I don’t see Hearst as being any worse than Al. Put another way, Al is as bad as Hearst. After all, Al had Alma’s husband killed. Al was responsible for the death of Alma’s childs family.
Al is no better than Hearst and I really hope Wu doesn’t come in and “save” Al. Pretty much everyone in Deadwood deserves what they get other than the likes of Ellsworth and Bullock. Al should die just as much as Hearst.
Yes and no. In another thread, Qadgop defined sociopath thusly:
I guess Al has expanded his non-traditional group to include Dan, Trixie, Alma, Seth, Sofia, Ellsworth, Doc, Jewel, Merrick, Jack, etc. The first half of S1, he pretty much seemed not to give a damn about anyone. He knocked Trixie around, hated Seth, tried to have Sofia killed, stuff like that. Now, he protects these people, would kill for them, and feels left out when he’s not invited to their meetings.
Cy Tolliver and George Hearst are psychopaths, though.
The road agents were acting on their own that time. Remember how pissed off Al was about it? Of course Al then sent Dan to kill the child. But he didn’t press the issue when Dan and Doc found a way around it.
Al’s bad behavior is at least rational. Can’t say the same for Hearst. Bastard’s just evil. Al hasn’t killed anyone that didn’t deserve it.
I disagree. I think the difference is that Hearst is a sadist whike Al is not. Al is Ruthless, to be sure, but it’s only as a means to an end. Hearst likes to hurt people just for its own sake. He hurts them just because he enjoys hurting them. That’s not something Al tends to do. I don’t think he takes sadistic pleasure in causing pain or killing people, he does it because he wants something from them or wants to achieve some other goal. If you haven’t crossed him or he doesn’t think he can rob you, he’ll pretty much leave you alone.
I think that’s why he was so confused about why Hearst sent Turner to fight with Dan. He couldn’t see the angle in it. Couldn’t see how it benefited Hearst. He doesn’t possess the same need to dominate and intimidate others solely to boost his own ego. Hearst’s sadism and need to dominate was best illustrated in his meaningless torment of E.B. He did that out of sheer frustration, because he needed to hurt somebody and make them feel afraid of him. Al doesn’t have that in him. He doesn’t hurt people if there’s nothing to gain by it. He’ll hurt people but he doesn’t get off on it and he doesn’t do it just so that he can get off on it.
Plus, I think Al does have some capacity for empathy and even affection. We saw that in season one with the Reverend, we’ve seen hints of it with Jewel and Trixie (if it’s possible to call somebody a “loopy fuckin’ cunt” with affection, i think we saw it tonight), and I think we’ve even seen it with Merrick and Wu.
That doesn’t mean that Al is “good,” of course, he’s too damaged to ever really be a good person but as Trixie has said, “there’s entries on both sides of the ledger” with Al. I see him as being someone who possesses qualities which could have made him a great man (intelligence, organization, courage, charisma, natural authority) if he hadn’t been so fucked up as a child. Those paradoxes and complexities are what make him such a fascinating and entertaining character. I think it makes him much more interesting to watch than if he was just a one dimensional, evil villain.
Hearst is as calculating as Al. I haven’t seen him do anything that is more “evil” than Al. Not saying he’s right but that he’s no worse.
I see your point Diogenes and I think it’s a good one. My reaction, however, is meh. So what if (according to this show) Hearst is a sadist. He and Al still do despicable things to achieve their ends. Just because Al may have an ‘angle’ does not mean that he is any better than Hearst. Put another way, is a cat more “evil” than a dog because they will kill for sport (well, practice) whereas a dog only tends to kill when hungry?
Further, I believe Hearst was merely attempting to push Al even further down by having his heavy kill Al’s heavy in broad daylight thus proving that he now runs Deadwood. Hearst seemed quite emotional at the death of the Colonel. Moreover, Hearst is not so one dimensional. He has feelings and desires that are as legitimate as Al’s.
Do remember, Al was going to have a child killed and had Alma’s husband, a bit of flake to be sure but so what, assasinated. Sorry, not much room for gray there.
Hearst is no better or no worse than Al though I do agree that they are both great characters.
Damn, why does this show have to end??
