Outsider Outfits: Fashion and Difference in Mad Men
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Chiara Settineri Mad Men: Gender, Work, and American Culture VMS 290 Prof. Lamm December 18, 2017 Outsider Outfits: Fashion and Difference in Mad Men AMC’s hit show Mad Men (2007-2015), created by Matthew Weiner, has been widely, critically praised for its stylistic aesthetic and meticulous attention to detail and accuracy. Developing costumes on a show centered around facades, Mad Men’s costume designer Janie Bryant intentionally and artfully crafts the exteriors of the characters and uses clothing pieces that are both true to the era and to the personalities of the characters on the show. Every ensemble reflects the feelings, aspirations, and identities of the individuals who bear them. In this paper, I argue that Mad Men specifically utilizes fashion to emphasize its theme of “the other,” using Helen Bishop, Peggy Olson, and Michael Ginsberg as sites of exploration. As a divorced, economically independent mother, a single working woman, and a Jewish copywriter, respectively, each of these characters represents a departure from the status quo of New York in the 60s. Their separation from the cultural norm is highlighted through their personal style, as each of them refuses to abide by the standards of dress in their own particular ways. Their different tastes not only indicate their distance from the other characters, but also express what exactly differentiates them; their clothing choices expose the ways in which the characters defy expectations placed on them, contributing to their characterization within the show. Helen, Peggy, and Michael participate in a society which champions homogeneity, but each of them subtly rebel against the norms through their clothing—causing enough disruption to create real change in the spheres they inhabit. The Codes of Dress Within this elite New York society of the 1960s, there are tacit standards of dress, which the majority of the characters on Mad Men exemplify. Depending on the environment, characters abide by certain rules of style. In the office, the men are expected to exude composure, representing the wealth of the upper middle class in solid, dull-colored suits, crisp white button- downs, and sleek ties. In her book The Fashion File (2010), centered on style advice and inspiration, Janie Bryant writes that the tailored suit, especially as she styles it in Mad Men, indicates “poise and power” (138). This style may be seen on all the powerful male executives and copywriters who work at Sterling Cooper Draper Price without exception; Don, arguably the most powerful man at SCDP, specifically emphasizes this point as he puts on this uniform in order to assimilate into the status quo and reject his “otherness.” His use of the structured suit is central to his façade, as Don’s success is largely due to his acquisition of another man’s identity, which allowed him to escape the poverty of his youth and begin anew. He essentially uses the business suit as a disguise—covering up his true self, the small-minded, rural Dick Whitman he once was to embody the identity of Don Draper, an intimidating, brooding, and cosmopolitan creative director. Don, fearful of being exposed for his false identity, is hyper-aware of the power produced by the suit. As the reservoir of fresh, white button-downs kept in his desk drawer proves, Don understands the significance of performing authority and identity through wardrobe. His use of clothing as a tool to mask a fractured identity is discussed by Jim Hansen in his essay “Mod Men” (2013). In the essay, Hansen compares Don to the “dandy” archetype and the well-known characters of Dorian Gray and Roger Thornhill to emphasize the way in which Don uses style to “manipulate surfaces,” as he “knows that he is not an entirely unified subject” (146). As Hansen notes, Don consciously “reshap[es] his image” in order to erect a façade of a single identity which he does not actually have; instead of displaying his difference, he keeps it hidden behind “‘empty suits’” (159). Don attempts “to project the image of an urbane, empowered, masculine sophisticate, while he remains a construct of pure style, an imagined man” (154-155). Clearly, Don is aware of the rules of style (especially in the office) and follows them in order to accomplish his goal of assimilation within the upper middle class, where he is a newcomer. Meanwhile, in the suburbs, housewives sport the “New Look” fashion, wearing bright dresses that emphasize their domesticity. The New Look was meant to reintroduce soft and feminine hourglass shapes into fashion, after women were forced back into the domestic sphere after WWII. Mabel Rosenheck discusses this style in her essay, “Swing Skirts and Swinging Singles: Mad Men, Fashion, and Cultural Memory” (2013), where she analyzes the costumes of the women in the show and reveals how they reflect their place in society. Rosenheck uses Betty Draper, the quintessential happy housewife heroine described by Betty Friedan in The