You could be forgiven for dismissing Halt and Catch Fire as second-rate Mad Men. You might even be right. After all, the sophomore AMC
drama created by Christopher Cantwell and Christopher C. Rogers is hardly the
masterpiece that Matthew Weiner’s acclaimed, seven-season meditation on the
American Dream was even in its youth, and its resemblance to the latter borders
on suspicious at times.
I mean, come on.
Speaking of Cameron, she’s the
Peggy Olson of Halt and Catch Fire,
an idealistic young prodigy who the hero takes under his wing; her alternately
affectionate and resentful interactions with Joe recall Peggy and Don’s volatile
relationship. Donna initially occupies the obligatory neglected wife role, though
unlike with Betty Draper, the other characters soon learn to recognize and
appreciate her value, and in a pleasantly surprising reversal, the second
season has positioned Gordon as a bored house-husband while Donna gets absorbed
in her work. Both shows even include amusing side-stories involving typically
straitlaced women trying marijuana.
Yet, after a rather uninspired beginning, I found myself thoroughly enjoying Halt and Catch Fire as I binged the first season on Netflix (for
me, “binging” means consuming 1-3 episodes a day, which I guess for some people
is known as “watching TV”). I couldn’t help but succumb to Lee Pace’s haughty
charisma; the dysfunctional, frequently hostile relationships; the pleasure of
seeing Donna upend everybody’s expectations, including the audience’s; the
coolly retro soundtrack and credits sequence. As
much as I love Game of Thrones,
there’s something to be said for a show that creates tension out of lost
computer files.
In a way, it turned out to be the
perfect rebound, filling, however incompletely, the gaping hole left in my
TV-viewing heart by Mad Men. For all
the aforementioned similarities, I would argue that Halt and Catch Fire is not, in fact, a cheap knockoff of the
seminal ad agency drama but a rejoinder, approaching the same problems – how
are people shaped by society? Is happiness possible? What is our purpose in
life? – from a radically different angle.
Never forget.
Halt
and Catch Fire picks up a decade after Mad
Men ends. The Vietnam War is over; the trauma of Watergate is fading into
history; the economy is recovering from the worst financial crisis since the
Great Depression. A new normal has emerged, and it looks markedly like the old
one: whatever progress feminism has made, women are still expected to take care
of the home while their husbands pursue greatness. Given the notorious
conservatism of the time period, it’s fitting that, aside from a couple heavy-handed
attempts at symbolism (broken-winged bird = vulnerability, hurricane = inner chaos),
Halt and Catch Fire eschews Mad Men’s flights of fancy in favor of
something more literal and austere. This is a society that’s bought what Sterling
Cooper sold – things make your life better.
Unique? Interesting word choice. What are you really asking for? Give me something special, something warm, something fuzzy? This is a machine. It’s not your friend. It’s your employee; it works for you. And the way it should be evaluated is thus: how well and how fast does it do the things I ask? Answer: instantly. Anything less is a waste of your time. What is the margin of error? Answer: zero. Anything more and you fail. Here’s another one, one that’s infinitely more important than “unique” will ever be: speed. Let’s cut through the bullshit and act like adults. You want speed. And this machine is the fastest one for you, period. You want to play a game with your kid? Join him for craft time at preschool. You want a buddy? Buy a dog. You want to chase rainbows, tilt the room? Walk outside. There are a hundred casinos built for delusional people like you who think the world is going to change so easily. You want to get something done? Buy one of these.
The pitch is ruthless in its candor, the anti-Carousel. It points to a
fundamental difference between Don and Joe: they are both salesmen, but whereas
the former is selling an idea, the latter is selling a product. In fact, Joe
would most likely scoff at Don’s penchant for nostalgic sentimentality and
existential angst. The age of digital technology has no room for doubt or
idealism; you live like there are only tomorrows, like your very survival
depends on moving forward at all times, because one look back means you’re left
in the contrail. The past has become not only unpleasant but irrelevant, a
jumble of mistakes, failures and disappointments, best forgotten as soon as
possible. It’s little wonder people so quickly lost interest in space
exploration: after the initial thrill of Neil Armstrong’s historic feat, you
realize nothing’s actually changed. We’re still stuck on the same boring,
messed-up planet. Mad Men asked,
“What if we go to the moon?” Halt and
Catch Fire asks, “What if we go to the moon and all we find is a giant
rock?”
Jodie Foster can relate.
There’s a reason pop culture is so fascinated by mad-genius
scientists and artificial intelligence. They transform the mundane (builder,
metal box) into the miraculous (creator,
metal soul), lend humanity to the inhuman. As it turns out, we’re not satisfied
with just a machine or just code. We want something poetic, something with a touch
of mystery and beauty, something we can fall in love with. If Mad Men strives to strip away our myths
and uncover an underlying truth, Halt and
Catch Fire provides an argument for the necessity of myths. Beneath all the
characters’ talk of progress and the future lurks a nagging fear – where do we
go after we succeed? What happens when the unknown becomes known?
Links:
Screenshot from AMC’s Mad
Men, episode 6.1 “The Doorway”
Screenshot from AMC’s Halt
and Catch Fire, episode 1.6 “Landfall”
No comments:
Post a Comment