Muffuletta Sandwich

Below is an article about the sandwich known as Muffuletta

MUFFULETTA SANDWICH

The name Muffuletta is known for two things – the bread and the sandwich. The bread, originally known as “Muffoletta”, is used for the famous sandwich of the same name. As for the sandwich, it was created by an Italian immigrant – Sicilian actually – named Salvatore Lupo. The latter owned a story called Central Grocery Company on Decatur Street in New Orleans, Louisiana. The bread had been made and eaten by Sicilians for centuries.

Sometime during the early years of the 20th century, Lupo made an agreement with a local baker, another Sicilian immigrant, to supply Muffoletta bread to his store. Lupo then re-sold the bread to his customers. With that agreement, the unknown Sicilian baker became a wholesaler, and the workers no longer bought their bread from him, but from Lupo’s Central Grocery. There, workers not only bought the Muffoletta bread, but also their lunch ingredients – bread, meats, cheese and salad. In 1906, Lupo Salvatore decided to combine these ingredients into a sandwich. He decided to use the Muffoletta bread, because of its ability to hold the filling without leaking. To make each sandwich; Lupo filled a Muffoletta loaf with olive salad, meats and cheeses; wrapped the sandwich in paper; and sold it as a Muffoletta sandwich. However, Lupo misspelled the name as “Muffuletta”. As a grocer and not a baker, Lupo was not familiar with the spellings of the many Sicilian breads.

As I had just pointed out, the traditional Muffuletta sandwich begins with the Muffoletta or Muffuletta loaf – a large, round, and flattened bread that is similar to the Focaccia bread, but is lighter, crispy on the outside and soft inside. The loaf is split horizontally and covered with layers of salami, ham, Mortadella, Swiss cheese, Provolone cheese, and olive salad. The olive salad consists of green and kalamata olives diced with the celery, cauliflower and carrot mixed in a jar of giardiniera, seasoned with oregano and garlic, covered in olive oil, and allowed to combine for at least 24 hours. In Greater New Orleans a seafood sandwich is made with muffuletta bread and fried seafood, often including oysters, shrimp, catfish and occasionally softshell crab. However, the Seafood Muffuletta sandwich omits the olive salad in favor of the traditional dressings of a seafood Po’Boy sandwich, such as melted butter and pickle slices, or mayonnaise and lettuce.

Since many of Lupo’s customers regarded the Mufuletta sandwich as easier to carry, than the ingredients for it, it became an immediate success. The success of Lupo’s Muffuletta sandwich led other local grocery stores, including the nearby Progress Grocery, to construct and sell their own versions of the Muffuletta sandwich.

Below is a recipe for a traditional Muffuletta Sandwich from the LauraFuentes.com website:

 

Muffuletta Sandwich

Ingredients

1 10″ round loaf Italian bread with Sesame (or a soft round Italian bread)
1 cup Olive Salad
1/4 lb Genoa Salami
1/4 lb Capicola or deli ham
1/4 lb Mortadella
1/8 lb Sliced Mozzarella (3-4 thin slices)
1/8 lb Provolone (3-4 thin slices)

Preparation

1. Cut the bread in half length wise.
2. Brush both sides with the oil from your Olive Salad or really good extra
virgin olive oil, go a little heavier on the bottom.
3. Begin layering your ham, mortadella and salami on the bottom half of the
bread. Top with your cheeses.
4. Next, add the olive salad from the center out. Put the lid on and press it
down without smashing the bread.
5. Optional: toast/warm up in you oven for a few minutes.
6. Quarter it. You’ve just created pure heaven!

 

P1030289

Advertisements

Five Favorite Episodes of “LEGENDS OF TOMORROW” Season One (2016)

Below is a list of my favorite episodes from Season One of the CW series, “LEGENDS OF TOMORROW”. Based upon several D.C. Comics titles, the series was created by Greg Berlanti, Marc Guggenheim, Andrew Kreisberg, and Phil Klemmer.

