Matt Weiner used to put a reference to a Hitchcock movie scene into "Mad Men" episodes, once a week. He seems to have faded that out(it was, I think a "hook" to draw in fans of Hitchcock's movies of the very era in which "Mad Men" takes place, Hitchcock movies that LOOK like "Mad Men.") But the spirit of Hitchcock lives on in last week's episode and this one.

Last week, Weiner put Suzanne out in the car for the duration of Don's Dick confessional so as to create maximum tension: even as Don and Betty were having the heart-to-heart that might destroy or rebuild their marriage, a potential time bomb was ticking right outside their door, and we couldn't fully concentrate on the "big emotional scene."

This week, two smallish scenes were set-up on a parallel track: Pete drops by Harry's office for some insights on his semi-demotion; Don storms into Lane's office for a confrontation about replacing Sal.

I was glancing at Harry's TV in the corner and the woman and the man on screen(a soap opera) looked familiar to me. It hit me fast: whenever documentaries about the JFK assassination show the CBS Special Bulletin that announced the "attack" on JFK, the clip begins with that couple talking on "Search for Tomorrow."

So I knew it was finally here, on a stealth basis: the JFK assassination on "Mad Men." It was rather exciting really, and then the bulletin came up on screen and...of course...everything that Harry and Pete said to each other stopped mattering at all, and you wanted to yell at them: "Look at the screen!"

Weiner then cuts to Don's argument with Lane, and it, too collapses into irrelevance: these two men have no idea that the world has just changed. Yet.

Hitchcock's "rule for suspense" used here was: give the audience(us) information that the characters don't have. Here, the information is: "Look at your damn TV screen, and stop arguing!"

Hitchcock's rule was then used to stake out the suspense of rest of the episode. Don is reassuring Betty that everything will be alright, and Betty is wondering if it will be. The "information we have, that the characters don't have" is that by Sunday morning, Oswald will be killed -- live on national television -- and a shaken population will be delivered another blow.

The Oswald murder was, in many ways, the true "plummet into horror" of the JFK murder weekend(JFK was killed on Friday, Oswald on Sunday. In between, on Saturday, the Sterling's daughter got married.)

Though the loss of a popular President was of monumental historic importance, TV audiences didn't SEE that murder, and all hopes were pinned on the trial of Oswald to "get to the bottom of things." But then Oswald was shot right before our eyes, and the world began its true spiral. Nothing could be controlled, nothing could be explained.

For the personal record, I was a child that weekend, and I witnessed the Oswald murder on TV. My parents were in another room, I went and told them, and they really panicked for a moment, rushing into the TV room to watch. I remember it well.

My memories of that weekend were that the whole family watched the TV coverage all the time. The children weren't "shielded from the reality," and frankly, it didn't hit me that hard. I do recall that all my Saturday cartoon shows disappeared, which was very disorienting. All regular TV entertainment disappeared for that weekend and Monday(the funeral day.)

In any event, kudos to Weiner and Company for dealing with the JFK/Oswald murder weekend with a great sense of narrative power and style. For those who thought that "JFK's been done to death," this episode showed another way to draw power from that awful,historic weekend.

I agree that it was well done. I was probably a little older than you were (14).I was deeply affected. I just camped out in front of the TV and cried for the duration. I also saw the Oswald assassination live. It was stunning and surreal. I remember wondering how any of the events of that weekend could be happening. It was all just incomprehensible and incredibly sad.

I hadn't had much experience with death up to that point. My grandfather died when I was about five, but I didn't remember much about him or his death. So this was the first time I was confronted with the death of someone I felt like I knew and to think about what that meant. He was happy, animated, waving to the crowd and then gone in an instant. And I thought about what it must have been like for his children. I had sympathy for Jackie, but I identified more with the children. Watching them at the funeral was heartbreaking.

The entire Hitchcock feel to Mad Men is what initially drew me in. After a semester of Hitchcock as a film studies major, I'd had all of the director's conventions drilled into my subconcious. You've very nicely articulated what I was too lazy to properly analyze and define. Well done.

I've no idea what I'm going to do between next week's episode and the upcoming season. Since film studies classes, I've been hard pressed to find such good film or television content.

"For those who thought that "JFK's been done to death," this episode showed another way to draw power from that awful,historic weekend."

Those who thought the assasination wouldn't be used dramatically were certainly proven wrong. There were just too many opportunities to advance the characters and the story arc to just let it go.

I agree. The show did an amazing job of making you feel like you were there, living the event. I actually cried. I surprised myself.

I was in 8th grade,jr. hi. I wanted to comment that for me the episode had the effect of making me feel like I was a grown-up(as in the episode title)who was hearing the news of Kennedy for the first time. I actually got that feeling called "sombody just walked on my grave" during the initial scens in the office. Since most of us Fraysters were either not born,too young or in school on that day I think handling of that terrible event was done incredibly well as far as explaining how the grown -ups in our lives felt at the time..

Lucabrasi2! So good to see your posts! Followed and corresponded with you back in The Soprano days but have been unable to sign in so created a new name. When I started watching Mad Men this year it felt like The Sopranos writing and then I find out Weiner wrote there too. I love the writing style, the characters, the excitement that builds inside me between episodes! Thanks for bringing your knowledge about film and your insightful thoughts! I feel like I've found a long lost friend!

Same here. Thank you. I couldn't sign in either. My return may be short-lived(I borrowed an account for these posts.)

But I will try to come back on other topics.

P.S. Given Matthew Weiner's heavy involvement in "The Sopranos" near the end of the series(he wrote the episode "Heidi and Kennedy" in which Christopher was killed), I find "Mad Men" to be rather a stylistic continuation OF "The Sopranos."

The two shows are set in different eras with different characters, but the scenes are staged and paced rather alike, and the storytelling is similar.

Here is one example:

In "The Sopranos," Tony is deciding what to do about his cousin Tony B(Steve Buscemi) who is causing deep trouble for Tony's outfit and probably needs to be executed. Tony looks at a painting of himself as Revolutionary War general(doctored up as such by Paulie Walnuts.) There is no music, and a silent cut to a close-up on the sword that "General Tony" wears. Tony considers this. Next scene: he personally executes his cousin. The painting symbolized to Tony his "role": he is the general, he must take charge and make war.

The final episode of Season Two opened on Betty in her gyneocologist's examination room, awaiting the news that she is pregnant. She looks at a painting on the wall in the examination room: A mother doe with her baby deer. Again: no music. Just a cut to the painting and away. But Betty is considering her role as a mother...and whether to abort her cheating husband's child.

Plot-wise, things are different. But the "silent symbolic visual storytelling" is rather the same. Thus does one show "bleed" into the next.