope, more like a suit). I can’t print most of the funny stuff, but what Kartheiser shared about his character, the sometimes smarmy, sometimes sweet, sometimes vicious accounts manager Pete Campbell, is far more valuable anyway.

[Q&A after the jump]

For Dan Bishop, the South Pasadena-based production designer of “Mad Men,” every frame of TV that we absorb in a post-work haze on our couches has the potential to be beautiful photography.

One of Bishop’s favorite examples in “Mad Men” happens near the end of the ninth episode. Betty Draper sits in her kitchen smoking a cigarette. Minutes later, she steps outside in her nightgown with a BB gun and shoots her neighbor’s pigeons.

Yep. This week was a rerun.

Zzzzz…

But wait!

In the next few weeks, I’ll be featuring interviews with important members of the show. I know I already want to interview production designer Dan Bishop. Why? Well, I really have a sweet spot for '60s modern, for one thing, and I figure he'll know where to get the best boomerang coffee table in L.A.

At Episode 9, “Mad Men” is purring along like Draper’s Buick. I’m enjoying the ride, but I’m eager for our destination. Where will the season finale take us? So many plot developments: Draper and Betty; Draper and Rachel Mencken (don’t think for a moment she won’t reemerge draped or feathered in something fabulous); Pete and Peggy; the barely closeted Salvatore and office vixen Joan … where will they be a mere handful of weeks from now? The only storyline we know the end to is Nixon’s. The “Mad Men” characters should count on a better fate, but then again, who understands the whims of TV writers?

Don’t you love it when the TV universe grants your wishes? I’ve been cheering for “Mad Men” since that first, full-lunged pull on Draper’s Lucky Strike, but I’ve also been demanding rewards for my loyal viewership. In no particular order, I asked for more sexy scenes sans girdles, more sassy ‘60s humor, less wretched sexism, and will you finally please get the whole “Salvatore is gay” plotline up and running because that thing’s been lingering so long it’s starting to smell.

Shiny presents were torn open on all three points, and ribbons strewn around the most powerful of “Mad Men” themes: Everyone’s identity is mutable. Nothing is what it seems. We love our masks, and if you try to rip them off, or even move them aside to see a little bit of our real lips, our real teeth, we might scratch your eyes out. Or at least deliver a tear-jerking swipe at the nose.

 

This episode, dare I say, was blessed, magical, sent from the stars.  I’m almost reluctant to blog about it in case I jinx the start of a winning streak.  If you haven’t seen it yet, you’re probably thinking that something big happened.  It didn’t, but that’s OK.  Sometimes the best TV is delivered in moments -- big, clever, imaginative moments. Funny, dark, odd moments.  So yeah, as far as plot stuff goes, last night was no big deal, but as far as style, scene and character development?  It was a beauty to behold.

Let’s talk about it moment by moment, shall we?

The saucy, skittery women of Draperville don’t have it easy. They get mocked for going ga-ga over lipstick. Their bodies are seen as fresh meat for the vulturous Mad Men. They’re not taken seriously when their hands seize up (as in Episode 2). But this week’s episode gave them all a chance to shine. Even if it was just the mellow glow that might come off a rose-gold brooch, it felt good, slightly victorious.

Ah, so we’ve finally started to dig into the black-coffee-and-a-trenchcoat mystique that is Don Draper, our gimlet-eyed ladies' man, advertising visionary and owner of at least $5,000 in cash stashed in a locked desk drawer. “Mad Men” has been teasing us with tiny details, but Thursday’s show gave us the biggest peek into his past yet. The clues are admittedly baffling. Whatever the big deal is, it doesn’t seem to be as awesome as anything like a serial-killer twin brother who comes back from the dead. More like a really nice brother who would like to have lunch from time to time. Oh, the horror!!

Thursday night’s episode was a journeymen’s show – nothing too flashy happened (c’mon, did you really think Pete Campbell was going to carry that sad little cardboard box all the way downstairs?) but it planted some important seeds, and not just plot ones either.

“Mad Men” is starting to get smarter, nicer and a little more comfortable in its wingtip shoes. That said, it could crank up the knobs a little bit. How about more witty repartee? And a smidge more camp a la those pulpy novels that were so popular in the day? And more hats like the delectable confections seen atop Rachel Mencken’s head? Don’t fear going overboard, “Mad Men.” There can never be enough of any of these things. And don’t feel like you have to be so serious all the time. We like to laugh.

I hate to say it, but the effervescent buzz “Mad Men” had in last week’s premiere went just a smidge flat with this second episode. Who let the fizz out? Draper’s wife. Although January Jones’ performance is appropriately muted, with hints of complexity to come, our time with Betty, a fragile, wide-eyed blond whose pretty little hands have been seizing up for no apparent reason, felt a little bit forced. Essentially, Matthew Weiner yanked us out of the Mad St. bar and pushed us onto the 5:15 back to the 'burbs before we had a chance to slurp down that third martini.