You’re kidding, right? Hearst has been responsible for ordering the deaths of several innocent people solely for profit, has shown no capacity for remorse. The only pity he has illustrates has been for himself.
Al started the show as a total bastard, no doubt about it, but he has evolved since then. The last time Al did something really sickeningly wrong was when he sent Dan to kill Sofia. Since then, he has shown a direct progression towards being, though not good, a better man. Seems like being the functional, if not official, Mayor of Deadwood has awakened a sense of community concern in him. Also, I think he grew to love a few people, which he may not have had the opportunity to do.
Hearst doesn’t give a damn about anyone. He pays lip service to caring about Aunt Lou, but he killed her son with nary the blink of an eye. He is definitely more evil than Al because he kills and hurts and humiliates people for fun as well as profit. He has no redeeming qualities, which Al patently has. Can you picture Hearst jumping off HIS balcony to help anyone?
So why did Al have Alma’s husband killed again?
Different issue then. Al’s redemption is part of his character arc which is fine. It does not, however, make him any better than Hearst particularly as he hasn’t actually paid for any of his crimes. Not sure I can accept redemption without pennance.
We don’t know he killed her son. That said, you think Al would be any less forgiving of someone who tried to rip him off? I don’t think so.
As for Al saving Alma couldn’t one argue that it’s a good way for him to also curry favor with Bullock? Is it not the slightest bit sickening to you that Al killed Alma’s husband and would have killed Sophia as well. Other than the Colonel’s fight with Dan I have yet to see Hearst do anything especially sadistic. The fight with Dan could be seen as Hearst just confirming his dominance. That is, Hearst has done nothing worse than Al. Having Ellsworth killed is no different than having Alma’s husband killed. So Al has developed as a person, I can see that but Al also destroyed Merreck’s presses when it suited him. Just because you believe Al is more calculating doesn’t mean he is any less a murderer.
Again, no redemption without pennance. I do hope Al gets his in the end.
Did you notice where I said AFTER S1?
Not sure it matters what you can accept. I don’t think we’re going for redemption with Al. He will pay the piper, history sees to that. Yes, he’s done evil things. He is still better than Hearst.
I think S3 Al might, if it were the son of someone he professed to care for so openly.
No. I don’t think Al would jump off a balcony to curry favor with anyone. Do you recall that Al and Bullock beat the shit out of each other in the thoroughfare last season? Al does not curry favor. He jumped off that balcony spontaneously, looked like to me.
Wow, reread what I wrote. I said it was sickening that he sent Dan to kill Sofia. killing Bram happened before that. Since then, he has shown a steady upward trend in his behavior.
Spitting in EB’s face and telling him if he wiped it off, he’d kill him? And it’s Captain Turner, not Colonel.
Yes, he has. Hearst was playing “let’s see you and him fight” with human beings. Al didn’t even send Dan out to kill Turner-- Dan wanted to and Al let him.
Hey, if you’re set on arguing points I’ve already made, such as that Al did unconscionable things in S1, go ahead, but I’ve already stated as much. Al has developed as a person. He gives a shit about the well-being of others. I don’t think he is more calculating, though he is definitely calculating. He has the ability to care about the welfare of others. He’s not a saint. Hearst, as shown on Deadwood, has no concern for anything but his own power trip. Thus, Al is not as evil as Hearst. That’s about the size of it. No one is saying Al is a candidate for sainthood.
Again, no redemption without pennance. I do hope Al gets his in the end.
[/QUOTE]
I like the debate on Al’s character. The series has been the story of order out of chaos.
Al started as the villain but through the building of community (originally just for profit) he’s begun to expand his sociopathic circle from the Gem to the whole town.
A great telling moment was the issue of the letter that Bullock wrote and whether or not to print it. Al said something like “It’s a good idea… I don’t know why, but it is.” He doesn’t even fully understand the change he’s going through.
Oh and I think I’ve been wrong on all my predictions this season. I swear to god season 2 I was on top of… this season not at all.
Still no idea what was going on with the actors.
That was Cy.
I don’t know why I love Al and hate Hearst, but I do. Maybe it’s because Al represents the “little guy”, and Hearst represents big business, corporate greed, etc. Al’s been the underdog this season. It’s easy to root for the underdog.