 

 

FIVE FAVORITE EPISODES OF “LEGENDS OF TOMORROW” SEASON ONE (2016)

1. (1.13) “Leviathan” – Rogue time traveling cop Rip Hunter takes his team of vigilante heroes to 2166 London in an effort to defeat the immortal warrior Vandal Savage once and for all and prevent him from becoming the tyrannical world leader of the 22nd century. However . . . complications arise in the form of Savage’s daughter and a giant android.

2. (1.05) “Fail-Safe” – This second half of a two-part story in 1986 Soviet Union finds Rip and his team attempt the prison break of team members Ray Palmer aka “The Atom” and Mick Rory aka “Heatwave” from a Soviet gulag. Meanwhile, they also have to prevent Soviet scientist Valentina Vostok from using the stolen “Firestorm” formula given to her by Savage.

3. (1.15) “Destiny” – Following the capture of Rip and some of the Legends by his former employers, the Time Bureau, the remaining Legends under Sara Lance aka White Canary plot to rescue their fellow team members and destroy the Time Bureau’s Occulus device, which the latter used to help Savage in order to maintain the timeline. Martin Donovan guest-starred.

4. (1.02) “Pilot, Part 2” – Rip and his team infiltrate a weapons auction for terrorists in 1975 in order to prevent Savage from selling a nuclear weapon. Unfortunately, a fight ensues in which Ray loses a part of his Atom suit. Savage’s discovery of it leads to a potential destruction of Star City (the Green Arrow’s hometown) in the future. Neal McDonough guest-starred.

5. (1.08) “Night of the Hawk” – Rip and his team track Savage to a small town in Oregon in 1958, where they suspect he is involved in a recent string of murders.

“STAR TREK VOYAGER”: Unfit For Command?

“STAR TREK VOYAGER”: UNFIT FOR COMMAND?

Do many STAR TREK fans consider most Vulcan characters unfit for command? I wonder. I came across this ”STAR TREK VOYAGER” fan fiction story about the letters written to the Alpha Quadrant by Voyager’s crew in the Season One episode, (1.07) “Eye of the Needle”. The author of this particular fan fiction story seemed to believe that because of their emotional distance, Vulcans are basically unfit for command. Personally, I disagree.

This belief that Vulcans were unfit for command certainly seemed supported by Lisa Klink’s screenplay for the Season Two episode, (2.25) ”Resolutions”. I am sure that many recall this episode. In it, the Voyager crew is forced to leave Captain Janeway (Kate Mulgrew) and Commander Chakotay (Robert Beltran) behind on a planet after the pair found themselves infected by an incurable disease. Lieutenant Tuvok (Tim Russ) assumes command of the ship and ends up facing a possible mutiny led by a very distraught Ensign Kim (Garrett Wang). Klink’s screenplay portrayed Tuvok as a cold by-the-book officer, incapable of noticing or understanding the crew’s uneasiness of leaving behind the captain and first officer. Quite frankly, not only did I dislike this one-dimensional portrayal of the ship’s highest ranking Vulcan, I found it slightly inaccurate.

As a Vulcan, Tuvok has made it a practice to keep his emotions to himself and lead his life in a very logical manner. But this does not mean that he was exactly how Klink had described him in ”Resolutions”. Underneath the cool exterior laid a very emotional and passionate man who loved his wife and family a great deal and considered Kathryn Janeway a great friend. He also possessed a temper that he obviously must have struggled to contain all of his life.

Tuvok did possess a problem with interacting with others. This stemmed from a tendency to be a loner. This trait of his was specifically pointed out in the Season Three episode, (3.14) ”Alter Ego”. In it, Harry Kim became infatuated with a hologram (a tall and leggy blonde named Marayna). To deal with his infatuation, he turned to Tuvok to help him recover from it. Tuvok did more than that. He became friendly with the hologram. But the hologram proved to be a lonely alien at a space station who used superior technology to prevent Voyager from leaving a particular area of space. When Tuvok pointed out her loneliness, she returned the favor:

MARAYNA: I don’t believe you.

TUVOK: I beg your pardon.