Now I like a show set on a freaky desert island (that may or may not be a dream or possessed by spirits or whatever) as much as the next person, but I also enjoy a meaty work-place drama. But I'm burned out on the usual hospital, courtroom or, heaven forbid, some temperamental Brit’s kitchen. “Mad Men,” AMC’s new hourlong drama from Matthew Weiner (“The Sopranos”), is set at the fictional Sterling Cooper ad agency in 1960 and comes with all the stifling accoutrements -- nylons, neckties, meetings clouded in cigarette smoke -- but it’s pretty fresh in general and especially for a period piece.

Speaking of those, haven’t we been deprived long enough? I loved “Deadwood,” but HBO shot and stuffed that hoary beast a while ago. Before that, I remember being thoroughly rocked by “The Wonder Years,” but I was in junior high and a lot of things -- hamsters, grape soda -- rocked me then. And I’m still trying to forget the dull, oversimplified “American Dreams.”

“Mad Men,” on the other hand, is sharply complex, showing the fizzy light and the Brylcreemed dark in everyone and everything.

'Mad Men': Production designer Dan Bishop

For Dan Bishop, the South Pasadena-based production designer of “Mad Men,” every frame of TV that we absorb in a post-work haze on our couches has the potential to be beautiful photography.

One of Bishop’s favorite examples in “Mad Men” happens near the end of the ninth episode. Betty Draper sits in her kitchen smoking a cigarette. Minutes later, she steps outside in her nightgown with a BB gun and shoots her neighbor’s pigeons.

Yep. This week was a rerun.

Zzzzz…

But wait!

In the next few weeks, I’ll be featuring interviews with important members of the show. I know I already want to interview production designer Dan Bishop. Why? Well, I really have a sweet spot for '60s modern, for one thing, and I figure he'll know where to get the best boomerang coffee table in L.A.

At Episode 9, “Mad Men” is purring along like Draper’s Buick. I’m enjoying the ride, but I’m eager for our destination. Where will the season finale take us? So many plot developments: Draper and Betty; Draper and Rachel Mencken (don’t think for a moment she won’t reemerge draped or feathered in something fabulous); Pete and Peggy; the barely closeted Salvatore and office vixen Joan … where will they be a mere handful of weeks from now? The only storyline we know the end to is Nixon’s. The “Mad Men” characters should count on a better fate, but then again, who understands the whims of TV writers?

Don’t you love it when the TV universe grants your wishes? I’ve been cheering for “Mad Men” since that first, full-lunged pull on Draper’s Lucky Strike, but I’ve also been demanding rewards for my loyal viewership. In no particular order, I asked for more sexy scenes sans girdles, more sassy ‘60s humor, less wretched sexism, and will you finally please get the whole “Salvatore is gay” plotline up and running because that thing’s been lingering so long it’s starting to smell.

Shiny presents were torn open on all three points, and ribbons strewn around the most powerful of “Mad Men” themes: Everyone’s identity is mutable. Nothing is what it seems. We love our masks, and if you try to rip them off, or even move them aside to see a little bit of our real lips, our real teeth, we might scratch your eyes out. Or at least deliver a tear-jerking swipe at the nose.

 

This episode, dare I say, was blessed, magical, sent from the stars.  I’m almost reluctant to blog about it in case I jinx the start of a winning streak.  If you haven’t seen it yet, you’re probably thinking that something big happened.  It didn’t, but that’s OK.  Sometimes the best TV is delivered in moments -- big, clever, imaginative moments. Funny, dark, odd moments.  So yeah, as far as plot stuff goes, last night was no big deal, but as far as style, scene and character development?  It was a beauty to behold.

Let’s talk about it moment by moment, shall we?

The saucy, skittery women of Draperville don’t have it easy. They get mocked for going ga-ga over lipstick. Their bodies are seen as fresh meat for the vulturous Mad Men. They’re not taken seriously when their hands seize up (as in Episode 2). But this week’s episode gave them all a chance to shine. Even if it was just the mellow glow that might come off a rose-gold brooch, it felt good, slightly victorious.

Ah, so we’ve finally started to dig into the black-coffee-and-a-trenchcoat mystique that is Don Draper, our gimlet-eyed ladies' man, advertising visionary and owner of at least $5,000 in cash stashed in a locked desk drawer. “Mad Men” has been teasing us with tiny details, but Thursday’s show gave us the biggest peek into his past yet. The clues are admittedly baffling. Whatever the big deal is, it doesn’t seem to be as awesome as anything like a serial-killer twin brother who comes back from the dead. More like a really nice brother who would like to have lunch from time to time. Oh, the horror!!

Thursday night’s episode was a journeymen’s show – nothing too flashy happened (c’mon, did you really think Pete Campbell was going to carry that sad little cardboard box all the way downstairs?) but it planted some important seeds, and not just plot ones either.

“Mad Men” is starting to get smarter, nicer and a little more comfortable in its wingtip shoes. That said, it could crank up the knobs a little bit. How about more witty repartee? And a smidge more camp a la those pulpy novels that were so popular in the day? And more hats like the delectable confections seen atop Rachel Mencken’s head? Don’t fear going overboard, “Mad Men.” There can never be enough of any of these things. And don’t feel like you have to be so serious all the time. We like to laugh.