Plus, the writers have shown us a sympathetic side of Al many times, and they haven’t done that with Hearst, except for that talk in the thoroughfare with Odell.
Me neither. Their story was going to be expanded in [sob] season four.
Also, after the last ep, knowing that George Fucking Hearst becomes a United States Senator freaks me out a little. I realize that Deadwood is a work of fiction, but it does say something about Reconstruction America, doesn’t it?
Funny thing I just read about Hearst-- he was nearly illiterate. They had him giving his doomed employee shit about not being able to read in the last ep. His description here is quite contrary to his depiction on the show. Hmmm.
I guess I’m wondering if Al has done penance by building the community of Deadwood as he has. What do you guys think? I mean, obviously he’s lead a life of crime, but he’s come a long way in the course of the show. I love an anti-hero and HBO does them so well.
And is there really zero chance of a Season 4? I think I’m gonna cry again at the thought. 
I can’t imagine any development the actor story line could have had in (lamented) season 4 that would have made it any less of a fucking timewasting drag. Much as I love Deadwood, it just grinds to a dead halt whenever we see any actor other than Langrishe, and he adds very little himself.
That said, this was an awesome episode, and I can’t wait to see what happens next.
Al has evolved through three seasons. There’s no way the Al of season 3 would order family killed just so he could take their property. He’d certainly talk like he would, but I’m not sure he would.
This Al is a better man than George Hearst. He doesn’t need ‘redemption’ for that, and it doesn’t matter if different viewers come to different conclusions about how much they like the character. Good characters are ambiguous that way, just like real people.
In a way, the whole Deadwood series is about the moral redemption of Al Swearingen, at least within limits. He’s the only character on the show who is really changing. Seth and Sol are no different than the day they rode into town. Nor Charlie Udder, or Dan, or EB (well, maybe EB’s growing a spine as we speak…)
Anyway, I think the Swearingen character has evolved brilliantly. All credit to the writers and to Ian McShane for pulling it off in a believable way.
The reason Al killed Alma’s husband was because he threatened to call in the Pinkertons. It would be overly generous to Al to call his actions “self defense”, but clearly greed wasn’t his driving motive. (It was his motive for scamming the dude in the first place, but not for the murder.)
The way I see it, Al likes to be in control but lacks a strong motive towards domination for its own sake. Were Hearst and Al’s positions reversed, I don’t see Al making such a strong play for the Garret claim. He’d make a play for it, but if rebuffed he’d be content with 95% of the claims. Hearst, however, just has to have it. He doesn’t need it. He’s fabulously wealthy and getting wealthier by the day. Alma is no financial threat to him by any reasonable measure.
Al knows when to leave well enough alone. When Tolliver came to town, he had some adjusting to do, but there really hasn’t been much tension between them. Al lets Tolliver do his thing, and Tolliver lets Al do his. Hearst wouldn’t be able to do that. He would need to control everything.
Deep down, Tolliver is a wuss. When the shit hits the fan, all he can do throw a little hissy fit and abuse his whores. Witness when he got knifed-- he stumbles around begging, “Don’t let me die!” Now, I’d be doing that myself, but can you see Al Swearingen whimpering like a little girl? He didn’t even have the wherewithall to go kill the fucker who did it to him. He’s a hanger-on. He tries to latch on to whomever is in power but he fears real conflict (which is why I think he got so angry when he saw Heasrt was shot. He knew it was the true opening salvo of the bloodbath to come.)
Are Wu’s “chinks” warriors or peasants? Wu seemed pleased when Swearingen offered them guns, so apparently, the know how to use them. (I was a bit touched when Al ordered the whores to honor him by standing in the hall as he passed.)
That was the most tender moment we’ve seen from Al the whole series.
Ellis ‘Al’ Swearengen died in 1899.
Though the circumstances may give you some satisfaction.
Sorry, that’s when the Gem burned down again. He died in 1904.
I had a flashback to the first episode, when Trixie killed a john (bullet straight through the head) and Doc was looking at it (including putting a rod through the wound while the guy was still alive and babbling). I figured he recognized the bullet as probably coming from Trixie’s gun and that’s why he suddenly needed to make rounds.