MARAYNA: I think you’re tying to isolate yourself and make a public protest at the same time.

TUVOK: Explain.

MARAYNA: You didn’t want to be here in the first place. Being the only one without a lei sets you apart from the others, allowing you to symbolically maintain your solitude. And since everybody can see that you’re the only one without a lei, you’re letting them know that you’d rather be somewhere else.

TUVOK: Your logic is impeccable.

But Tuvok’s loner tendencies did not mean that he lacked an ability to understand the emotional needs of others. Even before ”Resolutions” had aired, Tuvok managed to display this trait on a few occasions. He was the first member of the crew to sense that Seska might prove to be a dangerous problem for the crew . . . even if he did not know about her being a Cardassian spy. Instinct told him that Tom Paris may have been innocent of the murder of a Banean scientist in (1.08) ”Ex-Post Facto”. In (2.04) ”Elogium”, he expressed compassion for Neelix’s fear at becoming a parent and helped the latter come to a decision about starting a family with Kes. He was the only one who did not allow his fear or paranoia to get the best of him and realized that fighting the entity that was rearranging Voyager’s structure might prove to be the best thing in (2.06) ”Twisted”. He managed to befriend Kes. In (2.22) ”Innocence”, he managed to offer comfort to a dying Voyager crewman and a group of alien children who had been abandoned to die by their kind. And for a man who was supposed to be an incompetent leader, he sure as hell managed to avoid any problems with leading the Security/Tactical Division.

If there is one scene before ”Resolutions” that provided an excellent example of how compassionate Tuvok can be, one might as well return to his scene with the dying Ensign Bennet in ”Innocence”:

TUVOK: Tuvok to Voyager. Voyager, do you read? You must lie still.

BENNET: I can’t, I can’t feel my legs.

TUVOK: Several of the vertebrae have been fractured.

BENNET: Isn’t there anything you can do?

TUVOK: I’m afraid the shuttle’s medical supplies are inadequate. We must wait for Voyager to find us.

BENNET: It’s getting worse. My whole body feels numb.

TUVOK: I want you to slow your breathing, relax your muscles. Try not to move.

BENNET: All this time I thought I was so lucky with no family back home. Nobody to miss. Now it seems kind of sad not to leave anybody behind.

TUVOK: I believe Ensign McCormick would miss you a great deal.

I realize that Lisa Klink wanted to create some kind of conflict between Tuvok and some of the crew in ”Resolutions”. But in painting Tuvok as an emotional iceberg incapable of compassion or seeing to the needs of others, I feel that she had went too far. This is quite evident in that the mutinous and obviously immature Harry Kim had been written with far more sympathy than Tuvok. It is no wonder that ”Resolutions” has become one of my least favorite ”VOYAGER” episodes.

“I, TONYA” (2017) Review

 

“I, TONYA” (2017) Review

Like others who had grown up in the mid-to-late 20th century, I remember the sports scandal that surrounded Olympic figure skaters, Nancy Kerrigan and Tonya Harding. The media wallowed in the scandal on television screens, newspapers and magazines. It all culminated when both women participated in the 1994 Winter Olympics Games in Lillehammer, Norway.

Several months after the ’94 Olympic Games, NBC aired the 1994 television movie, “TONYA AND NANCY: THE INSIDE STORY”. Actually, the television movie appeared two months after the Lillehammer games. Did I see it? No. In fact, I did not even bother to watch the two skaters’ compete in the Olympic Games. I barely gave Harding or Kerrigan a thought through those years in which the scandal was mentioned or spoofed in a series of television episodes, movies, songs and documentaries. However, during the fall of 2017, I found myself watching the trailer for biopic about Harding called “I, TONYA”. The trailer seemed so intriguing and somewhat off-the-wall that for the first time in twenty-three years, I found myself intrigued by the subject and decided to watch it.