I hate to say it, but the effervescent buzz “Mad Men” had in last week’s premiere went just a smidge flat with this second episode. Who let the fizz out? Draper’s wife. Although January Jones’ performance is appropriately muted, with hints of complexity to come, our time with Betty, a fragile, wide-eyed blond whose pretty little hands have been seizing up for no apparent reason, felt a little bit forced. Essentially, Matthew Weiner yanked us out of the Mad St. bar and pushed us onto the 5:15 back to the 'burbs before we had a chance to slurp down that third martini.

Now I like a show set on a freaky desert island (that may or may not be a dream or possessed by spirits or whatever) as much as the next person, but I also enjoy a meaty work-place drama. But I'm burned out on the usual hospital, courtroom or, heaven forbid, some temperamental Brit’s kitchen. “Mad Men,” AMC’s new hourlong drama from Matthew Weiner (“The Sopranos”), is set at the fictional Sterling Cooper ad agency in 1960 and comes with all the stifling accoutrements -- nylons, neckties, meetings clouded in cigarette smoke -- but it’s pretty fresh in general and especially for a period piece.

Speaking of those, haven’t we been deprived long enough? I loved “Deadwood,” but HBO shot and stuffed that hoary beast a while ago. Before that, I remember being thoroughly rocked by “The Wonder Years,” but I was in junior high and a lot of things -- hamsters, grape soda -- rocked me then. And I’m still trying to forget the dull, oversimplified “American Dreams.”

“Mad Men,” on the other hand, is sharply complex, showing the fizzy light and the Brylcreemed dark in everyone and everything.

'Mad Men': Who's your favorite actor?

Yep. This week was a rerun.

Zzzzz…

But wait!

In the next few weeks, I’ll be featuring interviews with important members of the show. I know I already want to interview production designer Dan Bishop. Why? Well, I really have a sweet spot for '60s modern, for one thing, and I figure he'll know where to get the best boomerang coffee table in L.A.

At Episode 9, “Mad Men” is purring along like Draper’s Buick. I’m enjoying the ride, but I’m eager for our destination. Where will the season finale take us? So many plot developments: Draper and Betty; Draper and Rachel Mencken (don’t think for a moment she won’t reemerge draped or feathered in something fabulous); Pete and Peggy; the barely closeted Salvatore and office vixen Joan … where will they be a mere handful of weeks from now? The only storyline we know the end to is Nixon’s. The “Mad Men” characters should count on a better fate, but then again, who understands the whims of TV writers?

Don’t you love it when the TV universe grants your wishes? I’ve been cheering for “Mad Men” since that first, full-lunged pull on Draper’s Lucky Strike, but I’ve also been demanding rewards for my loyal viewership. In no particular order, I asked for more sexy scenes sans girdles, more sassy ‘60s humor, less wretched sexism, and will you finally please get the whole “Salvatore is gay” plotline up and running because that thing’s been lingering so long it’s starting to smell.

Shiny presents were torn open on all three points, and ribbons strewn around the most powerful of “Mad Men” themes: Everyone’s identity is mutable. Nothing is what it seems. We love our masks, and if you try to rip them off, or even move them aside to see a little bit of our real lips, our real teeth, we might scratch your eyes out. Or at least deliver a tear-jerking swipe at the nose.

 

This episode, dare I say, was blessed, magical, sent from the stars.  I’m almost reluctant to blog about it in case I jinx the start of a winning streak.  If you haven’t seen it yet, you’re probably thinking that something big happened.  It didn’t, but that’s OK.  Sometimes the best TV is delivered in moments -- big, clever, imaginative moments. Funny, dark, odd moments.  So yeah, as far as plot stuff goes, last night was no big deal, but as far as style, scene and character development?  It was a beauty to behold.

Let’s talk about it moment by moment, shall we?

The saucy, skittery women of Draperville don’t have it easy. They get mocked for going ga-ga over lipstick. Their bodies are seen as fresh meat for the vulturous Mad Men. They’re not taken seriously when their hands seize up (as in Episode 2). But this week’s episode gave them all a chance to shine. Even if it was just the mellow glow that might come off a rose-gold brooch, it felt good, slightly victorious.

Ah, so we’ve finally started to dig into the black-coffee-and-a-trenchcoat mystique that is Don Draper, our gimlet-eyed ladies' man, advertising visionary and owner of at least $5,000 in cash stashed in a locked desk drawer. “Mad Men” has been teasing us with tiny details, but Thursday’s show gave us the biggest peek into his past yet. The clues are admittedly baffling. Whatever the big deal is, it doesn’t seem to be as awesome as anything like a serial-killer twin brother who comes back from the dead. More like a really nice brother who would like to have lunch from time to time. Oh, the horror!!

Thursday night’s episode was a journeymen’s show – nothing too flashy happened (c’mon, did you really think Pete Campbell was going to carry that sad little cardboard box all the way downstairs?) but it planted some important seeds, and not just plot ones either.

“Mad Men” is starting to get smarter, nicer and a little more comfortable in its wingtip shoes. That said, it could crank up the knobs a little bit. How about more witty repartee? And a smidge more camp a la those pulpy novels that were so popular in the day? And more hats like the delectable confections seen atop Rachel Mencken’s head? Don’t fear going overboard, “Mad Men.” There can never be enough of any of these things. And don’t feel like you have to be so serious all the time. We like to laugh.

