Who thinks that Mad Men is historically accurate?! I never got that impression. I never got the impression that it was hyped that way either.

For example, everyone knows that there were in fact, Black (M)ad Men by the late 60s yet, you don't see one on this show. It is certainly not regarded as an accurate representation of history or society and it was never my impression that people regarded it as such.

It is fiction and just one perspective. Mostly by Matt Weiner and/or a collective of writers writing under his direction.

It would be sad if anyone regarded this show as a history lesson.

While I think you are right, I'd disagree with the perception. I've read a ton of stuff about howmuch research goes into recreating the exact look, slang, etc, of not just an era but an actual year. I watch the little 5 minute "Inside the episode" videos that AMC's website hosts, and Weiner often goes on about how much the writing team research all these elements.

For example: http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2013/04/24/mad-men-creator-admits-to-historical-error-on-show/

Re black Mad Men: On civil rights, and the introduction of Dawn...

"There were no black secretaries and no black employees period (outside the mailroom) at ad agencies throughout New York City, and that was true in 1972, not 1966," says Cherson.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/entertainment/2012/04/reviewing-mad-men-world-someone-who-was-there/50851/

They do a lot of research, and play on that, but it doesn't make it historically accurate. It's a fictional show set in the past that sues real events as backdrop.

It is fiction. Not a documentary. AMC can promote it as the encyclopedia Britannica to suit their own purposes.

Edited June 4, 201312 yr by DramatistDreamer

It is fiction. Not a documentary. AMC can promote it as the encyclopedia Britannica to suit their own purposes.

I absolutely agree with you. But I do think the perceptoni s not completely unfounded or silly. Weiner is a great writer, but he often says things he probably shouldn't--and he has publicly said many times how important it is to get any historical era elements or details as completely right as possible. Including things like that there were not many black copy-writers(according to that copy-writer interviewed anyway) in the major firms, etc. And he didn't with the soap stuff. Oh well.

SFT had "Hazel" and her evil twin Sue in the 50's. EON had Millette Alexander playing lookalike cousins in the 60's. Megan playing twins by 1968 is just a logical continuation of those occurrences, just years before twins became a soap staple (Adam/Stuart; Marley/Vicky; Pat/Maggie; Marlena/Samantha, etc.). In MM universe, maybe Megan's twin characters are the forerunners of all the others.

Megan auditioned for DARK SHADOWS last season and it was pretty obvious that it was for the recast of Victoria Winters. The first recast was quickly fired, as Megan said her friend who got the part was.

Not sure why MM created a fake soap for Megan--BERKSHIRE FALLS (some recaps call it TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, but I believe that's BF's rival soap). Would love for Megan to be playing Leslie Bauer on THE GUIDING LIGHT! However, I do love her scenes with Arlene, played by soap vet Joanna Going.

The only reason I could see for a fake soap is so that he can show scenes on it that are not based on an actual scenes in an actual soap (though when he had Megan in that odd Off-Broadway play DID use a real play from the year it was set down to the design.)

Joanna Going is perfect in her role--I only know her soap work as... VIctoria Winters in the Dark Shadows reboot.

Hael and Sue were never on the show at the same time (was the real Hazel ever on SFT anyway?) right?

Edited June 5, 201312 yr by EricMontreal22

She was also Felicia's psychic niece on AW from 87-89 (her main story was a romance with Larry Lau/Jamie Frame).