Directed by Craig Gillespie and written by Steven Rogers (one of the film’s co-producers), “I, TONYA” is basically a biography about Tonya Harding and her connection to the January 6, 1994 attack on rival Nancy Kerrigan. To be honest, Kerrigan played a supporting role – and not a very big one – in this biopic. This movie was all about Tonya. Starring Margot Robbie in the title role, “I, TONYA” followed Harding’s life from the age of four to the immediate aftermath of the Lillehammer Games. The movie was written a mockumentary style that featured fictional interviews of Harding and others who had a major role in her life:

*Ex-husband Jeff Gillooly
*LaVona Golden, Tonya’s husband
*Diane Rawlinson, Tonya’s first and last skating coach
*Shawn Eckhardt, Gillooly’s close friend and Tonya’s so-called bodyguard
*Martin Maddox, a fictional character who is basically a composite of many television producers that exploited the 1994 scandal

Ironically, Nancy Kerrigan is the only major character in this movie who was not interviewed. Perhaps Gillespie and Robbie, who served as one of the film’s other three producers, felt that the real Kerrigan would be offended at the thought of her cinematic counterpart being featured as a supporting character in a film about Harding. Judging from Kerrigan’s reaction to the movie, they were right. Another aspect of this film that I found surprising is that it was basically a biopic about Harding. The latter did not share top billing with her rival in this film, unlike the 1994 television film. It turns out that screenwriter/co-producer Steven Rogers found Harding’s personal life more complex and compelling. He also noticed that both Harding and her ex-husband, Jeff Gillooly, had very conflicting accounts of what really happened with Kerrigan and realized this would make an interesting narrative for a film.

Was “I, TONYA” an interesting film? Well . . . yes. Yes, it was. But it had its flaws. Actually, I could only find one major flaw in the film’s narrative. For a film that allegedly was supposed to be about Harding from the viewpoints of several people, it seemed to me that aside from trainer Diane Rawlinson, only Harding’s point-of-view really seemed to matter. Or the one audiences were expected to take seriously. Most of Jeff Gillooly’s account of his relationship with Harding were portrayed with a grain of salt. At the same time, audiences were expected to accept his account of his relationship with Shawn Eckhardt as the real deal. This . . . contradiction seemed a bit hard to swallow at times. Look . . . I realize that Tonya Harding is at the center of this tale. But if one is going to utilize the narration of more than one character, all viewpoints should be equally judged on whether to take them seriously or not.

But you know what? I still found “I, TONYA” rather interesting. I also found it entertaining. One, screenwriter Steven Rogers and director Craig Gillespie took what could have been a basic Hollywood biopic and created what turned out to be one of the most original and somewhat bizarre film biographies I have ever seen, hands down. As I had earlier pointed out, Rogers and Gillespie utilized the “mockdocumentary” style to include scenes that feature interviews of the main characters. I thought this movie device was utilized with great wit, along with a dash of dark humor and great satisfaction for me. This was especially the case when both the screenwriter and director used it to break the “fourth wall” – a narrative device used when a character breaks away from the story to address the audience.

Many people have wondered why Rogers had focused his screenplay on Tonya Harding. Why not write a movie about both Harding and Nancy Kerrigan? Well . . . as I had earlier pointed out, such a story had already been told in that 1994 NBC television movie I had earlier mentioned. Rogers could have done a movie about Kerrigan and her family’s struggles to support her skating career. It probably would have been a very uplifiting film. But if one looks into Harding’s personal history . . . well, I might as well be frank . . . it is the stuff from which movie biopics are made. Between Harding’s contentious and abusive relationships with both her mother La Vona Golden and first husband Jeff Gillooly, her earthy and frank personality and her more aggressive and modern style of skating that led her to clash with the judges . . . I mean, honestly, can you really blame both Steven Rogers and Craig Gillespie for choosing to do a movie about her? I certainly cannot. Between the off-the-wall directorial style that Gillespie had utilized and Rogers’ sharp screenplay, is it any wonder that I found this movie so fascinating to watch?

