Category Archives: Jon Hamm

Analog This: Mad Men Season 5 Finale

Leave a reply
Jessica Pare: Humanizing French Canadians Since 2010.

Warning! May contain some minor spoilers for the season five finale. Read with caution.

Two years ago, when the previous season of “Mad Men” was drawing to a close, I claimed that the fourth season was the best season yet (I’m also not entirely sure I actually knew what the word “dissertation” meant). I take it back, because season five blew every other season out of the water. And unless season six can work miracles, and I know Matthew Weiner is good at doing that, it will be tough to top this one.

Yet, the season finale, entitled “The Phantom,” was a little bit disappointing. It was definitely not a bad episode. I think my expectations for “Mad Men” are a bit too high. But when a major character dies a week before, it seems a little peculiar to only mention the tragedy once the week after. And while throwing in Don’s brother was a nice touch (it tied in with his guilt over Lane’s death), it felt a little bit out of nowhere considering the fact that Don was less haunted than usual by his past this season. As did  the cliffhanger, which questioned whether or not Don would return to his adulterous days.
Nonetheless, it was still a fitting way to tie together a fantastic season. A lot happened this season, and I’m hoping this list below can account for as much of it as possible. Here are some of the reasons why season five was so damn good:

It took a turn for the surreal: “Mad Men” took some storytelling risks this season. It often felt less grounded in reality. One episode involved an elaborate dream sequence in which Don murdered a woman and effectively extinguished a piece of his soul. It also included an LSD trip. More on that coming up.
The New Don Draper: Chuck Klosterman wrote a very thoughtful peace on “The New Don.” I didn’t know if Don would be as interesting a person without his alcohol, copious cigarettes, and many affairs. Turns out that can’t be possible. The new Don is a better Don because of Megan (Jessica Pare). To borrow a line from “Jerry Maguire,” she completes him. She is the ying to his yang. She is filled with the youthful energy and ambition that he was beginning to lose as he reached middle age. Also, while we’ve seen Don going through many existential crises with his family life, this was his first major existential crisis at work. For a brief while, the life of an ad executive didn’t seem to be for him.
The New Betty and Sally: I have to hand it to “Mad Men” for making two of my least favorite characters likable this past season. Sally (Kiernan Shipka) gets better the closer you draw her to the adult world. Meanwhile, Betty (January Jones) seems much less empty and shallow when she has a real problem to deal with. 
Michael Ginsberg: Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce went through some major changes this season, including the hiring of its first African American, and its first Jew. Michael Ginsberg (Ben Feldman) became one of the show’s best characters, with the ambiguous revelation that his backstory might include being born in a concentration camp. He also has an odd, outgoing, and unforgettable personality. Some might call him a Jewish stereotype, which to me is just another word for totally relatable.
John Slattery: As Roger Sterling, John Slattery walked away with every scene he was in with his hilariously sardonic sensibility. While evaluating his own purpose at Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce, Roger became more valuable to the show than ever. He also had a few pretty big revelations this season. Speaking of which…
Roger Takes LSD: This season, the usually old school Roger attends a fancy party (surprisingly lacking monocles) and drops acid. It is not some stereotypically bad trip of melted colors, but rather one of the greatest scenes crafted on this show. It goes from funny (an orchestra playing every time Roger opens a bottle of liquor) to moving (Roger hearing the sounds of cars from his childhood). And it is all perfectly set to The Beach Boys’ “I Just Wasn’t Made For These Times.” And most importantly, this wasn’t just some throw away scene: Roger really changed from it. And it effected him the rest of the season.
Something French: Season five kicked off with Megan’s memorable rendition of Gillian Hills’ “Zou Bisou Bisou,” met with a very awkward reaction from Don and company. The catchy song quickly reached the pop culture lexicon, and was even featured on an episode of “30 Rock.” Between this, and Francoise Hardy’s “Le Temps de l’Amour” making an appearance in “Moonrise Kingdom,” I hereby proclaim 2012 the year that 1960s French pop music became popular again in America.

