Originally Posted by DanielRoffleView Post Ok, spoilery:
SPOILERY
I think you’re wrong about quite a bit of this. The characters you refer to were not introduced to come back in later seasons, but because it was an interesting historical footnote that they did appear briefly in Deadwood around that time, and I believe there were apocryphal rumors of a conflict with Bullock. This is not to say that their storyline really went anywhere, but that they primarily served to ramp up the tension and confusion of the main Hearst dynamic, with all the players scrambling to figure out how they might fit into it. If you’re going to talk about characters who didn’t have time to play our their full storylines, you need to talk about the theater troupe.
I think you’re misinterpreting the theme, too. It wasn’t that these things could happen without bloodshed; there was a fair amount of violence and murder involved in Hearst’s takeover, and it ended literally with a sacrifice in innocent blood. The theme was that, yes, big business would eventually take over, and it would not be the bosses who felt the pain from it or who’d be left cleaning up the mess. And the little guy couldn’t do much to prevent this without destroying what he built, the very thing he was trying to protect* the in the process.
*I point to the exchange between after Charlie lays out his plan for a pre-emptive slaughter of Hearst and his minions.
Sol: “There’ll be nothing left of the camp.”
Charlie: "How much you figure will stand, once Hearst had his say?
Originally Posted by joeypantsView Post I could watch an entire series devoted to Cox’s character.
Me too, it’s just that the rest of the troupe never really affects the story, and even with him, you’re left with the feeling that he was going to be a bigger figure in the community than we saw him being.
Originally Posted by SchwartzView Post The characters you refer to were not introduced to come back in later seasons, but because it was an interesting historical footnote that they did appear briefly in Deadwood around that time, and I believe there were apocryphal rumors of a conflict with Bullock.
There’s a bit of debate about whether they ever were there - sources differ. But yeah, they weren’t ever scheduled to come back in a later arc or anything.
Originally Posted by SchwartzView Post SPOILERY I think you’re wrong about quite a bit of this. The characters you refer to were not introduced to come back in later seasons, but because it was an interesting historical footnote that they did appear briefly in Deadwood around that time, and I believe there were apocryphal rumors of a conflict with Bullock. This is not to say that their storyline really went anywhere, but that they primarily served to ramp up the tension and confusion of the main Hearst dynamic, with all the players scrambling to figure out how they might fit into it. If you’re going to talk about characters who didn’t have time to play our their full storylines, you need to talk about the theater troupe. I think you’re misinterpreting the theme, too. It wasn’t that these things could happen without bloodshed; there was a fair amount of violence and murder involved in Hearst’s takeover, and it ended literally with a sacrifice in innocent blood. The theme was that, yes, big business would eventually take over, and it would not be the bosses who felt the pain from it or who’d be left cleaning up the mess. And the little guy couldn’t do much to prevent this without destroying what he built, the very thing he was trying to protect* the in the process. *I point to the exchange between after Charlie lays out his plan for a pre-emptive slaughter of Hearst and his minions. Sol: “There’ll be nothing left of the camp.” Charlie: "How much you figure will stand, once Hearst had his say?
I stand corrected re: Earp, though I hafta say that if that was the case those scenes feel all the more unecessary to me, the show was already getting oblique enough without throwing in random appearences for historical geek value. But I suspect the occasionally meandering tone of that season is part of its charm.
As to the theme, I agree with pretty much everything you said, and don’t really see how this counteracts what I said. The last few episodes were hyping you up to the possibility of an epic shootout; this didn’t happen because, as you said, the inhabitants of Deadwood knew that it would only mean their destruction. I wasn’t saying that Hearst’s takeover was entirely devoid of violence (it’s no surprise that capitalism uses strongarm tactics when it needs to), just that the big bloodbath that the viewer had been lead to expect didn’t happen, which runs pretty contrary to how these situations usually pan out in westerns.