What I found even more fascinating is that the movie put the screws to everyone – Harding’s mother, ex-husband, his friend Shawn Eckhardt, the men recruited to attack Kerrigan, the ice skating organizations (both national and international) and yes . . . even Harding herself. Whenever the script had the former ice skating making excuses for some of her questionable actions, it also revealed her excuses or comments as lies. But the most interesting moment occurred when Harding (as narrator) turned to the camera and made this comment about the media and the public’s reaction to her legal travails:

” It was like being abused all over again. Only this time it was by you. All of you. You’re all my attackers too.”

Now . . . one could dismiss this as petulant complaining from the leading character’s part. Perhaps it is. Perhaps it is not. But I could not help thinking there was a great deal of truth in those words. As much as the media and the public loves worshiping a celebrity, once the latter slips or make a mistake, both will bash or drag that celebrity through the mud for as long as they can. It almost seemed as if they revel in that celebrity’s misfortune. Like I said, Harding and those close to her were not the only ones skewered in this film.

In order to make a movie work, one needs a first-rate story, director and cast. “I, TONYA” was very lucky to have Steven Rogers and Craig Gillespie as its screenwriter and director. It was also blessed with a first-rate cast. The movie featured solid performances from the likes of Julianne Nicholson, Mckenna Grace, the very entertaining Bobby Cannavale, Bojana Novakovic and Caitlin Carver. However, the performances that really impressed me came from four people – Margot Robbie, Sebastian Stan, Paul Walter Hauser and Allison Janney.

Paul Walter Hauser gave a very funny performance as the clueless Shawn Eckhardt, whose enthusiasm toward his role as Harding’s “bodyguard” may have led him to go too far. Sebastian Stan gave a very complex performance as Harding’s first husband, Jeff Gillooly. Stan portrayed his character with a combination of quiet charm and violent intensity. Frankly, he should have been nominated for his performance. The wonderful Allison Janney won both a Golden Globe Award and an Academy Award for her portrayal of Harding’s sharp-tongued and abrasive mother, La Vona Golden. I could never decide whether the character was funny or horrifying. But thanks to Janney’s performance, she was very interesting. Margot Robbie (who also served as one of the film’s producers) is the last actress I could see portraying Tonya Harding. If I must be blunt, she is taller and better looking than the Olympic skater. And yet . . . she gave one of the best performances of her career (so far) as the ambitious and aggressive Harding. I really admire how Robbie managed to convey so many aspects of the skater’s personality without being overwhelmed. She really earned her Golden Globe and Oscar nominations.

Aside from the story, the direction and performances, there were other aspects of “I, TONYA” that I admired. My mind was not particularly blown away by Nicolas Karakatsanis’ cinematography. But I thought his work served both the film’s story and setting rather well. I could also say the same about Jennifer Johnson’s costume designs, which more than an adequate job of serving both the film’s late 20th century setting and Harding’s historic skating costumes. I do not recall Peter Nashel’s score. But I must admit that I admire how he utilize well known tunes from the late 20th century throughout the film. The one technical aspect of “I, TONYA” that I truly admired was Tatiana S. Riegel’s editing. I thought she did a superb job in the way she shaped Harding’s tale from Gillespie’s narrators, fourth walls and sequences on the ice rink. For her work, Riegel earned an Academy Award nomination for Best Editing and won the American Cinema Editors Award for Best Edited Feature Film – Comedy or Musical.

I never thought I would find myself watching a movie about Olympic ice skater, Tonya Harding. Hell, I never thought I would end up enjoying it. Yet, I did enjoy “I, TONYA” very much. I thought it was one of the most bizarre and fascinating biopics I have ever seen. In fact, thanks to director Craig Gillespie, screenwriter Steven Rogers and a superb cast led by Margot Robbie, “I, TONYA” proved to be one of my favorite movies of 2017.

 

image

“There’s no such thing as truth. It’s bullshit. Everyone has their own truth, and life just does whatever the fuck it wants.”