Connecticut: It’s nice to see that my homeland became a representation for suburban boredom. I can’t say that living here is as exciting as living in New York City, but at least I didn’t grow up in Cos Cob.

Pete Campbell: Even after five seasons, I still don’t quite know how to feel about Campbell (Vincent Kartheiser), the ambitious child of privilege. On the one hand, he’s constantly selfish and conniving. On the other hand, he exemplified this season that even if you have everything you want, it’s possible to still be missing something. As Don became more and more of a moral compass, Pete transformed into the man Don once was [Editor’s Note: How could anyone possibly cheat on Alison Brie? How?]. Kartheiser is one of the ensemble’s best actors. Nonetheless, it was a great moment of schadenfreude to watch him get punched in the face.

Filed Under: First World Problems.
I can’t even say if this post does the entire season justice. What were your thoughts on season five? Were you satisfied by the finale? What questions do you need answers to? And did you finally figure out what this poster meant?

Movie Review: Friends With Kids

Leave a reply

Let’s clear one thing up right now from the trailer of “Friends with Kids”: this is not a rom-com. This is not even a comedy about love. It is more along the lines of a dramedy with some awkward laughs, and a lot of babies ruining things. Man, do children ruin everything.


The main group of friends of “Friends with Kids” like to talk. A lot. About everything. I guess that’s what 30-something Manhattanites are supposed to do. In a fancy restaurant, two couples and two best friends discuss the mundane. Platonic best friends Jason (Adam Scott) and Julie (Jennifer Westfeldt) remark how much they hate the parents around them who bring their kids to a restaurant like this, to which Alex (Chris O’Dowd) and Leslie (Maya Rudolph) announce that they plan to have a baby. Some brief, yet awkwardly hilarious tension ensues.

Four years later, Alex and Leslie have two kids. The other couple Ben (Jon Hamm) and Missy (Kristen Wiig) are also knee deep in babies. Ben and Missy weirdly seem to share a brain. Alex and Leslie meanwhile, are two very different personalities. Leslie is more uptight and stern, and Alex is the complete opposite. They fight a lot, but it is always clear that they love each other. As Alex, Chris O’Dowd chews up the scenery and brings humor back to having a foul mouth. He shows off the comedic skill that he could not in his nice guy role in “Bridesmaids.”

At this point, Jason and Julie are still single. They both want children, but without marriage, as they see it tearing as tearing apart the personal well being of their other friends. On impulse, they hatch the plan to have a baby while simply remaining friends. They are both the kind of people who believe they can have it all, so they decide to take part in this social experiment. The real lesson here: never have a baby before doing your research.

Julie gives birth and at first, the arrangement works out as well as they imagined it would. Then, problems arise when they both do what they set out to do: raise a child, and date other people at the same time. Jason gives in to his shallow tendencies and dates the beautiful, but empty Broadway dancer Mary Jane (Megan Fox, who hopefully didn’t call anyone Hitler on set), and Julie dates single father Kurt (Edward Burns), who is so perfect to the point of being an absolute bore.

“Friends with Kids” is an eclectic mix of Woody Allen and Robert Altman: it combines philosophical musings on love and relationships with bountiful overlapping conversations, with a profound love of New York City. The writing is often times sharp and full of wit, and lets the conversations drag on just before their breaking point. Rarely does a movie driven more by talking than plot get made, and rarely does it ever actually work.

Romantic comedies like to ask the question a lot of whether to people can be a couple without being in a relationship. In fact, it happened twice last year (“No Strings Attached,” “Friends with Benefits”). When it comes to romance, there are two rules that Hollywood lives by: true love exists, and if two friends have sex, they will eventually fall in love. “Friends with Kids” falls under the latter rule, but goes further than that. No two friends can raise another human being together without feeling the bond of love. This is why surrogate mothers exist.

Putting an image of Megan Fox in an article is a guarenteed way to increase the amount of hits you get.