You said there didn’t necessarily need to be any violence for the takeover to occur. Perhaps you meant it as an aside, but I think the show has always accepted that this kind of violence is a, if not desirable, natural element of the growing pains of the community as it goes from wilderness to camp. S3 is about the transition from camp to town, and makes the argument that this change is no less violent for the added veneer of civility (S3 is the bloodiest of them all, from my recollection). This strikes me as an important point.
But yes, another important aspect was that the characters, and in extension the audience, were forced to accept that the price of ongoing survival included forgoing the bloody satisfaction they craved.
Originally Posted by SchwartzView Post You said there didn’t necessarily need to be any violence for the takeover to occur. Perhaps you meant it as an aside, but I think the show has always accepted that this kind of violence is a, if not desirable, natural element of the growing pains of the community as it goes from wilderness to camp. S3 is about the transition from camp to town, and makes the argument that this change is no less violent for the added veneer of civility (S3 is the bloodiest of them all, from my recollection). This strikes me as an important point. But yes, another important aspect was that the characters, and in extension the audience, were forced to accept that the price of ongoing survival included forgoing the bloody satisfaction they craved.
Oh, yeah, I suppose I was a bit muddled on this - S3 is bloody as hell, and Hearst would never hesitate to use violence when desirable. I was just talking about that episode in particular, and how the fact that you can’t beat him the old fashioned, violent way makes him even scarier.
Just watched Season 2 again, and I remain insistant upon the pure elemental greatness of Wolcott. That character is beyond genius. What especially odd about that is that he is, at his core, the most hackneyed creation in the entire show, a philosophically witty serial killer a la Hannibal Lector. And yet, the form his sociopathic tendancies take, the haunted erudition, the intricacies of his self-image (‘suppose the earth only speaks to us to arrange it’s amusements…it tells me there is no sin’), and his ability to compartmentalize his fucked up drives. Brilliant performance, brilliant writing. It’s on the level of something like Hans Landa or Daniel Plainview.
What’s also great is that even with all of that, as an antagonist, he fits perfectly well with the concerns of the show, particularly the “creation of a community” angle. His mannerism, his facade of being a civilized man, all of that, covering the one guy that can’t have any sort of relationship or connection with anybody, is a pretty good counterpoint to everything the series is going for, the need for community and all that, not that far away from what Hearst would exemplify in season 3, except Hearst’s main issue was his own inability to accept his own need for connection, whereas Wolcott is completely incapable of that. The fact that, if you take into account the hints of some sort of abuse, sexual or otherwise, makes Wolcott “believable” is just gravy.
I also love how, depending on how you want to look at it, from the Chez Ami incident forward, pretty much everything he does can be read as near-suicidal, for instance, his confrontation with Mose Manuel, and yet, even being that thoroughly fucked up, he is being quite the effective agent for Hearst.
Part of me would love for Garrett Dillahunt to have his chance at a Hans Landa/Daniel Plainview performance in a movie watched enough to give him deserved praise, but I agree that his work as Wolcott is good enough to qualify, as is.
Oh, absolutely, that a presence as potent as Wolcott doesn’t overwhelm the other characters and in fact reinforces the entire thematic heft of the show is just reason number 72 that Deadwood is the greatest thing since ever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Francis WolcottView Post Hearst’s main issue was his own inability to accept his own need for connection, whereas Wolcott is completely incapable of that.
One thing Wolcott does that I’ve never seen any other character do is be able to stand back and comment on his own self destructive fucked up spiral with intelligence and a sense of humor. He’s removed from everything, even his own psychological collapse.
According to Dillahunt, Milch originally had planned for him to play Hearst! What the hell would that have been?
Funny this should get bumped as I got the complete box set for xmas and have just hit the halfway mark on the show. I’m not reading this thread for fear of spoilers, but here are some scattered thoughts thus far:
McShane’s operating on a kind of once-in-a-lifetime iconic level and somehow it doesn’t seem fair to compare other performances to him.
I love Dourif here because he’s the last person you’d think of to play one of the most good-hearted characters, and the combo of his trademark intensity and the doc’s moral decency makes for a unique character. It’s a bit of a shame he doesn’t get many plotlines of his own; he’s a pretty static character, thus far anyway.