Top Five Favorite Episodes of “COPPER” (2012-2013)

Below is a list of my five favorite episodes from the 2012-2013 BBC America series, “COPPER”. Created by Tom Fontana and Will Rokos, the series starred Tom Weston-Jones, Kyle Schmid and Ato Essandoh: 

TOP FIVE FAVORITE EPISODES OF “COPPER” (2012-2013)

1-1.02 Husbands and Fathers

1. (1.02) “Husbands and Fathers” – In this brutal episode, New York City detective Kevin “Corky” Corcoran set about rescuing child prostitute/abused wife Annie Sullivan from a Manhattan brothel and her perverse customer, a wealthy businessman named Winifred Haverford.

1 - 2.05 A Morning Song

2. (2.05) “A Morning Song” – Major counterfeiter Philomen Keating takes over the Sixth Ward precinct and hold hostages in an effort to retrieve his confiscated counterfeiting plates back.

2-1.09 A Day to Give Thanks

3. (1.09) “A Day to Give Thanks” – Following the reappearance of his missing wife Ellen in an asylum, Corky tracks down her former lover in order to learn what really happened to their dead daughter, while he was in the Army. Meanwhile, Confederate agents blackmail Robert Morehouse’s wealthy father into helping their plot to set New York City on fire, following the re-election of Abraham Lincoln.

3 - 2.03 The Children of the Battlefield

4. (2.03) “The Children of the Battlefield” – While Kevin searches for the person responsible for the kidnapping and murder of young Five Points men, Robert Morehouse and the widowed Elizabeth Haverford exchange wedding vows before the latter reveals an unpleasant surprise.

3-1.06 Arsenic and Old Cake

5. (1.06) “Arsenic and Old Cake” – Corky investigate the death of the dentist of one of his men, who died by arsenic poisoning. Widow Elizabeth Haverford tries to discipline an unruly Annie and return the latter to her abusive husband, a Mr. Reilly. An exhibition boxing match between a young African-American and an Irish-American local politician end with racial tension.

“MAD MEN” Observations: (3.07) “Seven Twenty-Three”

After a recent re-watch of the “MAD MEN” Season Three episode, (3.07) “Seven Twenty-Three”, I found myself compelled to post several observations about it: 

“MAD MEN” OBSERVATIONS: (3.07) “Seven Twenty-Three”

don2-editjpg-af304d5d009e46db_large.jpg

*Don Draper

In “Seven Twenty-Three”, famous hotelier Conrad Hilton, whom advertisement executive Don Draper had first met in (3.03) “My Old Kentucky Home”, paid a visit to the latter’s office and revealed his intent to hire Sterling Cooper to handle the promotion of his New York hotels. This piece of good news turned sour when Lane Pryce, Roger Sterling and Bert Cooper revealed that Hilton’s attorneys refused to go ahead with the deal unless Don sign an official contract with his employers. Naturally, Don was reluctant to sign one. He had been living under an assumed name for the past thirteen years, when he switched identities with his Army commanding officer (the real Don Draper). Nor did he want to be bound or obliged to anyone without having the power and opportunity to walk away whenever the opportunity might arise. After Don had a confrontation with wife Betty over his refusal to sign a contract, he left the house to go joyriding in the countryside. There, he picked up a young couple, who claimed they were on their way to get married at Niagara Falls. As it turned out, they were a pair of scam artists who fed Don some pills, took him to a cheap motel, knocked him out and stole his money.

I never understood this need of the series’ fans to divide the main character into two personas. There was only one Dick Whitman, after all. He was both the rural-born offspring of a dead prostitute and a crude farmer . . . and the brilliant creative advertising executive. The reason why Dick (or should I say Don) could emotionally connect with some people and barely at all with others may have been due to the fact that he had assumed another man’s name by fraudulent means. It is not surprising that he has only been willing to reveal some of his true nature to those he believe he may never see again – or in the case of Rachel Mencken and schoolteacher Suzanne Farrell – someone with whom he thought he could connect. It also seemed natural to me that Don had never bothered to sign an official contract with Sterling Cooper. No contract had allowed him to be a free agent even though he has decided to remain at Sterling Cooper. It also meant that Don would be able to bolt without any legal redress, if needed. Well, Don’s years as a free agent at Sterling Cooper ended in ”Seven Twenty-Three”. Especially since by the end of the season, he became one of the owners of a new firm – Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce (SCDP).

