http://www.lrb.co.uk/v30/n20/grei01_.htmlThis article raises some good points, but some really annoying ones.
Good point: Yeah, the apparent emphasis on "Look how silly those people in the past were!" is sometimes a bit jarring. Although, if people really were sexist, it's not necessarily condemning the past to simply portray that.
Bad point: "Great moments in the history of advertising are simply acted out, rather in the way Kraft Television Theater in its day might have dramatised scenes from the life of George Washington." Well, yeah. Historical fiction does this all the time. What, do you want a scholarly analysis of the psychology and effectiveness of advertising? I'm sure that that would make a really fun show.
Really bad point: "The less you think about the plot the more you are free to luxuriate in the low sofas and Eames chairs, the gunmetal desks and geometric ceiling tiles and shiny IBM typewriters. Not to mention the lush costuming: party dresses, skinny brown ties, angora cardigans, vivid blue suits and ruffled peignoirs, captured in the pure dark hues and wide lighting ranges that Technicolor never committed to film." I really hate this dismissive idea that costumes and sets and so forth are nice but some how superfluous to the quality of a show. It's like saying that the way a novel is written has nothing to do with how good it is. You can have a great-looking show that still sucks (The Tudors) but attention to these details is important in making a good show.
Yeah, Mad Men is not as good as the Sopranos , but it's a damn enjoyable show.