But I like “Friends with Kids,” and the fact that it doesn’t just fall under the rules, but asks questions about why they mean, and why they are even there in the first place. This is not a movie where big events happen, but rather the story unfolds in walks through Central Park, dinner parties, and ski trips.

The dialogue has a very rapid fire that can be hard to keep up with. This is why I assume that five of the six deft actors in the cast are best known for work on television. Scott, usually a great supporting actor, steps up to the plate in his first true leading role. He takes his kind, nerdy role in “Parks and Rec” and the alpha male cockiness of his role in “Step Brothers,” and uses it all for Jason. He sells his ending speech with the genuine emotional breakdown that comes along with it. Scott is one of the best actors out there today; this guy never phones it in.

A few big problems that “Friends with Kids” has is that sometimes, it does reach the breaking point on conversations. The whole movie seems to be an experiment about a social experiment but sometimes, it does drag on a little too long. There is something of an underutilization of the actors, which ultimately leads to trouble with the story itself. For example, Hamm and Wiig are gone for a majority of the movie and when they come back, their marriage is inexplicably in shambles. And why does a character rendered as meaningless as Hamm’s Ben, get the honor of giving the speech that proves to be the turning point of the movie? Someone should have watched Don Draper’s Guide to Picking Up Women.

Westfeldt provides a look on love, marriage, and family that is funny, entertaining, and most importantly, honest. The honesty part is hard to come by nowadays. It is hard to get me to see a romantic comedy, and I’ll admit that what made me want to see “Friends with Kids” most was the cast. The ending is just about what you would expect it to be, but how it gets there is much more important. This is a comedy about the reality of romance, not the movie version of it.

Now That The Oscars Are Over…

Leave a reply
…I can finally start talking about important things again, such as the return of “Mad Men” on March 25. The show has been on hiatus for almost two years ago, and that unbearably long time almost made me forget how great this show is. “Breaking Bad” has taken over the spotlight as AMC’s best show, but one does not simply forget about “Mad Men.”

I bring this up because today, a very provocative teaser poster was revealed for the next season. Usually, teasers don’t mean much to me, but “Mad Men” creator Matthew Weiner can brilliantly tell the story of the entire upcoming season in just one image. From what I can tell, we will be entering a much less sheltered era. Things will become much more exposed, including Don Draper (Jon Hamm) himself. Weiner ambiguously says that by the end of this season, we will know what the show is really about. This fifth season could be the show’s best one yet. But let’s not get too ahead of ourselves yet. For now, take a look at the new poster. Discuss:

Read more over at The New York Times.

Summer 2011: In Which Woody Allen Saves Hollywood

Leave a reply

Summer is the season that studios are supposed to provide audiences with movies that provide unforgettable entertainment. In the past, this season has given us “Jaws” and “Star Wars.” Gone are those great days. In the outside world, it was one of the hottest summers on records. In cinemas across the country, it was one of the most miserable.