Oddly enough, Don’s encounter with another self-made man – Conrad Hilton – had led him to being finally bound to a contract. This led to a temporary breach with his boss and future partner, Roger Sterling. It also temporarily damaged his close relationship with copywriter and protégée Peggy Olson. The new contract made Don realize – and not for the last time – that wife Betty might be a lot more formidable than he had probably imagined. Don’s argument with Betty led him to commit one of his more destructive maneuvers when things got rough . . . he took off. Unlike his trip to California in Season Two, Don did not go very far. Instead, he picked up a hitchhiking couple claiming to be on their way to Niagara Falls in order to elope. But instead of eloping, they fed Don some pills and later clocked and robbed him inside a cheap motel. As his dad, Archie Whitman, had indicated in his hallucination, Don had become slightly soft. This seemed even more apparent when senior partner Bert Cooper blackmailed him into finally signing a contract.

When Cooper had dismissed Pete Campbell’s exposure of Don as a fraud and identity thief back in Season One’s (1.12) “Nixon vs. Kennedy”, I bet Don never thought the old man would eventually use those allegations against him. And yet . . . while signing that contract, Don demanded that Roger Sterling stay away from him. How interesting. Roger tried to use Betty to coerce him into signing the contract. Cooper sunk even lower and used Don’s secrets to blackmail him and succeed. Perhaps Don realized that Roger (given his questionable standing in the firm with the British owners) made an easier target for his wrath than two powerful men like Conrad Hilton and Bert Cooper. If so, it did not say very much about Don.

Some fans had believed that Don’s new contract was a sign of his eventual downfall. I cannot say that I agree with this. In fact, this downfall never really materialized. Every time Don faced a personal crisis in the past – Pete Campbell and Bert Cooper’s discovery of his secret in Season One, his late Season Two estrangement from Betty, and Duck’s takeover plans – he managed to survive or come on top, as the formation of SCDP proved.

*Betty Draper

The episode also featured a subplot for Betty Draper. After joining the Tarrytown, New York chapter of Junior League, she received a request to find someone with political ties to prevent the construction of a giant water tank that they feared would ruin the scenic view. Betty contacted Henry Francis, one of Governor Nelson Rockefeller’s aides that she had first met in “My Old Kentucky Home”. The two met at a local bakery in Ossing for drinks and pastries. And although Francis hinted that he might not be able to help the Junior League prevent the water tank’s construction, he made it obvious that he was just as attracted to Betty, as she was to him. Francis had also pointed out a chaise lounge that Betty later purchased for her living room. A chaise lounge that her decorator obviously disliked.

Betty’s story arc did not provide any jaw dropping moments for me. But I did notice a few things. One, she must have been seriously attracted to Henry Francis. I never realized it when Season Three first aired. I found it interesting that not only did she remember Henry from Roger’s Kentucky Derby garden party, she also seemed to be in a slight state of heat whenever she around him. This especially seemed obvious when Henry shielded her eyes from the sun during an eclipse. But more importantly, she went ahead and purchased the Victorian chaise lounge that Henry had earlier pointed out to her when they passed an antique store. Many saw the chaise lounge as an example of Betty’s desire to be some “helpless damsel in distress” that occasionally fainted. I found that image hard to accept. Despite the ladylike persona that Betty tended to project, she never struck me as that kind of woman. However, I had noticed how she caressed her body in a suggestive manner – especially in the very spot where Henry had touched her, when she was still pregnant with Eugene. So . . . yeah, she was very attracted to him. In fact, Henry ended up becoming her second husband. I should have known.