I hate to say it, but the effervescent buzz “Mad Men” had in last week’s premiere went just a smidge flat with this second episode. Who let the fizz out? Draper’s wife. Although January Jones’ performance is appropriately muted, with hints of complexity to come, our time with Betty, a fragile, wide-eyed blond whose pretty little hands have been seizing up for no apparent reason, felt a little bit forced. Essentially, Matthew Weiner yanked us out of the Mad St. bar and pushed us onto the 5:15 back to the 'burbs before we had a chance to slurp down that third martini.

Now I like a show set on a freaky desert island (that may or may not be a dream or possessed by spirits or whatever) as much as the next person, but I also enjoy a meaty work-place drama. But I'm burned out on the usual hospital, courtroom or, heaven forbid, some temperamental Brit’s kitchen. “Mad Men,” AMC’s new hourlong drama from Matthew Weiner (“The Sopranos”), is set at the fictional Sterling Cooper ad agency in 1960 and comes with all the stifling accoutrements -- nylons, neckties, meetings clouded in cigarette smoke -- but it’s pretty fresh in general and especially for a period piece.

Speaking of those, haven’t we been deprived long enough? I loved “Deadwood,” but HBO shot and stuffed that hoary beast a while ago. Before that, I remember being thoroughly rocked by “The Wonder Years,” but I was in junior high and a lot of things -- hamsters, grape soda -- rocked me then. And I’m still trying to forget the dull, oversimplified “American Dreams.”

“Mad Men,” on the other hand, is sharply complex, showing the fizzy light and the Brylcreemed dark in everyone and everything.

'Mad Men': Gods and ladies

At Episode 9, “Mad Men” is purring along like Draper’s Buick. I’m enjoying the ride, but I’m eager for our destination. Where will the season finale take us? So many plot developments: Draper and Betty; Draper and Rachel Mencken (don’t think for a moment she won’t reemerge draped or feathered in something fabulous); Pete and Peggy; the barely closeted Salvatore and office vixen Joan … where will they be a mere handful of weeks from now? The only storyline we know the end to is Nixon’s. The “Mad Men” characters should count on a better fate, but then again, who understands the whims of TV writers?

Don’t you love it when the TV universe grants your wishes? I’ve been cheering for “Mad Men” since that first, full-lunged pull on Draper’s Lucky Strike, but I’ve also been demanding rewards for my loyal viewership. In no particular order, I asked for more sexy scenes sans girdles, more sassy ‘60s humor, less wretched sexism, and will you finally please get the whole “Salvatore is gay” plotline up and running because that thing’s been lingering so long it’s starting to smell.

Shiny presents were torn open on all three points, and ribbons strewn around the most powerful of “Mad Men” themes: Everyone’s identity is mutable. Nothing is what it seems. We love our masks, and if you try to rip them off, or even move them aside to see a little bit of our real lips, our real teeth, we might scratch your eyes out. Or at least deliver a tear-jerking swipe at the nose.

 

This episode, dare I say, was blessed, magical, sent from the stars.  I’m almost reluctant to blog about it in case I jinx the start of a winning streak.  If you haven’t seen it yet, you’re probably thinking that something big happened.  It didn’t, but that’s OK.  Sometimes the best TV is delivered in moments -- big, clever, imaginative moments. Funny, dark, odd moments.  So yeah, as far as plot stuff goes, last night was no big deal, but as far as style, scene and character development?  It was a beauty to behold.

Let’s talk about it moment by moment, shall we?

The saucy, skittery women of Draperville don’t have it easy. They get mocked for going ga-ga over lipstick. Their bodies are seen as fresh meat for the vulturous Mad Men. They’re not taken seriously when their hands seize up (as in Episode 2). But this week’s episode gave them all a chance to shine. Even if it was just the mellow glow that might come off a rose-gold brooch, it felt good, slightly victorious.

Ah, so we’ve finally started to dig into the black-coffee-and-a-trenchcoat mystique that is Don Draper, our gimlet-eyed ladies' man, advertising visionary and owner of at least $5,000 in cash stashed in a locked desk drawer. “Mad Men” has been teasing us with tiny details, but Thursday’s show gave us the biggest peek into his past yet. The clues are admittedly baffling. Whatever the big deal is, it doesn’t seem to be as awesome as anything like a serial-killer twin brother who comes back from the dead. More like a really nice brother who would like to have lunch from time to time. Oh, the horror!!

Thursday night’s episode was a journeymen’s show – nothing too flashy happened (c’mon, did you really think Pete Campbell was going to carry that sad little cardboard box all the way downstairs?) but it planted some important seeds, and not just plot ones either.

“Mad Men” is starting to get smarter, nicer and a little more comfortable in its wingtip shoes. That said, it could crank up the knobs a little bit. How about more witty repartee? And a smidge more camp a la those pulpy novels that were so popular in the day? And more hats like the delectable confections seen atop Rachel Mencken’s head? Don’t fear going overboard, “Mad Men.” There can never be enough of any of these things. And don’t feel like you have to be so serious all the time. We like to laugh.