Feminine Mystique, to emphasize the New Look of suburban housewives as well as their functions within society in general during the 60s. She describes New Look style, which was “introduced by Christian Dior on Paris runways in 1947,” and states that it “highlight[ed] the female form with a structured bodice, fitted waistline, and voluminous skirt” (167). The wholly impractical yet extravagant items of clothing of the New Look express the traditional role of women as prize items for their husbands; confined by layers of restricting undergarments and wrapped up in copious amounts of tulle and chiffon, suburban housewives were morphed into presents by the New Look, which lacked any true functionality. These restrictive qualities of the style parallel the restrictive gender roles of the period, when women were largely confined to the domestic sphere. After describing these norms, the ways in which Helen, Peggy, and Michael veer from them become more obvious. Though these characters are presented in the spheres described above, they choose not to ascribe to the codes of dress followed by their counterparts. This choice visually portrays their deeper “otherness,” as each character paves their own path rather than conforming to the limited options offered to them. Helen Bishop: Wearing the Pants The wardrobe of Helen Bishop contrasts sharply with the The New Look fashion described earlier. As a new member of the neighborhood in the show’s first season, Helen is just beginning to understand the dynamics of the suburb. Usually clad in neutrals and conservative silhouettes, Helen’s style does not follow the rules of the New Look which embrace the female body in bright colors and hourglass shapes. Adrian Jones discusses this in “All About Betty: Selling the Suburban Housewife in Mad Men.” In his essay, Jones focuses on Betty Draper as he “seeks to examine the representation of Betty as the model WASP suburban housewife, a symbolic role sold to housewives by advertisers” (145). Jones emphasizes three episodes of the show— “Ladies Room,” “Marriage of Figaro,” and “Shoot”—to examine the experience of the suburban housewives of the 60s. The explicit contrast between the model housewives and newcomer Helen Bishop is presented in his discussion of “Marriage of Figaro,” where he emphasizes the way Helen, as a divorced working mother, threatens the status quo. In “Marriage of Figaro,” Helen and the rest of the mothers and fathers in the neighborhood attend Sally’s birthday party at the Draper home, though Helen is the only single person present. Disapproving of both her outfit and her lifestyle, the housewives scrutinize Helen as she walks through the house; as Jones explains, “wearing a candy-striped shirt, off-the- shoulder cardigan and form-fitting slacks, Helen is visually differentiated from the other housewives, who are uniformly attired in party dresses” (Jones 153). Even the husbands pick up on the tension amongst the housewives and Helen, with one saying that “those hens are gonna peck her to death” (“Marriage of Figaro”). Helen is evidently the odd one out, as the only single mother; the concept of balancing both work and domestic responsibilities is foreign to the rest of the party-goers. As Jones writes, “Helen Bishop represents an intrusion and potential threat to motherhood and the integrity of the family unit by demonstrating an alien economic imperative” (153). Helen especially functions as a threat to Betty and her lifestyle, as Betty is the woman on the show who embodies the New Look the most. This idea is underscored by a scene between Helen and Don during Sally’s party: Betty catches them outside looking over the children while they are engrossed in conversation, separate from the adults who are inside. Though nothing happens between Helen and Don, the circumstance still informs Betty’s perception of Helen as a threat. Separating Helen from the stereotypical suburban mother of the era, fashion is utilized as an indicator of difference, especially in this episode. Her wardrobe choices represent a departure from the 60s family dynamic in which women held a limited role, functioning solely within the domestic sphere. The use of fashion to reflect these limitations is expressed in “Fragments of a Fashionable Discourse” (1994). In this essay, kaja Silverman explores the history of fashion, specifically highlighting the way elaborate, flashy clothing was once considered masculine rather than feminine and tracking this shift throughout time. Silverman’s argument surrounding the intimate connection between clothing and the historical production of gender highlights fashion’s influence on identity. She cites Quentin Bell’s writing which suggests that the “the greater lavishness of female clothing [served as] the obligatory demonstration of the bourgeois woman’s financial dependence upon her husband” (184). This idea directly relates to the New Look style as a symbol of wealth, luxury, leisure, and classic femininity, which Helen Bishop does not participate in, as a single, working mother of two.