I also noticed that by Season Three, Betty had become more assertive in her attitude toward Don. After all, audiences first received a whiff of this trait back in Season Two’s (2.04) “Three Sundays”, when she ordered Don to take Sally to work with him during their son Bobby’s small medical emergency. Yet, Betty’s assertiveness became increasingly obvious in Season Three. This was certainly apparent in her refusal to cave in to Don’s disapproval over their new son’s name in (3.06) “Guy Walks Into an Advertising Agency”; and in their confrontation over Don’s refusal to sign a contract with Sterling Cooper. I had always suspected that underneath the girlish and shallow exterior lurked a formidable woman. This was verified when Betty finally learned about Don’s true identity later in the season.

*Peggy Olson

Peggy Olson’s storyline in this episode began in (3.05) “The Fog”, in which she was contacted by former Sterling Cooper employee, Duck Phillips. In that episode, he had tried to recruit both Peggy and accounts executive Pete Campbell to the agency he now works for – Gray. Peggy had contemplated his offer, but refused. When Peggy asked Don for a raise in the same episode, the latter refused her request. In “Seven Twenty-Three”, Duck continued his wooing of Peggy and Pete with gifts. When Pete pointed out that Duck’s wooing might be an attempt for the older man to get back at Don for snowballing him in the Season Two finale, (2.13) “Mediations in an Emergency”, Peggy became determined to return the gift. Which she did after leaving work. However, her visit to Duck’s hotel suite also led to an evening of some very enjoyable sex for them both.

I found it interesting that Peggy thought she knew a lot about Don. She knew that he was an adulterer, thanks to her rescue of both him and Bobbie Barrett in Season Two’s (2.05) “The New Girl”. In “Seven Twenty-Three”, she first discovered that he could be incredibly cruel. And it would not be the last time. Season Three had not been particularly kind to Peggy. Following her revelation to Peter Campbell about their illegitimate child, he became hostile toward her. And despite being the first copywriter to acquire a private office following Freddie Rumsen’s departure, the respect that she deserved continued to evade her. Don had ignored her misgivings about the Patio commercial in (3.02) “Love Among the Ruins”. In (3.05) “The Fog”, Peggy asked for a raise after discovering that she was the firm’s lowest paid copywriter and Don rejected her request. And when she asked to work on the Hilton account, Don (who was already in a foul mood after learning that Sterling Cooper wants him to sign a contract) rejected her request in the cruelest manner possible. He accused Peggy of using his coattails to rise in Sterling Cooper’s Creative ranks. His accusation and manner left Peggy shocked and speechless.

When Peggy appeared at Duck’s hotel room to return his gift, I doubt that she had any intention of having sex with him. Did Duck plan to sexually seduce Peggy? I do not know. And since I have no idea of Duck’s intention, I am not going to pretend that I do or speculate. I do have to wonder if the prevalent negative attitude toward Duck has led many fans to believe that he had intended to seduce her. I do recall Peggy complimenting Duck’s turtleneck sweater when they first met in “The Fog”. I also noticed something else. Once Peggy and Duck were in bed together, they seemed turned on by each other.

A good number of viewers had expressed disgust at Peggy’s sexual tryst with Duck, using their 20-something age difference as an excuse. But Joan Harris and Roger Sterling were (and still are) roughly fifteen years apart in age during their affair. Even back then, Joan was slightly older and more experienced during her affair with Roger. But Peggy is not some blushing virgin. She was already sexually experienced and had given birth to Pete’s son in (1.13) “The Wheel”. She even managed to seduce some college kid in “Love Among the Ruins” as a test of her sexuality. Yet, many fans expressed disgust at her tryst with Duck. Even worse, they labeled her as some sexually naïve woman who found herself seduced and manipulated by an older man. I must be honest. I found that perception of Peggy rather offensive. At age 24, Peggy was young and probably upset over Don’s outburst. But as I had stated earlier, she was not naïve by this time in the series. I suspect that Peggy had simply used Duck’s offer of great sex to derive some kind of pleasure following her disastrous meeting with Don. Many fans had also predicted disastrous consequences from Peggy and Duck’s tryst. Not really. Peggy had quietly distanced herself from Duck by Season Four, despite his drunken reaction at the time. But I do believe that she paid an emotional consequence for rejecting Duck’s offer at Gray’s. At least for a few years.