I hate to say it, but the effervescent buzz “Mad Men” had in last week’s premiere went just a smidge flat with this second episode. Who let the fizz out? Draper’s wife. Although January Jones’ performance is appropriately muted, with hints of complexity to come, our time with Betty, a fragile, wide-eyed blond whose pretty little hands have been seizing up for no apparent reason, felt a little bit forced. Essentially, Matthew Weiner yanked us out of the Mad St. bar and pushed us onto the 5:15 back to the 'burbs before we had a chance to slurp down that third martini.

Now I like a show set on a freaky desert island (that may or may not be a dream or possessed by spirits or whatever) as much as the next person, but I also enjoy a meaty work-place drama. But I'm burned out on the usual hospital, courtroom or, heaven forbid, some temperamental Brit’s kitchen. “Mad Men,” AMC’s new hourlong drama from Matthew Weiner (“The Sopranos”), is set at the fictional Sterling Cooper ad agency in 1960 and comes with all the stifling accoutrements -- nylons, neckties, meetings clouded in cigarette smoke -- but it’s pretty fresh in general and especially for a period piece.

Speaking of those, haven’t we been deprived long enough? I loved “Deadwood,” but HBO shot and stuffed that hoary beast a while ago. Before that, I remember being thoroughly rocked by “The Wonder Years,” but I was in junior high and a lot of things -- hamsters, grape soda -- rocked me then. And I’m still trying to forget the dull, oversimplified “American Dreams.”

“Mad Men,” on the other hand, is sharply complex, showing the fizzy light and the Brylcreemed dark in everyone and everything.

'Mad Men': Many masks

Don’t you love it when the TV universe grants your wishes? I’ve been cheering for “Mad Men” since that first, full-lunged pull on Draper’s Lucky Strike, but I’ve also been demanding rewards for my loyal viewership. In no particular order, I asked for more sexy scenes sans girdles, more sassy ‘60s humor, less wretched sexism, and will you finally please get the whole “Salvatore is gay” plotline up and running because that thing’s been lingering so long it’s starting to smell.

Shiny presents were torn open on all three points, and ribbons strewn around the most powerful of “Mad Men” themes: Everyone’s identity is mutable. Nothing is what it seems. We love our masks, and if you try to rip them off, or even move them aside to see a little bit of our real lips, our real teeth, we might scratch your eyes out. Or at least deliver a tear-jerking swipe at the nose.

 

This episode, dare I say, was blessed, magical, sent from the stars.  I’m almost reluctant to blog about it in case I jinx the start of a winning streak.  If you haven’t seen it yet, you’re probably thinking that something big happened.  It didn’t, but that’s OK.  Sometimes the best TV is delivered in moments -- big, clever, imaginative moments. Funny, dark, odd moments.  So yeah, as far as plot stuff goes, last night was no big deal, but as far as style, scene and character development?  It was a beauty to behold.

Let’s talk about it moment by moment, shall we?

The saucy, skittery women of Draperville don’t have it easy. They get mocked for going ga-ga over lipstick. Their bodies are seen as fresh meat for the vulturous Mad Men. They’re not taken seriously when their hands seize up (as in Episode 2). But this week’s episode gave them all a chance to shine. Even if it was just the mellow glow that might come off a rose-gold brooch, it felt good, slightly victorious.

Ah, so we’ve finally started to dig into the black-coffee-and-a-trenchcoat mystique that is Don Draper, our gimlet-eyed ladies' man, advertising visionary and owner of at least $5,000 in cash stashed in a locked desk drawer. “Mad Men” has been teasing us with tiny details, but Thursday’s show gave us the biggest peek into his past yet. The clues are admittedly baffling. Whatever the big deal is, it doesn’t seem to be as awesome as anything like a serial-killer twin brother who comes back from the dead. More like a really nice brother who would like to have lunch from time to time. Oh, the horror!!

Thursday night’s episode was a journeymen’s show – nothing too flashy happened (c’mon, did you really think Pete Campbell was going to carry that sad little cardboard box all the way downstairs?) but it planted some important seeds, and not just plot ones either.

“Mad Men” is starting to get smarter, nicer and a little more comfortable in its wingtip shoes. That said, it could crank up the knobs a little bit. How about more witty repartee? And a smidge more camp a la those pulpy novels that were so popular in the day? And more hats like the delectable confections seen atop Rachel Mencken’s head? Don’t fear going overboard, “Mad Men.” There can never be enough of any of these things. And don’t feel like you have to be so serious all the time. We like to laugh.

I hate to say it, but the effervescent buzz “Mad Men” had in last week’s premiere went just a smidge flat with this second episode. Who let the fizz out? Draper’s wife. Although January Jones’ performance is appropriately muted, with hints of complexity to come, our time with Betty, a fragile, wide-eyed blond whose pretty little hands have been seizing up for no apparent reason, felt a little bit forced. Essentially, Matthew Weiner yanked us out of the Mad St. bar and pushed us onto the 5:15 back to the 'burbs before we had a chance to slurp down that third martini.

