Deadwood, 8/20/06

[Rubystreak]

@Lochdale

Yes there has been development but we’ve seen so little of Hearst so we don’t know what he has been through.

We’ve seen him for an entire season, and I think he has been deliberately characterized as a person devoid of mercy and sympathy. Al was like that at first, but the writers have changed him. I think this is intentional, though you deny it’s happening.

Ask yourself this though, would Al kill anyone of those people if his interests were threatned? The answer is that he would.

No, the answer is it depends on who it is. Certainly he has had opportunities to get rid of all the people in Deadwood who have gotten in his way, including Bullock, Alma, Sofia, but hasn’t. I think he values having certain standards in Deadwood, partially out of self-interest, and partially out of the regard I believe he has developed for some of the people in the community. I mean, why the hell does he care if someone shoots at Alma, or breaks Merrick’s ribs? But he does.

Al has gathered those people around him as much to fight Hearst as because he cares for them. To be sure there are some tender moments here and there but as his treatment of Johnny shows, Al is only in it for Al. Not that much different from Hearst at all.

Oh please, I think he’s hard on Johnny but not malicious. And you said it yourself-- Al CARES. Hearst does not. I don’t think Al is only in it for Al. I think Al cares about Deadwood, and not just for the money. For the life he’s made for himself and for the people in it. Trixie in particular, I believe he has shown love towards.

Al is no better than Hearst, just a more developed character.

I disagree and that is really the end of that, because you won’t convince me otherwise, and neither will the show, since it’s ending.

If push came to shove Al would do whatever it took to protect himself and his interests.

His interests include caring about people now. Important point.

I wonder, if Al had the wealth and power Hearst has would he be any different?

I wonder, if Al had grown up in a loving, stable family, would he have been a US Senator too? He surely has the brains, cunning, and charisma. It’s sad that he’s a pimp and saloon owner who has to sing to an empty bar on Talent Night.

Yea, that is a shame. Hearst did seem surprised but he may just have well been pretending in front of Lou.

I saw no surprise, just pragmatism and a sociopath’s mimicking of real human emotions when he “comforted” Aunt Lou. In fact, all the pseudo-sympathetic moments of Hearst shown have always smacked of fakery to me. Hearst is played like a stone psychopath pretending to be a person. Kudos to Gerald McRaney for doing such a good job of portrarying that.

Well Bullock was beating him to death and was going to kill him but for Dan hitting Bullock on the head. Al was done and dusted and only pulled the knife after Dan hit Bullock (I think, I don’t have the DVD’s but that’s how I remember it).

He was like a snake who has reared back to strike. He had to engage the cerebrum and decide not to do what his natural inclination compelled him to do. Because he needed Bullock, and also because I think he respects Bullock and it would be bad and wrong to kill him. There is a real regard there.

Yes, really. Hearst offers them no salvation. That is, Hearst will not sustain the status quo.

The status quo is already disrupted. Al offers protection and sanctuary. Why would he shelter Trixie? What’s in it for him?

Al at least offers a way out because Al either can’t or won’t dominate them (he can’t dominate Sol and Bullock). It’s a dead cert what a Hearst-run Deadwood will look like. Better the devil you know.

Al used to want to dominate them but now I think he’d rather rule by consensus. How can you not see that as progress?

Two things: One you said that Hearst was sadistic because he spat at EB because he was annoyed. I merely pointed out that Al has done the same.

No, you totally missed the point of that spitting. Hearst spat on EB and told him, if he wiped the spit off, that he would kill EB, even if it was the next day. Why? Because he was pissed off that he wasn’t getting the gratification he wanted from his violent attempts at domination. Has Al ever done anything that pointlessly humiliating to anyone? How about threatening to rape Alma because she wouldn’t sell her property to him?

Second thing is that Hearst has a motive as well. He believes commerce and development bring law, order and civilization.

You didn’t get that as the bullshit he tells himself so he can rationalize forcing his will and power onto everyone? His self-pity trip about how he’s the vehicle for civilization while slaughtering union organizers in the street like animals is so transparently part of his whole self-mythologizing sociopathy.

That’s as a legitimate of a moral code as Al’s.

Al has progressed beyond just caring about the bottom line.

You had me until the last line. To see Hearst as just a one-dimensional character is also to miss the point of the show.

I didn’t say he was one-dimensional. I said he was the villain.