Sanderson is a blast to watch and this might be his definitive role.
Keith Carradine is in the show for a ridiculously short space of time but makes such an impact during that time that it still resonates when the characters refer back to Wild Bill later on.
Ray McKinnon’s story as the Reverend gave season 1 a lot of its soul, and that last conversation between him and Bullock and Sol was a heartbreaker. The way he went out was a great character moment for Al.
Also have to give props to Garret Dillahunt, because I just read that he played both Walcott and Jack McCall, and I never even noticed.
Olyphant looks pretty cool, but is a touch wooden eh?
Even with reassurances that it’s not entirely left hanging, the fact that I know there’s no true wrap up to the show casts a bit of a melancholy shadow over the whole experience. The main arc of the show - showing the development of an unaffiliated ramshackle camp into an integrated american town - is something that should really be followed to its natural end, and reading about how the Gem burned down shortly after the timeframe of the series hints at a likely finale (Trixie might even have foreshadowed this at one point). But I’m not at the end yet so I’ll have to wait and see how I feel about it.
All in all it’s a fucking awesome show, in the running for the best of all the big HBO dramas.
Olyphant’s seriously my only complaint sometimes. He’s not awful, but there’s just something about him strolling around snarling through his teeth at everyone that becomes grating.
Also, bought the box set Wednesday on Amazon for $75, just got it yesterday. Guess I can get around to finishing S3 now.
Originally Posted by JakeView Post Olyphant’s seriously my only complaint sometimes. He’s not awful, but there’s just something about him strolling around snarling through his teeth at everyone that becomes grating.
See, I actually love that about his performance. Like Stiglitz in Inglourious Basterds, he’s–as someone posted–a pitbull on a dental floss leash. In Bullock’s case, however, it’s his sense of justice and decorum that stops him from snapping that leash. And, so, he walks the streets of Deadwood, seething at the stupidity and evil he sees around him and the supposed woodenness of Olyphant’s performance is–at least in my eyes–a deliberate choice.
I buy that because Olyphant is not a wooden performer in other stuff. I do think the dialogue comes a little harder for him than for others (like, oh, McShane), but I would also say the showrunners adapted to Olyphant’s characterization early on, and shifted the mantle of central character to Swearengen sometime about halfway through Season 1.
On this rewatch, I’m thinking they should have used the Doc more. Dourif is excellent. But with this ensemble, how do you pick? In fact, my only real complaint about Season 3 is that the spend too much time with the wrong characters (the acting troupe, Con Stapleton, Steve the Drunk) in lieu of their best, like Doc, Cy, or Sol. It’s like going to a basketball game on the night they decide to bench the marquee players in order to give the rookies time to develop.
I’m kind of in the middle. While I agree there is not the total immersion in the character you get while watching McShane or Dillahunt perform, I also think the stiffness is totally intentional, integral to the character, even. And I would add that there is a kind of theatricality to Deadwood that often has an intentional distancing effect, which gives the lack of complete naturalism in Olyphant’s performance a little bit of latitude.
Also, I got the box set for Christmas, and am digging into the show for the first time since I finished deason 3. A few episodes in is all I need to reaffirm that nothing I’ve seen on television save The Wire touches this level of writing.
Originally Posted by MattioliView Post See, I actually love that about his performance. Like Stiglitz in Inglourious Basterds, he’s–as someone posted–a pitbull on a dental floss leash. In Bullock’s case, however, it’s his sense of justice and decorum that stops him from snapping that leash. And, so, he walks the streets of Deadwood, seething at the stupidity and evil he sees around him and the supposed woodenness of Olyphant’s performance is–at least in my eyes–a deliberate choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaileyView Post I’m kind of in the middle. While I agree there is not the total immersion in the character you get while watching McShane or Dillahunt perform, I also think the stiffness is totally intentional, integral to the character, even. And I would add that there is a kind of theatricality to Deadwood that often has an intentional distancing effect, which gives the lack of complete naturalism in Olyphant’s performance a little bit of latitude.
I can buy these explanations. Time for a rewatch! After I finish everything else, I mean.