Now I like a show set on a freaky desert island (that may or may not be a dream or possessed by spirits or whatever) as much as the next person, but I also enjoy a meaty work-place drama. But I'm burned out on the usual hospital, courtroom or, heaven forbid, some temperamental Brit’s kitchen. “Mad Men,” AMC’s new hourlong drama from Matthew Weiner (“The Sopranos”), is set at the fictional Sterling Cooper ad agency in 1960 and comes with all the stifling accoutrements -- nylons, neckties, meetings clouded in cigarette smoke -- but it’s pretty fresh in general and especially for a period piece.

Speaking of those, haven’t we been deprived long enough? I loved “Deadwood,” but HBO shot and stuffed that hoary beast a while ago. Before that, I remember being thoroughly rocked by “The Wonder Years,” but I was in junior high and a lot of things -- hamsters, grape soda -- rocked me then. And I’m still trying to forget the dull, oversimplified “American Dreams.”

“Mad Men,” on the other hand, is sharply complex, showing the fizzy light and the Brylcreemed dark in everyone and everything.

'Mad Men': This magic moment

This episode, dare I say, was blessed, magical, sent from the stars.  I’m almost reluctant to blog about it in case I jinx the start of a winning streak.  If you haven’t seen it yet, you’re probably thinking that something big happened.  It didn’t, but that’s OK.  Sometimes the best TV is delivered in moments -- big, clever, imaginative moments. Funny, dark, odd moments.  So yeah, as far as plot stuff goes, last night was no big deal, but as far as style, scene and character development?  It was a beauty to behold.

Let’s talk about it moment by moment, shall we?

The saucy, skittery women of Draperville don’t have it easy. They get mocked for going ga-ga over lipstick. Their bodies are seen as fresh meat for the vulturous Mad Men. They’re not taken seriously when their hands seize up (as in Episode 2). But this week’s episode gave them all a chance to shine. Even if it was just the mellow glow that might come off a rose-gold brooch, it felt good, slightly victorious.

Ah, so we’ve finally started to dig into the black-coffee-and-a-trenchcoat mystique that is Don Draper, our gimlet-eyed ladies' man, advertising visionary and owner of at least $5,000 in cash stashed in a locked desk drawer. “Mad Men” has been teasing us with tiny details, but Thursday’s show gave us the biggest peek into his past yet. The clues are admittedly baffling. Whatever the big deal is, it doesn’t seem to be as awesome as anything like a serial-killer twin brother who comes back from the dead. More like a really nice brother who would like to have lunch from time to time. Oh, the horror!!

Thursday night’s episode was a journeymen’s show – nothing too flashy happened (c’mon, did you really think Pete Campbell was going to carry that sad little cardboard box all the way downstairs?) but it planted some important seeds, and not just plot ones either.

“Mad Men” is starting to get smarter, nicer and a little more comfortable in its wingtip shoes. That said, it could crank up the knobs a little bit. How about more witty repartee? And a smidge more camp a la those pulpy novels that were so popular in the day? And more hats like the delectable confections seen atop Rachel Mencken’s head? Don’t fear going overboard, “Mad Men.” There can never be enough of any of these things. And don’t feel like you have to be so serious all the time. We like to laugh.

I hate to say it, but the effervescent buzz “Mad Men” had in last week’s premiere went just a smidge flat with this second episode. Who let the fizz out? Draper’s wife. Although January Jones’ performance is appropriately muted, with hints of complexity to come, our time with Betty, a fragile, wide-eyed blond whose pretty little hands have been seizing up for no apparent reason, felt a little bit forced. Essentially, Matthew Weiner yanked us out of the Mad St. bar and pushed us onto the 5:15 back to the 'burbs before we had a chance to slurp down that third martini.

Now I like a show set on a freaky desert island (that may or may not be a dream or possessed by spirits or whatever) as much as the next person, but I also enjoy a meaty work-place drama. But I'm burned out on the usual hospital, courtroom or, heaven forbid, some temperamental Brit’s kitchen. “Mad Men,” AMC’s new hourlong drama from Matthew Weiner (“The Sopranos”), is set at the fictional Sterling Cooper ad agency in 1960 and comes with all the stifling accoutrements -- nylons, neckties, meetings clouded in cigarette smoke -- but it’s pretty fresh in general and especially for a period piece.

Speaking of those, haven’t we been deprived long enough? I loved “Deadwood,” but HBO shot and stuffed that hoary beast a while ago. Before that, I remember being thoroughly rocked by “The Wonder Years,” but I was in junior high and a lot of things -- hamsters, grape soda -- rocked me then. And I’m still trying to forget the dull, oversimplified “American Dreams.”

“Mad Men,” on the other hand, is sharply complex, showing the fizzy light and the Brylcreemed dark in everyone and everything.

'Mad Men': Strong women

The saucy, skittery women of Draperville don’t have it easy. They get mocked for going ga-ga over lipstick. Their bodies are seen as fresh meat for the vulturous Mad Men. They’re not taken seriously when their hands seize up (as in Episode 2). But this week’s episode gave them all a chance to shine. Even if it was just the mellow glow that might come off a rose-gold brooch, it felt good, slightly victorious.