He’s deeper and more complex than that. In many ways, Hearst is what Al reaps for making Deadwood what it is, through whatever means Al thought necessary.

I agree that Hearst is the price Al and Deadwood may have to pay for their prosperity, but I don’t agree that they deserve it.

[Lochdale]

@Rubystreak

We’ve seen him for an entire season, and I think he has been deliberately characterized as a person devoid of mercy and sympathy. Al was like that at first, but the writers have changed him. I think this is intentional, though you deny it’s happening.

I do not deny it is happening and I never have. I deny your notion that Al is now better than Hearst. He has different motives and perhaps he even is softening up but that makes him no less of a murderer.

No, the answer is it depends on who it is. Certainly he has had opportunities to get rid of all the people in Deadwood who have gotten in his way, including Bullock, Alma, Sofia, but hasn’t.

He hasn’t because he can’t or because he knows that it would destablize the camp which is not in his best interests.

I think Al cares about Deadwood, and not just for the money. For the life he’s made for himself and for the people in it. Trixie in particular, I believe he has shown love towards.

Deadwood is all Al has. Perhaps all he has ever had. I think Hearst arrival has confirmed that for him. Again it makes for a good character development but still doesn’t make him better than Hearst.

I wonder, if Al had grown up in a loving, stable family, would he have been a US Senator too? He surely has the brains, cunning, and charisma. It’s sad that he’s a pimp and saloon owner who has to sing to an empty bar on Talent Night.

I’ve noticed that in this and other posts you appear to be personalizing this. Remember, this is just a fictional view of Hearst. We know very little of the real Al.

In fact, all the pseudo-sympathetic moments of Hearst shown have always smacked of fakery to me. Hearst is played like a stone psychopath pretending to be a person. Kudos to Gerald McRaney for doing such a good job of portrarying that.

In fairness, we have no proof of that. He seems fairly surprised by the death of Odell and hurt by the death of the Captain. Further, his comment that he does no belong amongst his own kind seemed genuine to me.

He was like a snake who has reared back to strike. He had to engage the cerebrum and decide not to do what his natural inclination compelled him to do. Because he needed Bullock, and also because I think he respects Bullock and it would be bad and wrong to kill him. There is a real regard there.

Or, Al got his arse kicked and was going to be beaten to death before Dan saved him. He used the knife because he is a murderer. It was only his pragmatism and self-interest that prevented him from killing Bullock. So yes, Al is growing but that doesn’t make him better than Hearst. He’s just seen the light a little earlier than Hearst.

Al used to want to dominate them but now I think he’d rather rule by consensus. How can you not see that as progress?

Your missing my point. It can be seen as progress but is it because Al cares or because Hearst has scarred him? Would Al be any different than Hearst? I’m not so sure. You seem to be but then you have a fairly intense dislike for Hearst.

No, you totally missed the point of that spitting. Hearst spat on EB and told him, if he wiped the spit off, that he would kill EB, even if it was the next day. Why? Because he was pissed off that he wasn’t getting the gratification he wanted from his violent attempts at domination. Has Al ever done anything that pointlessly humiliating to anyone? How about threatening to rape Alma because she wouldn’t sell her property to him?

So Al beating on people is ok though because he didn’t spit on them? Also, he didn’t overtly tell Alma he was going to rape her, he said that subsequently. Hearst is slime but so is Al. Al is just developing but that does not obviate his prior bad acts.

I agree that Hearst is the price Al and Deadwood may have to pay for their prosperity, but I don’t agree that they deserve it.

So just because Hearst is, in your mind, more evil than Al then Al should get off scott-free? Al deserves everything he gets and I think we both know what happens to him (assuming there is even a grain of truth in this FICTIONAL portrayal of Deadwood).

[Rubystreak]

@Lochdale

I deny your notion that Al is now better than Hearst. He has different motives and perhaps he even is softening up but that makes him no less of a murderer.

All murderers are not the same and cannot be judged as the same. Al has done things that are evil and wrong. However, I find Al to be a far more sympathetic character than Hearst. I think that’s because the show is written to create that feeling in me, because Al Swearengen has, against all expectation, become the hero of the show, or anti-hero if you will. You disagree. Shrug.

Deadwood is all Al has. Perhaps all he has ever had. I think Hearst arrival has confirmed that for him. Again it makes for a good character development but still doesn’t make him better than Hearst.

Does to me.