The summer of 2011 was the summer in which 3D killed itself along with good storytelling, with few notable exceptions. Woody Allen’s “Midnight in Paris,” without even meaning to be, became everything that the summer movie should be: wise and whimsical escapism. It is the most memorable movie he has made in years, and one that deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as “Annie Hall” and “Hannah and Her Sisters.”
Summer movies are all about creating a spectacle and the site of 1920s Paris is a spectacle, albeit one that didn’t cost $300 million to shoot.”Midnight in Paris” is Allen’s return to his anti-intellectualism roots. Some scenes are about as good as the Marshall McLuhan scene from “Annie Hall.” Plus, Owen Wilson is the most convincing Woody Allen stand-in to grace the screen thus far.
Before getting to the mediocre, it is necessary to acknowledge the good. Most of the best summer movies were definitely not saved for last. “Bridesmaids” was not the groundbreaking triumph in the women’s rights movement as some suggested, but simply a near-perfect comedy. “Bridesmaids” works because of its playful anti-romantic comedy feel that’s sometimes nasty but never really mean. In other words, it loves every single one of its characters. All of the dialogue and situations flow with the awkward and unforced feel of reality. One of the most underrated masters of awkward comedy (Paul Feig) got his moment in the sun. And the star and co-writer, Kristen Wiig, has gone from “Saturday Night Live” skit saver to bankable Hollywood actress. Sometimes, success in Hollywood can be well deserved.
Also at summer’s beginning was the superb “The Tree of Life.” It was a head scratcher, but more in the “2001: A Space Odyssey” sense. At this point in his career, Terrence Malick has earned the right to tell a story that jumps back and forth between the creation of the universe, 1950s Texas, and dinosaurs. Even in their shortest moments, those family scenes felt so real. It was never meant to create a complete portrait of their lives, but it is rather the story of how our memories, and our very existences, fit in to the universe as a whole. In the whole scheme of things, does it really matter how we live our lives? That is a question, along with many others that Malick raises, that countless people will explore for years to come.
The great thing about a film about “The Tree of Life” is that it didn’t pander to its audience in order to make something that they want. Sometimes, the best directors make different and difficult movies because sometimes, those are the movies we ought to be seeing more of. Unfortunately, some filmmakers don’t seem to realize that, and that plays a part in this mediocre summer. I didn’t see “Transformers 3″ or “Green Lantern” or “Thor,” so I can’t speak for any of those movies. However, I did see “Super 8.” While it was a highly entertaining and superbly made piece of 70s nostalgia throughout, its ending reversed all its progress. It is great that J.J. Abrams took his time on his film and didn’t reveal the monster instantaneously. However, its ending resolved every plot line too quickly and too easily and what should have been thrilling came out as dull.
“Horrible Bosses” also missed the mark just slightly. While its three leads (Jason Bateman, Jason Sudekis, Charlie Day) pulled off three of the best comedic performances I’ve seen in years, a certain part of the story involving a navigation system turned the film into a sellout. The characters get themselves into some pretty terrible situations thanks to their stupidity, but letting them off the hook that easily doesn’t seem fair to anyone. Despite that, Bateman can still deliver a punchline with flawless deadpan, and Day can seem innocently insane even when he’s not parading cats with mittens around.
In the end though, 2011 can be defined as “The Summer of Meh.” This is not the state of an angry reaction, but rather an uncaring one. I could talk about how terrible “Cowboys & Aliens” is but nothing about that movie really motivates me to. “Midnight in Paris” was the rare film that deserved to be seen by a wide audience and with a little patience, it was. “Terri” is probably going to go on my year end list, but it won’t be in a theater near you anytime ever.
This summer, movies lost their mojo. Hopefully, Hollywood will take this as a learn from their mistakes rather than ignore them, as they always do. Perhaps superhero movies and shoddy 3D are on the way out. While it is understandable that story doesn’t always get people in the theater, it should go without saying that the audience enjoy the product they are paying to see. Luckily, the fall and winter seasons look promising (“Moneyball” and “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo,” particularly). For now, just enjoy some of the fine programming cable television has had to offer this summer. For instance, have you watched “Breaking Bad” yet?
This is one of the funniest still images from a movie ever. Why isn’t this a meme yet?

Mad Men: Dissertation on the Best Season Yet

1 Reply

Warning: Spoilers for the fourth season ahead. Proceed with caution.

