Upon first watch, I thought the Coke ad at the end was just symbolic; that it represented Don’s newfound outlook on life. But I watched the final scene again this evening, and noticed that as the smile starts to creep over Don’s face, we hear a bell ring…then the scene switches to the Coke ad.
That pretty much clinches it for me; we literally hear the sound of the bell going off in Don’s head when the ad comes to him.
I agree with these. Don said goodbye to Peggy. He didn’t go back to McCann. He didn’t write the jingle.
Don is on the road to healing. We don’t know the details of where that will take him, but it requires him to give up what he was in the advertising business, because all that relied on his facade.
Just like all the other songs that ended episodes, this one just happened to reflect a mood that captured the moment that Don was living in. It’s just a bonus that it was a McCann ad.
Backer himself was interviewed today and he loved that the show used his ad in the way that they did. I am sure, however, that in some small way, he appreciates that you took offense on his behalf.
That doesn’t follow; couldn’t he have had a genuine epiphany, followed by eschewing façade entirely when straightforwardly pitching his experience as the Coca-Cola ad?
Sure, he used to rely on made-up stories when he was spellbinding a prospective client. Sure, he got halfway through faking a tale for the guys from Hershey before (a) breaking down and realizing, no, I want to tell them what my life was really like, and (b) he flopped. But he’s now at a point where he can say, hey, this latest picture I’m painting with my words is something I actually lived through, something that touched me, something I want to share, something that will make as big an impression on people as it did on those of us who were there that morning; I want you to recreate what I saw as closely as possible while people sing about love and harmony and peace.
I didn’t say my version was necessary. I just believe that that’s what the story is telling us. The Coke commercial is a joke with the audience, not a plot point.
You said we “don’t know the details of where that will take him, but it requires him to give up what he was in the advertising business, because all that relied on his facade.” I say it doesn’t “require” him to give it up, if he can do it minus that façade.
I just think he won’t be on the path to healing if he goes back to advertising. The lies and pasting over of his profession parallel the lies and pasting over of his personal life.
The things that made him good at advertising are the same things that made him miserable.
All these little Coke clues are just red herrings and little jokes.
Could someone please explain this? I’m not getting the reference.
I agree that the episode was ambiguous, but to me, it was obvious that Don did NOT write the Coca-Cola ad.
It’s all in the smile: Don is sitting there, all lotus-position, with that beatific smile on his face that I haven’t seen since Frodo got onto the boat at the Grey Havens bound for Valinor: he just *knew *that he was leaving behind all his pain and misery, and heading for an entirely new life of peace, love, and understanding. Don Draper was history; Dick Whitman was history; only the new and improved man-in-touch-with-himself still exists. Advertising was no longer a part of his world; only self-actualization was. He has shed his skin and emerged anew, and improved.
Also, the timing was a huge clue: the ad song came up on screen with no implication of a time lapse. It’s like the ad was running while Don was still sitting there on the cliff, hands on his knees and mind in the clouds. If we were supposed to believe that Don had something to do with it, there would have to have been *some *indication of a reasonable amount of time having passed. But there wasn’t.
Beyond that, the episode also shows us that the advertising world *does *still go on. McCann creates the ad, with all the pop cultural iconography of the time, which was certainly known to many, many people beyond Don Draper. Their tendrils reached everywhere; we don’t need to attribute the details (like women in jump suits) to the things that Don Draper saw with his own eyes. The McCann toadies have eyes and ears as well. They created the ad, while Don was off being happy to have escaped their clutches.
Do you have a link to an interview or commentary where he says he wouldn’t do it again specifically because of internet flames (which is what you appear to be implying)? Because the interviews I’ve read of him show that he has a singular vision of how his stories play out and I doubt he’d let internet commentary dissuade him from that.
At any rate, it didn’t stop him from having Don name the Carousel.
Who flamed him? Anyone of importance or just internet screen names?
Pete has often said “a thing like that” to express his unexpected approval or amazement of something, like “I just saw Tony Curtis in the men’s room. A thing like that!” It’s a Pete-ism, like “Hell’s bells, Trudy!” or “Christ on a cracker!”
So when Pete tells Peggy that some day people will brag about working with her, Peggy replying “a thing like that” is her saying thank you in a Pete-ish way.
Don becomes more himself whenever he is in California. He sheds some of his pain and anxiety. When he returns to New York, it all comes back. If Don is on the road to leaving behind that pain, he’s not returning to Nee York to go back to advertising.
For EST, see The Americans.
So, Don will abandon his children to end his “pain”? I don’t see it. Even “on the road” in the last episodes, he kept in touch.
I see him returning to do what he’s allowed in the last days of Betty’s life. Then determining how to care for the kids. Henry will not “take” them permanently–he has no blood tie & he’s already “working late” because Betty’s end is too depressing. Betty’s brother was a bit of a creep & would probably ask for money to take on the burden–he was always complaining when we last saw him. Almost glad we don’t see the details but Don can’t do anything from Out West.
Even McCann will allow Don’s quirks if he continues to produce excellent work. And I see him just a bit more balanced, trying to deal with all his responsibilities. He can always schedule another week at Esalen. (After he takes Sally to Madrid.)
Just a note of thanks to alphaboi867 for doing these threads. Agreements or disagreements, I always got more out of each episode after spending a week digging into it with like-minded watchers.
I didn’t mean that he would literally never set foot in the state of New York or that he would never contact his children. I meant that he has left his New York life behind. That life was as bad for his children as it was for him.
And I do think the kids are going to stay with Henry. Sally is right about that. Henry is a decent guy. He won’t prevent Don from seeing the kids. But Henry will provide the continuity they need.
It was after season 1, so I’m not searching back through eight years of Internet. I didn’t say it was Internet flames. All that happened was that he was somewhat surprised by the negative reaction he received for presenting an old tag line as Don’s work and acknowledged that it wasn’t the best idea. In the future, therefore, he would use real world products but not real world campaigns. All very low-key, as is Weiner’s usual way. AFAIK, he’s stuck to that for the past six seasons. (Someone will surely pop up to tell me if I’m wrong.) Sure, he could change his mind if he thought it was good for the plot. I just feel that would be a very odd break at this point.
I did remember this, from a recent interview, which I think helps my case.
You made my day!
In the absence of a definitive answer from Weiner, I’m going to choose to believe what Jon Hamm says about the finale.
That was never the plan. Betty wants the kids to live with her brother. The kids will live with their Uncle or perhaps Don but definitely not Henry.