I’ve noticed that in this and other posts you appear to be personalizing this. Remember, this is just a fictional view of Hearst. We know very little of the real Al.

Personalize this? I’m talking about characters on a show. The writers have taken pains to give us insight into Al’s history and childhood. Why? To build sympathy in the audience for him. It has worked on me, anyway. They haven’t done this for Hearst, because he is not a main character. He is a foil for Al, not someone whose tragic childhood is relevant to the development of the plot. Al has a lot of qualities that make a good leader, but circumstance has made him what he is. That’s tragic, don’t you think?

In fairness, we have no proof of that. He seems fairly surprised by the death of Odell and hurt by the death of the Captain. Further, his comment that he does no belong amongst his own kind seemed genuine to me.

Not to me. We disagree. Shrug.

So yes, Al is growing but that doesn’t make him better than Hearst. He’s just seen the light a little earlier than Hearst.

We have no reason to think that Hearst will ever “see the light.” The show is going to end before that would happen. Al has “seen the light,” and to me, that shows that his moral development is ahead of Hearst’s, maybe despite himself. But he is the character I’m pulling for, and Hearst is the one I’d like to see brought low. Not Al. If the show were continuing, I’d enjoy watching Al continue to do his thing. Hearst would move on and we’d get another villain.

Your missing my point. It can be seen as progress but is it because Al cares or because Hearst has scarred him? Would Al be any different than Hearst? I’m not so sure. You seem to be but then you have a fairly intense dislike for Hearst.

When Hearst had Ellsworth killed, that’s when I developed my fairly intense dislike for the character. He is a great villain and is effectively uniting Deadwood’s disparate elements; great plot device by the writers. Of course I think Al is scared of Hearst. Everyone is who has a brain. He wants to eat them alive.

So Al beating on people is ok though because he didn’t spit on them?

OK, let me say it again: HE THREATENED TO KILL EB IF HE WIPED THE SPIT OFF. Is that clear? It’s not about the spitting, it’s about the murder threat, the humiliation, the abuse of power for no reason other than pleasure. That’s sick. Hearst has been depicted as a sicko. Al, not so much.

Also, he didn’t overtly tell Alma he was going to rape her, he said that subsequently.

She got the fuckin’ message, I’d say. Because he didn’t say, “I’m going to rape you!” that makes it better? No, just more subtle and menacing; it was purely sociopathic, well beyond the parameters for normal human behavior. You are, as someone said of Iago, “making motives for motiveless malignance,” or something to that effect. The purpose of that scene was to show us how utterly vicious and sick Hearst is. It worked.

Hearst is slime but so is Al. Al is just developing but that does not obviate his prior bad acts.

There you go with the obviating. It’s as if you don’t even read what I wrote.

So just because Hearst is, in your mind, more evil than Al then Al should get off scott-free?

This is getting tiring. Scott free? Because he and Deadwood don’t deserve George Hearst? What?

Al deserves everything he gets and I think we both know what happens to him (assuming there is even a grain of truth in this FICTIONAL portrayal of Deadwood).

I disagree again. Shrug again. My shoulders are getting tired.

[Euthanasiast]

I haven’t seen any of the third season of Deadwood as I am awaiting the DVD release, but I have a question regarding Hearst. I am a little confused by his motivations from the second season to the current season. Didn’t he fire Francis Wolcott for engaging in behavior that had potential for making Hearst look bad? So why the sudden disregard for his own moral appearances in this third season. From a standpoint of someone who has seen season two, though not three, I find it disconcerting that the Hearst from season two is the same man in season three.

Deadwood; the closest thing to Shakespearean porn you’ll ever see.

[5que]

@Euthanasiast

Deadwood; the closest thing to Shakespearean porn you’ll ever see.

If only the HBO Marketing Department had used this, maybe we’d have a 4th season!

[Push_You_Down]

@Euthanasiast

I haven’t seen any of the third season of Deadwood as I am awaiting the DVD release, but I have a question regarding Hearst. I am a little confused by his motivations from the second season to the current season. Didn’t he fire Francis Wolcott for engaging in behavior that had potential for making Hearst look bad? So why the sudden disregard for his own moral appearances in this third season. From a standpoint of someone who has seen season two, though not three, I find it disconcerting that the Hearst from season two is the same man in season three.

