- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message

Mad Men: Season 5 poster controversy
Posted on 1/31/12 at 5:11 pm
Posted on 1/31/12 at 5:11 pm
quote:
On September 11, 2001, Richard Drew took a picture. He was a photographer for the Associated Press, and he'd been dispatched to downtown New York, where the twin towers of the World Trade Center were on fire — were, indeed, already ruins, even before they fell. When he staked out his place near the police perimeter, however, Drew focused not on the fire but on the falling. People were jumping out of the towers in droves, and after they jumped, they fell. Drew pointed his lens at them and followed them down. He shot them en masse and he shot them individually, and at 9:41 AM he shot a man in a white shirt and black pants tumbling in the air, scrambling in the air, but appearing to manage one blessed moment of consonance before completing his fall out of the camera's view. This photograph — the photograph of a man falling 1,000 feet headfirst somehow righting himself before joining the ruin — is the photograph that appeared the next day in the New York Times and in newspapers all over the world. It had no title, and after readers protested its publication, it was withdrawn from view.
Six years later, AMC broadcast the first episode of its drama about the Golden Age of Madison Avenue, Mad Men. The title sequence portrayed a man — the stark silhouette of a man — in a suit and a tie, falling from the window of an office tower. Was the image a reference to Drew's photograph? Absolutely. Did the entire show exist within the peculiar set of quotation marks that 9/11 furnished, and travel back 50 years in order to reckon obliquely with the last ten? It did, which accounts for the almost forensic nature of our fascination with it. The show doesn't merely begin with a sequence portraying a man's fall. The show begins with a man's fall to tell us that it's about a man's fall — to tell us that as it begins, it will also end.
And now AMC stands weirdly accused of making reference to 9/11, in its promotional poster for Mad Men's fifth season, set to commence on Sunday, March 25. On the one hand, the poster is merely a continuation of the art that has accompanied the show since its inception — a bit of shorthand that refers as much to the viewing public's impatience to get Mad Men back after its extended hiatus as it does to the existential consequences of Dick Whitman impersonating a dead man named Don Draper. At the same time, the poster dispenses with the corporate context specific to Mad Men, indeed with context altogether, and, by concentrating on one falling man, seems out to remind viewers that the show is really about the Falling Man... that for all its American-Century trappings, it's set squarely in the age of American decline.
per Esquire :: read more here
Posted on 1/31/12 at 5:16 pm to Rohan2Reed
FWIW, having seen the opening credits to MM and if I had seen that poster without the 9-11 pic next to it I wouldnt have connected 9-11 to MM.
Much ado about nothing here IMHO
Much ado about nothing here IMHO
Posted on 1/31/12 at 5:17 pm to Rohan2Reed
quote:
and after readers protested its publication, it was withdrawn from view.
I doubt it was "the readers" who protested...it wasn't the readers who decreed we could never show footage of 9/11 ever again because that would anger us away from being peaceful Hindu cows.
Posted on 1/31/12 at 5:17 pm to Rohan2Reed
Im sure this has crossed peoples minds, just not mine.
Posted on 1/31/12 at 5:21 pm to LordSnow
I agree. The author of the piece goes on to say as much, that the "controversy" is just pathetic bloggers looking to drum up some fuss, but he goes on to create quite an interesting and thought-provoking article. I found this particularly profound:
quote:
Still, when a television network is accused of exploiting a sacred 9/11 image for its own purposes, it's worth looking once again at the image in question to see what those purposes might be. In particular, it's worth reminding ourselves that the guardians of American culture have been exploiting sacred 9/11 images since at least 9/12, and that Drew's photograph was initially deemed anything but sacred — was declared "exploitative" — because it told a truth that could not be easily exploited. At a time when the country was greedy for heroes and martyrs to give purpose to its pain, Drew's photograph portrayed a victim representative in his fear, his desperation, and in his solitary resolve. At a time when the country was desperate for images that were communal and redemptive, Drew gave it a man left to the mercy not of God but of gravity, and dying utterly alone.
Posted on 1/31/12 at 5:28 pm to Rohan2Reed
A part of their original column on the photo I thought was really cool:
But to the point of this thread, I would've never thought of the similarity of the 2 honestly.
quote:
Some people who look at the picture see stoicism, willpower, a portrait of resignation; others see something else -- something discordant and therefore terrible: freedom. There is something almost rebellious in the man's posture, as though once faced with the inevitability of death, he decided to get on with it; as though he were a missile, a spear, bent on attaining his own end.