Ah, so we’ve finally started to dig into the black-coffee-and-a-trenchcoat mystique that is Don Draper, our gimlet-eyed ladies' man, advertising visionary and owner of at least $5,000 in cash stashed in a locked desk drawer. “Mad Men” has been teasing us with tiny details, but Thursday’s show gave us the biggest peek into his past yet. The clues are admittedly baffling. Whatever the big deal is, it doesn’t seem to be as awesome as anything like a serial-killer twin brother who comes back from the dead. More like a really nice brother who would like to have lunch from time to time. Oh, the horror!!

Thursday night’s episode was a journeymen’s show – nothing too flashy happened (c’mon, did you really think Pete Campbell was going to carry that sad little cardboard box all the way downstairs?) but it planted some important seeds, and not just plot ones either.

“Mad Men” is starting to get smarter, nicer and a little more comfortable in its wingtip shoes. That said, it could crank up the knobs a little bit. How about more witty repartee? And a smidge more camp a la those pulpy novels that were so popular in the day? And more hats like the delectable confections seen atop Rachel Mencken’s head? Don’t fear going overboard, “Mad Men.” There can never be enough of any of these things. And don’t feel like you have to be so serious all the time. We like to laugh.

I hate to say it, but the effervescent buzz “Mad Men” had in last week’s premiere went just a smidge flat with this second episode. Who let the fizz out? Draper’s wife. Although January Jones’ performance is appropriately muted, with hints of complexity to come, our time with Betty, a fragile, wide-eyed blond whose pretty little hands have been seizing up for no apparent reason, felt a little bit forced. Essentially, Matthew Weiner yanked us out of the Mad St. bar and pushed us onto the 5:15 back to the 'burbs before we had a chance to slurp down that third martini.

Now I like a show set on a freaky desert island (that may or may not be a dream or possessed by spirits or whatever) as much as the next person, but I also enjoy a meaty work-place drama. But I'm burned out on the usual hospital, courtroom or, heaven forbid, some temperamental Brit’s kitchen. “Mad Men,” AMC’s new hourlong drama from Matthew Weiner (“The Sopranos”), is set at the fictional Sterling Cooper ad agency in 1960 and comes with all the stifling accoutrements -- nylons, neckties, meetings clouded in cigarette smoke -- but it’s pretty fresh in general and especially for a period piece.

Speaking of those, haven’t we been deprived long enough? I loved “Deadwood,” but HBO shot and stuffed that hoary beast a while ago. Before that, I remember being thoroughly rocked by “The Wonder Years,” but I was in junior high and a lot of things -- hamsters, grape soda -- rocked me then. And I’m still trying to forget the dull, oversimplified “American Dreams.”

“Mad Men,” on the other hand, is sharply complex, showing the fizzy light and the Brylcreemed dark in everyone and everything.

'Mad Men': Secrets and lies

Ah, so we’ve finally started to dig into the black-coffee-and-a-trenchcoat mystique that is Don Draper, our gimlet-eyed ladies' man, advertising visionary and owner of at least $5,000 in cash stashed in a locked desk drawer. “Mad Men” has been teasing us with tiny details, but Thursday’s show gave us the biggest peek into his past yet. The clues are admittedly baffling. Whatever the big deal is, it doesn’t seem to be as awesome as anything like a serial-killer twin brother who comes back from the dead. More like a really nice brother who would like to have lunch from time to time. Oh, the horror!!

Thursday night’s episode was a journeymen’s show – nothing too flashy happened (c’mon, did you really think Pete Campbell was going to carry that sad little cardboard box all the way downstairs?) but it planted some important seeds, and not just plot ones either.

“Mad Men” is starting to get smarter, nicer and a little more comfortable in its wingtip shoes. That said, it could crank up the knobs a little bit. How about more witty repartee? And a smidge more camp a la those pulpy novels that were so popular in the day? And more hats like the delectable confections seen atop Rachel Mencken’s head? Don’t fear going overboard, “Mad Men.” There can never be enough of any of these things. And don’t feel like you have to be so serious all the time. We like to laugh.

I hate to say it, but the effervescent buzz “Mad Men” had in last week’s premiere went just a smidge flat with this second episode. Who let the fizz out? Draper’s wife. Although January Jones’ performance is appropriately muted, with hints of complexity to come, our time with Betty, a fragile, wide-eyed blond whose pretty little hands have been seizing up for no apparent reason, felt a little bit forced. Essentially, Matthew Weiner yanked us out of the Mad St. bar and pushed us onto the 5:15 back to the 'burbs before we had a chance to slurp down that third martini.

Now I like a show set on a freaky desert island (that may or may not be a dream or possessed by spirits or whatever) as much as the next person, but I also enjoy a meaty work-place drama. But I'm burned out on the usual hospital, courtroom or, heaven forbid, some temperamental Brit’s kitchen. “Mad Men,” AMC’s new hourlong drama from Matthew Weiner (“The Sopranos”), is set at the fictional Sterling Cooper ad agency in 1960 and comes with all the stifling accoutrements -- nylons, neckties, meetings clouded in cigarette smoke -- but it’s pretty fresh in general and especially for a period piece.

Speaking of those, haven’t we been deprived long enough? I loved “Deadwood,” but HBO shot and stuffed that hoary beast a while ago. Before that, I remember being thoroughly rocked by “The Wonder Years,” but I was in junior high and a lot of things -- hamsters, grape soda -- rocked me then. And I’m still trying to forget the dull, oversimplified “American Dreams.”