Yeah Hearst from season 2 seemed like a stern but caring grandfather. He honestly seems upset that Wolcott’s a murderer, not just that it could possibly hurt his name. That scene between them in the hotel always reminded me of how a parent would interact with their child at the police station after finding out they had committed some serious crime. Especially about the Mexico incident, when Wolcott questions Hearst about what he must have thought happened down there and Hearst fumbles and gives a non-answer. It left the impression that Hearst was aware of Wolcott’s failings and tried to ignore them out of existence.
But you’d also note tht Hearst had ordered Capt. Turner to kill Wolcott by the end of the episode, Wolcott just committed suicide before he got there (or maybe Turner was there and gave Wolcott a choice of rope of gun)

He’s almost a completely different character in season 3.

[AuntiePam]

@Rubystreak

Aunt Lou seems to think he did. If he didn’t, the whole plot line was kinda pointless, IMO.

Maybe it’ll come clear in the last episode. I don’t understand why Odell had to die, but I don’t think Hearst had him killed. Even if he didn’t totally trust Odell, Odell would have been helpful to his man, when they got to Liberia.

I’m hoping that Hearst leaves Deadwood, and that Aunt Lou refuses to go with him. I’d love to see the look on Hearst’s face when his friend and “confidante” rejects his sorry ass.

[AuntiePam]

@Survey1215

I liked Ellsworth, hated to see the character go, and was actually jumpy when they showed him in the tent, but the dog-lover/owner in me was thinking ‘man i hope they don’t kill that cool dog too.’

Ha! At the HBO board, someone who works on the set described Milch and Jim Beaver (Ellsworth), when Jim got the news that his character would be killed. Milch gave him the script pages to read, and when Jim finished reading, he asked Milch “So the dog lives?”

[hajario]

@AuntiePam

Maybe it’ll come clear in the last episode. I don’t understand why Odell had to die, but I don’t think Hearst had him killed. Even if he didn’t totally trust Odell, Odell would have been helpful to his man, when they got to Liberia.

I think that Hearst did have Odell killed. Odell was too smart and Hearst was afraid that Odell would screw him. Lou had seen that same act played out many times before which was why she was so terrified about what would happen. Hearst got the information that he needed from Odell and will probably follow-up on his own.

[Rubystreak]

@hajario

I think that Hearst did have Odell killed. Odell was too smart and Hearst was afraid that Odell would screw him. Lou had seen that same act played out many times before which was why she was so terrified about what would happen. Hearst got the information that he needed from Odell and will probably follow-up on his own.

I agree. Hearst got the papers from Odell about the mines in Liberia, and I’m sure he believes that he can find someone just like Odell there who is willing to be his man. I also think Hearst realizes that Odell had some scam going and he doesn’t allow that sort of thing, esp. from a black man.

IRL, Aunt Lou was quite a woman.

[AuntiePam]

@Push You Down

He’s almost a completely different character in season 3.

We had some hints though. Remember when Cy told Hearst about how he cleaned up Wolcott’s mess? Hearst just grinned a little and dismissed him. Cy even looked surprised.

When he confronted Wolcott, he seemed half sad that Wolcott turned out to be such a bad boy, and then angry because he couldn’t understand. All he cared about was the color, and he said so.

Then Hearst agrees to give Al’s man Wu “tryout” in managing the Chinese whores and recruiting miners – even after admitting that Lee had worked well for him for a long time. Hearst knew the “tryout” wouldn’t be Apprentice-style tasks, he knew there’d be blood, and that Al and Wu would have the upper hand. But he didn’t care. If Wu’s men could do a better job, fine.

That’s when you knew Hearst was gonna give Al a run for control of Deadwood. Al should have known it too. Maybe then he wouldn’t have gone to that meeting alone, and he’d still have ten fingers. And Ellsworth would be alive. (sob again)

[Rebecca_DiMwitter]

@Push You Down

Yeah Hearst from season 2 seemed like a stern but caring grandfather. He honestly seems upset that Wolcott’s a murderer, not just that it could possibly hurt his name. That scene between them in the hotel always reminded me of how a parent would interact with their child at the police station after finding out they had committed some serious crime. Especially about the Mexico incident, when Wolcott questions Hearst about what he must have thought happened down there and Hearst fumbles and gives a non-answer. It left the impression that Hearst was aware of Wolcott’s failings and tried to ignore them out of existence.
But you’d also note tht Hearst had ordered Capt. Turner to kill Wolcott by the end of the episode, Wolcott just committed suicide before he got there (or maybe Turner was there and gave Wolcott a choice of rope of gun)

He’s almost a completely different character in season 3.

