I wouldn’t argue that the show’s portrayal of early sixties is inaccurate, but one of the marks of the show (in most other areas) is a sense of restraint and subtlety. I think the show may be guilty of “chronological snobbery” in its loud emphasis on how bad things were in “those” days.

“Regardless, it seems strange to expect someone who doesn’t share our worldview to make art that reflects our worldview. And it seems especially strange to dismiss a fabulous work of art as incomplete that does expose truth in a way that hasn’t been done in its medium just for that reason.”

I actually “dismiss” the show on the aforementioned grounds because I like it so much, not out of prudishness. The characters and writing are excellent. I love its “literary” quality. My objections arise from the “it could be be better if” category. Mad Men gets so many things “right,” that areas of artistic weakness are that much more glaring.

I am curious to see how the show will treat Don’s kids and his relationship to them (especially Sally!–what a great actress!) in Season 4.

Don’s liberated, but I think it happens in California. That scene in the ocean is a baptism of sorts, and everything that’s happened since is fallout from it. Suzanne’s not much different from his other conquests, so I don’t see her as a shining light in his darkness – just another interesting toy that he’ll tire of eventually. Don’s problem isn’t Betty (though Betty’s certainly seems to be Don); his problem is himself. Yes their marriage was toxic, but Don’s plenty toxic on his own. Regardless of what Weiner says, I don’t see the end of the marriage as liberation, just inevitable fallout.

And I’m afraid I can’t agree with you that the show’s incorrect in its portrayal of the society that led to the cultural revolutions of the sixties. Of course it’s hyperbolic – it’s about ad executives on Madison Avenue for crying out loud! These aren’t “regular” people, and they’re exactly the kind of people who would have lived to the extreme of these stereotypes. We have documentation and anecdotal evidence to prove that these people did, in fact, exist. Heck, the show frighteningly parallels the lives of some of my grandparents.

And I still can’t agree with you on the show not showing what we’ve lost. Especially in this season with the storyline with Grandpa Gene, the impact of Don and Betty’s selfishness on the children is excruciating (especially Sally). And that’s just on the actual innocents in the show. While Don’s affairs are exciting, they’re not glamorous – they’re depressing and Weiner lets us see that time and time again.

And I’m also not sure we should expect someone like Weiner to express what we want to see in a historical piece. Maybe your concern is the disintegration of the family, but maybe Weiner’s experience is different, and a broken family is better than a false one. Or maybe, like our society, he just accepts broken families as a fact of modern life that we finally acknowledge rather than hide behind Good Housekeeping’s images. Regardless, it seems strange to expect someone who doesn’t share our worldview to make art that reflects our worldview. And it seems especially strange to dismiss a fabulous work of art as incomplete that does expose truth in a way that hasn’t been done in its medium just for that reason.

However, to address your earlier bafflement about my assessment of Don’s “liberation”:

1) Matt Weiner has repeatedly asserted in interviews that Don and Betty’s marriage is unequivocally bad–it was built on a lie and it’s good that it’s over. He has expressed deep frustration toward fans who want to see Don and Betty work things out. He doesn’t think they should have worked it out for the kids, or anything else. He truly sees the divorce as liberating, and thinks the viewer should, too. This is not to say that he treats it glibly.

(I do grant that his intended “liberation” may be an artistic failure on his part, and what he wants may not come across strongly enough on screen.)

2) Also, as another Mad Men commentator has suggested, I think Mad Men is an argument for “why the sixties had to happen” (referencing the later sixties). The writers trumpet the characters’ un-PC behavior, and make you root for the end of racial and gender inequality. I think the show makes the viewer cheer for the coming time of “liberation” in that sense (…and I think that Weiner is trying to parallel this with Don’s experiences. Don has been biting at the bit all season for “something new,” and has been talking a lot about looking forward. I think Weiner wants the ending of the Drapers’ marriage to contribute to this. He seems to be saying, “Yes, it’s sad that the children will suffer, but wonderful for Don and Betty to be finally free of each other.” The writers also claim Don’s lover Suzanne is a “proto-flower girl,” and pushing Don in her direction is, I think, significant.).

When I wonder if the series will give time to “innocence lost,” I wonder if the show will merely revel in the coming upheaval of the later sixties, or if they will nuance this and acknowledge that while we gained much, we also lost much (particularly in the institution of the family).

And to question when the show will give air time to “innocence lost and families torn asunder”… I have to ask again, what show have you been watching? Mad Men is gut-wrenching in its portrayal of the pain Don’s free-wheeling (and now Betty’s rejection) bring to their children, their lovers, and everyone around them.

Mad Men is excellent because it dares to attempt a cinematic storytelling that is absent from television. It does in a season what most shows would do in a pilot. It gives the viewer time to journey with the characters at a pace much more like real life, breathing life and desperation into situations that most shows would either tritely glorify (a la Gossip Girl) or tritely ‘fix’ (a la Touched by an Angel).

It demands to be read like a book, not consumed like entertainment. And when you take the time to do so, it opens layers of poignant, painful, honest examinations of human nature in a tumultuous time for American society.