Everyone is mad about AMC's hip, new period piece, Mad Men - which harkens to and explores the advertising age of the 1960s.
What's the deal?
More to the point, "What's the angle?"
As in the POV?
As in Emmy after Emmy after Emmy?
But for what?
Because the cameras actually stay on the actors and give them the opportunity to act - like how every other TV show and feature film used to do before - oh, I dunno - MTV videos? Miami Vice? The CSI franchise?
Yeah - that's how they used to do it in the MM age of 1960s, but what's really going on here with the multitude of accolades been bestowed upon this show?
I find it so terribly ironic that our industry rewards a new TV show for it's allegedly unique and fresh take.
Ultimately, those behind Mad Men are merely returning to not only the classic 1960s-esque way to shoot a series (or a feature film, for that matter), but the productive way to do so - for the benefit of all concerned - especially the audience.
I completely embrace the integrity of those behind, in front of and surrounding the MM cameras. In returning to the days-of-old ways of guiding lenses, the MM peeps allow the actors to act, to deliver their dialogue and to tell their characters' stories - with grace, dignity and sophistication.
But this should be considered unique?
This should be rewarded?
Certainly, where due, but more so with regard to the brilliant (read sly) men and women who bring us Mad Men, they are being rewarded for having the - dare I-say courage (consciously or not) - to produce and direct a series the way all TV shows and movies used to be produced and directed.
If brilliant means keeping steady the cameras on actors in order to allow them to properly present their craft, then Mad Men is littered with genius.
If brilliant means being smart enough to return to a qualitive, patient and tried and true cinematic method and technique that worked for TV shows and movies for ages, then my POV on Mad Men is glittered with lenience.