I’m currently re-watching Season 2, and might be able to speculate on this further later on, but it seems that when Cy was trying to blackmail Wolcott in Season 2 after finding out about Wolcott’s proclivities, Wolcott merely retorted that “his boss knew about his tendencies, and found his value as an employee much greater” . There was a lot of discussion on the HBO boards at the time about whether Wolcott’s activities did in fact bother Hearst, or were “ignored” as long as Francis kept them out of the public eye—when he crossed that line, making the Hearst enterprise look bad in the community, then Hearst had to take action against him. I felt Hearst was just as cold-blooded last season as this one, but it will take a rewatching of the series to establish that firmly for me.

I don’t recall the scene between the two (Wolcott and Hearst) as being tender in the slightest, although their discussion WAS quiet, other than I am sure Hearst greatly regretted having to murder one of his best ruthless and conniving lieutenants. Still feel overall that it was the scandal to the Hearst operation/name that Hearst was primarily concerned with, and not Wolcott’s proclivities.

–Beck

[AuntiePam]

I gotta admit, I didn’t pick up on the hints about Hearst until season three was well under way. Even his instruction to the Captain to “first make sure there is a letter” (Wolcott’s confession, incriminating Hearst) didn’t clue me in.

Now I do think (as said above) that Captain Turner would have killed Wolcott, and I’m leaning toward Hearst doing for Odell too.

[RogueRacer]

No spoilers here, but some idle comments and speculation.

This was kind of a nice episode for E.B. It appears the “B” might stand for “Bold” after all.

I liked the looks that Seth kept giving Al as Al kept trying to remind Seth of his wife.

Sol got another funny moment with his little wave and “hi” to E.B.

“Big man. Wu, big man.” Where is he learning all of this English? Clever cocksucker.

Anyone else remember Commissioner Jarry talking to Adams a few episodes ago? What’s the chance that he’s working for Al or playing both sides?

I will be shocked and a little disappointed if Seth doesn’t kick someone’s ass in the last episode. He is past due on going all “Wrath of God” on someone.

[AuntiePam]

@RogueRacer

I will be shocked and a little disappointed if Seth doesn’t kick someone’s ass in the last episode. He is past due on going all “Wrath of God” on someone.

Lord, yes. The E.B. beatdown doesn’t count.

I think Silas is “all right”. He took the money from Jarry in full view of Dan and Johnny. He’s too smart to cross Al, isn’t he? But still, what was that all about? Maybe something was being set up for season four.

[RogueRacer]

@AuntiePam

I think Silas is “all right”. He took the money from Jarry in full view of Dan and Johnny. He’s too smart to cross Al, isn’t he? But still, what was that all about? Maybe something was being set up for season four.

Sorry, I guess I wasn’t being clear. I was wondering if Jarry could be working for Al?

[AuntiePam]

Jarry working for Al? I dunno. I don’t think they’ve even talked this season, have they? It’d be unlike Milch to pull something out of a hat like that.

Interesting thought, though.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

I think Jarry is just there to work the elections. Remember when Seth was abrubtly walking away from the stump after being informed of Ellsworth’s murder, Jarry asked him what was going on and Seth said, [paraphrasing] “You mean you don’t already know? Have they only got you here for the elections?”

Seth then walked away and Jarry muttered to himself “Elections only.”

[RogueRacer]

@AuntiePam

Jarry working for Al? I dunno. I don’t think they’ve even talked this season, have they? It’d be unlike Milch to pull something out of a hat like that.

Interesting thought, though.

Al and Jarry haven’t talked, but Silas and Jarry have. I seem to remember them even talking about employment. Silas is Al’s right hand man when it comes to political dealings. Sure Jarry and Silas could have just been shooting the shit, but…

Historical spoiler follows:

Historically speaking, I believe that Seth is still sheriff for a while yet, so it seems that he should win the election.

[Lochdale]

@Rubystreak

I agree. Hearst got the papers from Odell about the mines in Liberia, and I’m sure he believes that he can find someone just like Odell there who is willing to be his man. I also think Hearst realizes that Odell had some scam going and he doesn’t allow that sort of thing, esp. from a black man.

Has Heasrt shown any particular dislike of blacks? Any moreso than most Deadwood’s residents?