(This article contains spoilers)

Update: Between the time I wrote this piece and the time that it published, a Hollywood Reporter interview went live in which Matthew Weiner spoke more in-depth about the ending than he had before. That being said, the headline most websites are running with (that Weiner confirms the reason for the Coca-Cola commercial’s inclusion) is wildly misleading, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see Weiner clarifying the comment in the near-future. He also pushes back against the pure-cynicism many critics are deriving from the ending, something I talk about below. You can find a link to that interview here. My original piece is below.

———————————————————————————————————————-

If ever there was a show that trusted its audience to “get” its message, it’s Mad Men. The cast consists largely of characters who constantly say what they don’t mean. They lie to get accounts, they pretend to be people who they are not, and they manipulate their actual feelings to make them marketable and tie them to products. Even when characters say what they mean, like when Don and Peggy proselytize about moving past your problems, the show usually doesn’t stop in its tracks to explicitly agree or disagree. It is up to the audience to discover what the show is about.

My first reaction to the finale was somewhat mixed, especially when it came to Don Draper. Given the number of personal crises he has undergone, his storyline in the finale, where he goes to a hippie commune with his stolen-identity’s daughter, struck me as somewhat trite. After all of that, was his character really going to be summed up with “well, maybe you should have connected with people?” The other characters were all being given storylines that helped sum up their journeys, but all felt more nuanced than Don.

But then there’s that ending: Don, meditating, listening to a mantra, and a cut to this classic Coca-Cola commercial:

I’ll admit that the likely explanation for the commercial’s inclusion didn’t hit me at first. On a pure thematic level, it makes sense to end the show that way: with the same message of connection and togetherness in an advertisement for a soda. The show has been about the co-opting of real emotion to sell material things, so why not end with an example of that?

But the more likely insinuation, that Draper left the commune and returned to McCann Erickson to pitch that famous commercial, is far more interesting. While some major critics have expressed disappointment at such a “cynical” ending, even if you take it as a fact that Don created that commercial, it doesn’t necessarily prove that he has once again learned nothing. Only a minute before, he was having a tearful moment with another man who was unable to connect emotionally with his family. Who can really say that Don was completely unchanged?

Nobody can, not even the other characters in the show. While Peggy expresses serious concern for Don after speaking to him over the phone, Stan is completely unconvinced that anything is wrong. The same goes for Roger, who remarks that this is just how Don operates: he goes away, and he comes back. He always does.

From our own viewing experience, Stan and Roger are right, but they’re also possibly undervaluing the depth of Don’s excursions. Is the Don of the final season really just the same man we met in the pilot, repeating the same cycle again and again? Or has he changed? And if he did indeed complete this current cycle, is he still unchanged, or did he have a breakthrough? After all, the same man at the commune who felt distant from his family mentioned that he was never appreciated anywhere he went. In this same episode, Peggy made it very clear to Don that she wanted him to come back, and that he was missed at McCann Erickson. Perhaps returning to McCann Erickson was the result of a breakthrough realization: that Don would like to be where he is appreciated and valued, to truly connect with the people he has so often taken for granted.

Maybe, maybe not. It’s ultimately up to the viewers, and their varying degrees of optimism. A similar thing can be said of most major characters at the end of the finale. Matthew Weiner gives them enough resolution to provide a proper ending, but leaves their futures largely up to interpretation.

If one is a pessimist, then they can look at the final character arcs as further opportunities for characters to be crushed by their flaws. Pete and Trudy recommit to a relationship which was doomed and ultimately reforged on shaky ground. Joan starts a production company by herself, using only her own names, destined to have her abilities and aptitude looked over again. Peggy starts a relationship with Stan, but it’s likely doomed once more due to Peggy’s obsessive commitment to her work. Roger solidifies his relationship with Marie Calvet, but we’ve already seen Roger discard two wives, so it’s possible that he’ll repeat himself here.

On the other hand, there are elements of these storylines that speak to our more optimistic nature and suggest that, maybe, things will be different this time. Pete and Trudy are leaving New York for Wichita,  where Pete won’t be physically separated from his family. Joan is finally in a position of true power and leadership, where her successes will absolutely be attributed to her. Peggy’s new love is somebody who is completely entwined with her work, and has seen her at her worst. And Roger is finally dating somebody his own age, who has also been through a divorce.

Matthew Weiner has been especially quiet since the finale for this very reason. Despite never being an especially plot-oriented show, Mad Men has always been heavily discussed online. It’s a “water cooler” kind of show, but largely because the characters can be interpreted in so many ways. To give them a definitive ending on the level of “Breaking Bad” would have felt insincere. Instead, Weiner has given us several new beginnings, all informed by what we have seen before. It’s simultaneously ambiguous and narratively satisfying, and one of the strongest finales in recent memory.