When the epic finale of the third season of “Mad Men” ended with the image of Don Draper (Jon Hamm) walking into his hotel, unsure of the future that lay head, I was unsure of one thing: how could the makers of “Mad Men” possibly make an episode of television this good ever again?
Well, Matthew Weiner did it again, for every single episode of the nearly flawless fourth season of “Mad Men.” “Mad Men” took the cautiously optimistic tone of “Shut the Door. Have a Seat” to a whole new level.
Uneasiness seemed to be the theme of this season. Season three ended with the assassination of JFK and season four was set to the backdrop of Vietnam and the Civil Rights Movement. This is no longer the 1960s that “Mad Men” first began in where big men in big suits could sit comfortably behind their desks and ignore the problems of the world. This was a time when reality was leaking into office life.
With this, we also got a changed Don Draper, for better or worse. At one point, we see him trading in whiskey for wine and even questioning his own smoking addiction and incessant love affairs.
Much of this season was really about change, and how people respond to it. In addition to that, the show gave us many welcome changes. A scenery change is always good, and the new office of Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce allowed for even more pressing problems. Another welcome change was the show’s change in attitude. Despite the constantly serious subject matter, the show found a subtle, witty sense of humor this season. Much of this came through the show’s dialogue, mainly banter between the main characters. A lot of this humor also came from small, charming moments which seem inconsequential. One of the best that is easy to forget is Don and Lane (Jared Harris) sharing a bottle of whiskey in a crowded movie theater.
A few of the show’s principle actors also showed a few welcome changes. Mainly young Kiernan Shipka as Sally Draper. This season, she dropped the lisp and whininess and became one of the show’s darker and more interesting characters.
Then there’s Betty Draper (January Jones). It is easy to hate on January Jones because, well, she’s sometimes something of a terrible actress. However, it’s hard playing a character that the audience is forced to hate, so she deserves some credit for that. In the last few moments, after all the horrible things she had just done (mainly, trying to ruin the happiness of everyone around her), she somehow came off as sympathetic. It’s easy to forget that her paranoia and hatred towards all things that breath comes from years of being cheated on by Don. Perhaps the best quote to define Betty this season is this: “Just because you’re sad doesn’t mean everyone else has to be.”
This season also managed to solve its Don and Betty plotline quite well through an unspoken midseason reconciliation between the two that was both revelatory and moving. Then there was those final moments as the two stood in there empty Westchester house, remembering their past and looking into the future. This announced the end of an era for “Mad Men.”
Season four of “Mad Men” brought the show to new levels both story wise and thematically. The characters reached new lows of desperation, whether it had to do with searching for clients or searching for lovers. In this we could find characters constantly falling back into old habits or falling into the habits of others. Every character in this mad mad world is always trying to be someone other than themselves.
And at the center of this of course is Donald Draper, played as strikingly and mysteriously as ever by Jon Hamm. Like the company he helped start, Draper went on a bumpy and confusing course this season. He oscillated between redemption and past troubles. The more his secrets unraveled, the more he felt he had to beef up his fake identity. By marrying the much younger secretary over Faye, he proves to continuously try to slip back into youth rather than move forward.
The greatest moments of “Mad Men” always lie in mystery and intrigue, just like with Draper himself. It’s not just mysteries like “who is Donald Draper?” it’s more like the mystery behind his true emotions and intentions. Am I the only one more interested in what Don was looking at out that window in the final shot than why Joan decided to keep Roger’s baby?
Overall, the reason season four proved “Mad Men” to be the truly amazing show everyone thinks it is is because this season really proved the show’s real ambitions. It is attempting to use the past, settings, and people to re-create the idea of America. Few shows have dared try to achieve something this big since “The Sopranos” and have gotten this close to being right. This season showed us the constant rising and falling of the American Dream. As from episode one, Draper has both exemplified and put down the myth of the self made man. What category he ultimately falls into still remains a mystery.
“Mad Men” has always remained fascinating because of the endless intrigue. What I love best is hard to say. It could be the fact that missing one facial expression can impact one’s perception of an episode. Or it could be how carefully every little detail is put on screen. Most importantly, I like it for a reason different from every other show I’ve ever enjoyed. While I enjoy most shows for having a sort of cinematic value, I enjoy “Mad Men” because its ambitions and overall contributions to the world are too grand to fit into one two hour time frame. The 1960s may be over, but the era of “Mad Men” will always continue.

Movie Review: The Town

2 Replies

Hollywood makes a lot of movies about cops and robbers and elaborate heists. There are few though that truly break down a good heist, and a good criminal mind as well. Luckily, “The Town” has come to theaters. It proves that an actor who once showed little promise in front of the camera knows exactly what he’s doing in the director’s chair.