“Mad Men,” on the other hand, is sharply complex, showing the fizzy light and the Brylcreemed dark in everyone and everything.

'Mad Men': Weird kids and mean daddies

Thursday night’s episode was a journeymen’s show – nothing too flashy happened (c’mon, did you really think Pete Campbell was going to carry that sad little cardboard box all the way downstairs?) but it planted some important seeds, and not just plot ones either.

“Mad Men” is starting to get smarter, nicer and a little more comfortable in its wingtip shoes. That said, it could crank up the knobs a little bit. How about more witty repartee? And a smidge more camp a la those pulpy novels that were so popular in the day? And more hats like the delectable confections seen atop Rachel Mencken’s head? Don’t fear going overboard, “Mad Men.” There can never be enough of any of these things. And don’t feel like you have to be so serious all the time. We like to laugh.

I hate to say it, but the effervescent buzz “Mad Men” had in last week’s premiere went just a smidge flat with this second episode. Who let the fizz out? Draper’s wife. Although January Jones’ performance is appropriately muted, with hints of complexity to come, our time with Betty, a fragile, wide-eyed blond whose pretty little hands have been seizing up for no apparent reason, felt a little bit forced. Essentially, Matthew Weiner yanked us out of the Mad St. bar and pushed us onto the 5:15 back to the 'burbs before we had a chance to slurp down that third martini.

Now I like a show set on a freaky desert island (that may or may not be a dream or possessed by spirits or whatever) as much as the next person, but I also enjoy a meaty work-place drama. But I'm burned out on the usual hospital, courtroom or, heaven forbid, some temperamental Brit’s kitchen. “Mad Men,” AMC’s new hourlong drama from Matthew Weiner (“The Sopranos”), is set at the fictional Sterling Cooper ad agency in 1960 and comes with all the stifling accoutrements -- nylons, neckties, meetings clouded in cigarette smoke -- but it’s pretty fresh in general and especially for a period piece.

Speaking of those, haven’t we been deprived long enough? I loved “Deadwood,” but HBO shot and stuffed that hoary beast a while ago. Before that, I remember being thoroughly rocked by “The Wonder Years,” but I was in junior high and a lot of things -- hamsters, grape soda -- rocked me then. And I’m still trying to forget the dull, oversimplified “American Dreams.”

“Mad Men,” on the other hand, is sharply complex, showing the fizzy light and the Brylcreemed dark in everyone and everything.

'Mad Men': Too much pretty Betty

I hate to say it, but the effervescent buzz “Mad Men” had in last week’s premiere went just a smidge flat with this second episode. Who let the fizz out? Draper’s wife. Although January Jones’ performance is appropriately muted, with hints of complexity to come, our time with Betty, a fragile, wide-eyed blond whose pretty little hands have been seizing up for no apparent reason, felt a little bit forced. Essentially, Matthew Weiner yanked us out of the Mad St. bar and pushed us onto the 5:15 back to the 'burbs before we had a chance to slurp down that third martini.

Now I like a show set on a freaky desert island (that may or may not be a dream or possessed by spirits or whatever) as much as the next person, but I also enjoy a meaty work-place drama. But I'm burned out on the usual hospital, courtroom or, heaven forbid, some temperamental Brit’s kitchen. “Mad Men,” AMC’s new hourlong drama from Matthew Weiner (“The Sopranos”), is set at the fictional Sterling Cooper ad agency in 1960 and comes with all the stifling accoutrements -- nylons, neckties, meetings clouded in cigarette smoke -- but it’s pretty fresh in general and especially for a period piece.

Speaking of those, haven’t we been deprived long enough? I loved “Deadwood,” but HBO shot and stuffed that hoary beast a while ago. Before that, I remember being thoroughly rocked by “The Wonder Years,” but I was in junior high and a lot of things -- hamsters, grape soda -- rocked me then. And I’m still trying to forget the dull, oversimplified “American Dreams.”

“Mad Men,” on the other hand, is sharply complex, showing the fizzy light and the Brylcreemed dark in everyone and everything.

'Mad Men': It’s about time

Now I like a show set on a freaky desert island (that may or may not be a dream or possessed by spirits or whatever) as much as the next person, but I also enjoy a meaty work-place drama. But I'm burned out on the usual hospital, courtroom or, heaven forbid, some temperamental Brit’s kitchen. “Mad Men,” AMC’s new hourlong drama from Matthew Weiner (“The Sopranos”), is set at the fictional Sterling Cooper ad agency in 1960 and comes with all the stifling accoutrements -- nylons, neckties, meetings clouded in cigarette smoke -- but it’s pretty fresh in general and especially for a period piece.

Speaking of those, haven’t we been deprived long enough? I loved “Deadwood,” but HBO shot and stuffed that hoary beast a while ago. Before that, I remember being thoroughly rocked by “The Wonder Years,” but I was in junior high and a lot of things -- hamsters, grape soda -- rocked me then. And I’m still trying to forget the dull, oversimplified “American Dreams.”

“Mad Men,” on the other hand, is sharply complex, showing the fizzy light and the Brylcreemed dark in everyone and everything.