But to the point of this thread, I would've never thought of the similarity of the 2 honestly.
Posted on 1/31/12 at 6:02 pm to Marciano1
on a side note, if you ever get a chance to watch the documentary "falling man", I suggest you do. It is about the search to find the identity of the man in the photo.
Posted on 1/31/12 at 6:03 pm to Rohan2Reed
nt
This post was edited on 1/31/12 at 8:59 pm
Posted on 1/31/12 at 6:22 pm to bomber77
quote:this.
Im sure this has crossed peoples minds, just not mine.
quote:extremely uncalled for and disrespectful.
Mad Men is set in the 1960's, long before 9-11. Seems to me like all the 9-11 jumpers were just copying Don Draper.
This post was edited on 1/31/12 at 6:23 pm
Posted on 1/31/12 at 6:58 pm to JBeam
quote:
extremely uncalled for and disrespectful.
This. I'm by no means a prude, but Jesus Christ.
Unecessary.
Posted on 1/31/12 at 7:00 pm to Alabama Slim
quote:
on a side note, if you ever get a chance to watch the documentary "falling man", I suggest you do. It is about the search to find the identity of the man in the photo.
I don't mean to get off topic, but you should check out "The Bridge", too. It's about the countless suicides at Golden Gate. They profile about nine people or so. It's some pretty heavy stuff.
LINK
Posted on 1/31/12 at 7:22 pm to Maynard James Keenan
I don't see anything wrong with the picture.
Posted on 1/31/12 at 8:16 pm to Maynard James Keenan
quote:I watched this. Extremely depressing and makes me look at the Golden Gate Bridge in a totally different light.
I don't mean to get off topic, but you should check out "The Bridge", too. It's about the countless suicides at Golden Gate. They profile about nine people or so. It's some pretty heavy stuff.
Posted on 1/31/12 at 8:43 pm to LordSnow
quote:
FWIW, having seen the opening credits to MM and if I had seen that poster without the 9-11 pic next to it I wouldnt have connected 9-11 to MM.
My thought as well. I also have to respectfully disagree with this tidbit too:
quote:
The title sequence portrayed a man — the stark silhouette of a man — in a suit and a tie, falling from the window of an office tower. Was the image a reference to Drew's photograph? Absolutely.
I always thought of it more of an Alice falling down the Rabbit Hole deal. Just a personal interpretation.
This post was edited on 1/31/12 at 8:44 pm
Posted on 1/31/12 at 8:49 pm to BluegrassBelle
quote:hmm i could see this. I can't stand the folks who believe the title has something to do with draper committing suicide.
I always thought of it more of an Alice falling down the Rabbit Hole deal. Just a personal interpretation.
Posted on 1/31/12 at 9:10 pm to JBeam
quote:
hmm i could see this. I can't stand the folks who believe the title has something to do with draper committing suicide.
Me neither. Which I think loops back around to the OP a bit in that I think people have become a little too PC in artistic interpretation. Sometimes there's too much of a connection to things like 9/11 and the assumption that it's not something as basic as a man free-falling/out of control in a crazy environment.
That's not discounting the interpretation by the blogger, because I certainly am not inside the head of any Mad Men creator. I just get a little annoyed by the constant ties to something like 9/11 in things that may just be pure coincidence.
Posted on 1/31/12 at 9:16 pm to BluegrassBelle
quote:nailed my opinion.
That's not discounting the interpretation by the blogger, because I certainly am not inside the head of any Mad Men creator. I just get a little annoyed by the constant ties to something like 9/11 in things that may just be pure coincidence.
Since we're talking about Season5, who else is excited?
Posted on 1/31/12 at 9:19 pm to JBeam
quote:
Since we're talking about Season5, who else is excited?
I may have an aneurysm from overwhelming awesomeness between March 25th (Mad Men) and April 1 (Game of Thrones).
Posted on 1/31/12 at 9:30 pm to BluegrassBelle
quote:I still can't believe it's been a year since a new episode. Im pretty excited about the 2 hour premiere.
I may have an aneurysm from overwhelming awesomeness between March 25th (Mad Men) and April 1 (Game of Thrones).
Popular
Back to top

4