“The Town” is the sophomore effort from Ben Affleck. His debut, “Gone Baby Gone,” was promising but flawed. “The Town” on the other hand is sleek and wildly entertaining. I can’t call it a masterpiece, but I can say it has pretty much anything a good heist movie should have.
“The Town” is the latest in a long line of recent movies exploring Boston’s criminal underworld. “The Town” refers to the Charlestown section of Boston, the bank robbery capitol of America.
One of the most infamous Charlestown gangs is led by Doug MacRay (Affleck) and includes the hot-headed James Coughlin (Jeremy Renner) who have known nothing but crime their whole life. After one robbery, Doug falls in love with a witness, Claire (Rebecca Hall) and must find a way to balance his career with his new love. At the same time, FBI agent Adam Frawley (Jon Hamm) tries to bring Doug’s crew down.
I wouldn’t quite call “The Town” a love/hate letter to the city of Boston; it’s more of a long note of tough love. Despite the pretty corrupt and negative spin on the city, parts of “The Town” made me realize that only someone who has lived in and really loves this city could ever make this film. Between the screaming and random gun fire there is also the occasional beautiful image of someone walking barefoot on a rocky beach and stepping into the calm surf. Affleck also captures everything from the accents to the mannerisms like only a true Bostonian could.
With “The Town,” Affleck proved himself a skilled director for many reasons. Besides incorporating his own Bostonian knowledge, he also directs like a pro. The action sequences are some of the best I’ve seen all year. Some of the car chase scenes are as enthralling and suspenseful as anything you could ever see at the movies.
What’s most interesting about Affleck’s directing style is that he directs like an actor. There is a subtle, underlying humor throughout and a general sense of affection and understanding for every character no matter what side of the crime scene they’re on.
Unlike say, “The Departed” (which this film is clearly trying to emulate), “The Town” is told almost entirely from the perspective of the criminal, and not the cop. It’s an interesting spin, and it helps create an uneasiness of who to root for in the film. True, the feds may be trying to stop future crimes from happening, but haven’t we stuck with the main character for long enough that it’d be nice to see him get away?
Affleck has begun to show more promise as a director than an actor. However, that is not to say his acting skills haven’t improved. In the role he’s convincing as being both tough and tender, funny and at other times dead serious. He’s come a long way since “Gigli.”
Also continuing to impress are Hamm and Renner. Hamm proves he can play characters beyond the Don Draper mentality (not to insult his role on “Mad Men” in anyway). Meanwhile, Renner shows that his Oscar nomination for “The Hurt Locker” wasn’t for nothing. He has talent for playing men who constantly stick their middle finger out at society, and always want to be fighting someone.
During a time when studios are dumping their worst films into theaters, “The Town” feels like a classic piece of summer entertainment placed into the September doldrums. It’s no groundbreaking masterpiece, but it’s mixture of careful character observation, intricate plot detailing, and extremely well constructed action set pieces that’s hard to come by nowadays. Affleck has found his calling on the opposite end of the camera. I guess there was some true meaning in the film’s often repeated line: “See you on the other side.”
If You Liked this Movie, You’ll also Like: The Departed, Inside Man, Good Will Hunting, Dog Day Afternoon, Trainspotting

If You Want Quality TV: Mad Men

Leave a reply

In case you haven’t caught up with the incessant (but well deserved) media coverage in the past few weeks, television’s best drama, “Mad Men,” will be making it’s triumphant return tomorrow. The season three premiere will be airing Sunday, August 16 at 10 PM on AMC.

“Mad Men” is the best drama currently on TV (sorry, “Lost”). It does so by being multi-layered, well-written, well-acted, well-directed, and visually stunning. 
For those procrastinators out there who want to catch up on the first two seasons, you still have 23 hours to do so. For those of you who want to watch but don’t feel like watching that much television (note: I wouldn’t recommend against this; It would be time well spent), the recap attached below is very helpful: