Deadwood Monday: Season Three, Ep. 36, “Tell Him Something Pretty”

Deadwood Monday: Season Three, Ep. 36, “Tell Him Something Pretty”

By Matt Zoller Seitz on August 28, 2006 in Television Jump to Comments (0)

By Matt Zoller Seitz
The closing shot of last night's Deadwood episode was never meant as a series-ender. But that's what it was, and for a number of reasons, it was both appropriate and troubling: Ian McShane's Al Swearengen kneeling on the floor of his office, cleaning up a bloodstain.
_______________________________________________
To read the rest of the Star-Ledger review, click here. For more writing on Deadwood, see "The Deadwood Columns" in the sidebar at right.

TAGS: david milch, deadwood, hbo, matt zoller seitz, tv recap

MZS, et all,

Not sure if I used that properly but fuck it, it is the end of Deadwood.

The tail end of the discussion going on about the claims v. the camp. The claims are the camp, the town, anyone who borrowed money from the bank, or made a deposit, those are backed by Alma's mine. Not sure what the implications are with her selling to Hearst in that respect. Hearst seemed to have the papers all ready for Alma to sign to sell, and so I doubt the terms were favorable to her, or the camp.

It is comical you know, I do not mind this being the end of our part of the Deadwood story. Oscar, I think, made a great point about innocence, and death. I can not recall what moment it was during the last episode, but I turned to my girl, and said, 'And what part of my part is your part,' and she said, 'Did he look pale to you?'

I don't think many people expect the movies to happen, and I do not either. I agree with Troy Swain, that I would love to see all those things he mentioned. When the show began, and Al was setting up Brom for his death, I turned to my girl and said, 'Al is the devil.' Then Al shows he is not the devil, just a man. A man with all the complications of being a man. It is amazing to me that the people who worked on this show could show so much of the human condition. I will give Jane that even to the end she knew that Al was a cutthroat. Yet, I want to know what led Al to that train station where he met his end.

I throw my hands up in the air trying to analyze 'Deadwood,' and admire MZS, and all the people here on the site for giving it a go. It is a daunting task. I have many questions about the last episode that I pose to myself, and my girl. I think there must have been a scene left on the cutting room floor of Sol telling Seth and Charlie that Al had allready killed Jen to masquerade as Trixie in death. There must have been that scene. I can see it in my mind clearly. I found Seth watching Sol escort a bundled up Trixie away at the end to be the meaning of Seth's final speach.

It was a hell of a show, and here it is a week afterwards and I can still not describe in words what a show it was. Not sure if this thread is done, but I would like to thank all the people who wrote all the comments, and MZS, for his fine diagramming.
Posted by nicanor on 2006-09-02 19:25:00 Re Johnny: my husband and I felt that Johnny started to emerge from the fog of a prolonged adolescence this season. It became obvious that he and Jen had a thing; he was able to decipher a Wu pictograph when Al wasn't; he stood up for Jen to Morgan Earp; he had an adult conversation with Al for the first time in his life after Dan's epic fight with Capt. Turner. Finally, he stood up to Al for Jen.

The sad part was seeing Johnny's face when he asked Al if she suffered. It was an adult's face, devoid of innocence or hero worship.

Agreed, Dan, an excellent piece of work by Sean Bridges.
Posted by Anonymous on 2006-09-01 13:54:00 I have no idea; I'm not sure it's even important to distinguish between 'em. If Hearst hadn't gotten his way, I suspect that he was burning down the "camp" (leaving the gold fields intact, obviously) and killing a helluva lotta people. Which is to say, Hearst didn't distinguish between towns and camps. It was all grist for his capitalist mill.

But hey, what about Johnny? Nobody else finds his transformation in the final season worthy of comment?
Posted by Dan Jardine on 2006-08-31 21:18:00 Lance says,"I have a question about the finale. The camp is the gold fields, but the town that Deadwood is becoming isn't? It would seem then that letting Hearst have the gold fields saves the town, which as I think Matt wrote in his review is the victory. But from this discussion and other things I've read it doesn't seem as if that aspect is made clear enough. Is there really a sense that Hearst wants both the town and the gold?"

I don't quite know the answer to that, because on Deadwood, the words "camp" and "town" seem to be used interchangeably, with the former being employed more often than the latter. For audience purposes, yes, the town (i.e., the businesses and homes) are geographically removed from the claims. But I think when characters use the word "camp" they are referring to Deadwood as a larger entity, encompassing both the gold claims and the area where people actually live, work and carouse.

If anybody out there has a better answer to this, I'd love to hear it.
Posted by Matt Zoller Seitz on 2006-08-31 19:44:00 Matt,

Thanks very much for the shout out and link. If I may be so bold, I think it will be better for anyone who's interested to follow this link, which will take them right to the post instead of to my archives.

This is a very interesting discussion and makes me desperate to see that last episode. As I say in my post, I have some catching up to do.

I have a question about the finale. The camp is the gold fields, but the town that Deadwood is becoming isn't? It would seem then that letting Hearst have the gold fields saves the town, which as I think Matt wrote in his review is the victory. But from this discussion and other things I've read it doesn't seem as if that aspect is made clear enough. Is there really a sense that Hearst wants both the town and the gold?

Alma's claim is only important in that it gives her power in town. But once the gold is converted into cash, she doesn't lose power, does she? So who cares if she's bought out? It seems as though too much weight was given to the idea that the town is the individual mining operations and not the individual business owners like Star and Bullock and Alma. This is strange because I can't recall a positive portrayal of a single prospector except Ellsworth.

As for the ending, it sounds as though Milch could have made this work better if he'd found a way for Bullock and Utter not to have been there. That wouldn't have taken much.

Besides not having to make us swallow a sudden complete breakdown of their characters, it would have demonstrated just how much Swearengen needs Bullock. Without Seth, Al is just a smalltime hood.
Posted by Lance Mannion on 2006-08-31 16:37:00 What's wrong with fairy tale?

The Hearst family are hardly a buncha virgins themselves, so excuse me while I weep no tears for Milch's "slander."
Posted by Dan Jardine on 2006-08-31 16:28:00 Lance Mannion on Deadwood being more allegory than history -- and taking the show to task for it:

"In the series, George Hearst is a rapacious monster, a dragon who comes along and despoils the village, and carries off all the gold the hardworking and honest citizens have earned through their own sweat, blood, and courage.

He's an invincible dragon too.

Not only do bulletts fired at point blank range into his face magically swerve off course to merely nick his shoulder, but there is no political or economic power on earth that can resist him. He corrupts with a touch all that he can't destroy.

Even Al Swearengen is no match for the dragon. Al survives, and saves Deadwood, by strategically retreating at every step the dragon takes and letting him gobble up pretty much all he wants to gobble up. In the end, they win out simply by outlasting the dragon's appetites. His lust and greed and gluttony slaked, the dragon leaves on his own, although not before demanding and getting the villagers to sacrifice a virgin...

Well, she's hardly a virgin, but she's a young woman so completely innocent of any offense to any one, let alone the dragon, that her moral purity is practically that of a virgin's.

Very dramatic. But also a pure fairy tale."

From Mannion's "Deadwood and the Libel of George Hearst." For more, click here.
Posted by Matt Zoller Seitz on 2006-08-31 16:00:00 A couple of things that I'd like to focus on here. First, what a great season this was for Sean Bridges as Johnny. For the first two seasons he was used almost exclusively as comic relief (and what great comic relief too, I might add), but finally in season 3 we saw Johnny stepping up, not only as Al's enforcer, but as a human being, via his interest in Jen. That was allowed to come to full fruition in last night's episode where Johnny put himself directly in harm's way, telling Al he'd be willing to die to save her from Al's knife. Johnny really showed me something there--that level of altruism has rarely (ever?) been seen in Deadwood's three seasons, and that moment knocked me right on my ass.

The fact that Johnny had been little more than a running joke up to this time added all sortsa gravitas to the scene, and highlights the second point, which is the central theme of last night's episode. Namely, how do we place a value on a human life? Why is Trixie's life inherently more valuable than Jen's? And how do we determine such thing? CAN we determine such things? What gives us the right?

For Al, it's relatively simple. In his own perverse way, he loves Trixie and she nursed him when he was on death's door. She deserves to be spared. I think it would have made Jen's death all the more potent if we'd been given a bit more of her backstory to chew on. If we'd spent a bit more time with her (as Johnny has), and perhaps seen more of her working on things like her reading and writing, then we'd REALLY have felt Johnny's pain, REALLY have understood the dilemma facing him as he struggled with the knife.

Still, a great episode for Johnny's character, and as is often the case, the comic actor shows he's more than just a pretty face, as Bridges gives a fine performance, providing some darker shades to Johnny's up to this point rather light character.
Posted by Dan Jardine on 2006-08-31 15:34:00 Todd VanDerWerff at South Dakota Dark: "Deadwood's third season was its best and worst season simultaneously, a perfect encapsulation of the series' themes and a season full of the occasional aimless meandering. David Milch's creation of a whole community, indeed a whole world, never felt fuller than it did in its third year, but there was also a sense of marking time, of trying to get to a fourth season that will now never come. The overwhelming sense at the end of Sunday's series finale was a sense of loss. The world of Deadwood seemed more real to its acolytes than just about any televised world before it. Those who loved it seemed to live in the town, to speak in its profane yet rhythmed meter. And now, thanks to a stupid fight over money between two giant corporations, it's all gone, save for two promised TV movies that may or may not happen."

For more, click here.
Posted by Matt Zoller Seitz on 2006-08-31 08:36:00 Oscar: Good point. It's also interesting that between those two incidents you cite, Al went from being the man who wants Sofia dead to being the man who protects her from death. However, he is unable to really save the town; in the end, it is acquired, for all intents and purposes, by Hearst, a character who often feels like a wealthier, more patrician, more corporate-minded version of the Early Al.

Uberdionysis: I sometimes wish I could see the full arc of these characters lives, but that wish is restrained by two realizations -- first, that Milch was true to the vague outlines of his drawn-from-history characters (while inventing other characters from whole cloth), and second, that sometimes it's more interesting not to know the whole story. I like knowing where Bullock. Al, etc., are eventually going to end up -- it makes their present-tense actions more fascinating -- but here, as is the case with other films/TV series, I fear that the iconic, unrealized future images I picture in my head are more powerful and mysterious than what I'd get if "Deadwood" went on long enough to reach that point in the master narrative.

Bret: I do think there were some organizational problems this year -- the season finale was more jumbled, more rushed in some ways and protracted in others, than the Season One and Two finales (which were pretty much note-perfect). Milch may have tried to do too much.

On the other hand, I wouldn't discount the possibility that some of the seemingly unfulfilled or dangling plots would have come to fruition in a big way had Milch been permitted to do a fourth season. Seasons One and Two were meticulously constructed -- even the seemingly extraneous or excessive sequences/monologues reveal themselves as thematically or narratively necessary (or at least justified) when you go back and watch them a second or third time. On top of that, Milch loves the Part One/Part Two structure, as evidenced by all the sets of "Deadwood" episodes that really only cohere when you watch them in succession.

I was told during a set visit this past January that Milch had already shot the entire season and was in the process of reshooting about two-thirds of it, to get it closer to what he wanted. This is a major committment of time, effort and mental energy, and given Milch's purposefulness in Seasons One and Two, I tend to doubt he he was just throwing things out there to see if anything stuck.

But I'm not certain of that. Alan Sepinwall tells me that on "NYPD Blue," Milch specialized in winging it, just making things up on the fly, and hoping that it all made sense in context of the series' long-term character development when you stood back from it. Maybe he did that here and it didn't work out.

The sad part is, now we'll never know.
Posted by Matt Zoller Seitz on 2006-08-31 08:35:00 I find it interesting that protecting an innocent (Sofia) was the first step for the people of Deadwood to become an actual community and it took the sacrifice of an innocent (Jen) to maintain it.

Also sorry to see dancing did not play a part in the last episode like the previous two seasons.
Posted by Oscar Blotnik on 2006-08-31 06:52:00 I'll miss this show.

I'm late to your discussion, but I've enjoyed your analysis and all of the additional commentary.

I would love to see Bullock become the statesman he becomes. I'd love to see why Cy closed the Bella Union a year later. I'd love to see why the Gem burns down, and why Deadwood burns down a few months later. I'd love to see Deadwood's subsequent rebuilding. I'd love to see why Swearengen abandons the Gem in '99 (20 years after the 3rd Season), and why Al ends up penniless and dead while train hopping.
Posted by Uberdionysus (Troy Swain) on 2006-08-30 21:12:00 "The expedient hypocrisy of Al's position was made clear in an early scene where he ordered his henchman, Johnny (Sean Bridgers), who was sweet on Jen, to do the deed in Al's stead"

Just to clear up this blot on Al's already messy escutcheon--he intended to do the deed all along, but Johnny volunteered because Jen was afraid of Al. Then Johnny couldn't do it, and Al took over.
Posted by Anonymous on 2006-08-29 21:00:00 Regarding a line from Alan Sepinwall's post that Matt quoted above: "...but at the end all of Al's scheming feels like just another narrative dead end like Odell and the Earps."

I strongly suspect that the body Hearst refused to claim is Odell's and that Odell's story would have been fleshed out and had some impact on Season 4 much like Langrishe's troupe would have likely added pleasures more dramatic than thematic once they, you know, put on a show.
Posted by Bret LaGree on 2006-08-29 17:17:00 I can't help but think of "Chinatown", with Hearst as the Noah Cross figure. Both last night's finale and Chinatown end with the ultracapitalist villain having triumphed, and an innocent person (people) left dead in his wake.
But I can't help but think "Tell Him Something Pretty" suffers by comparison. Jake Gittes did everything he damn well could to keep Cross from getting away with it. So why do I feel that everyone in Deadwood just laid down for Hearst?
As much as I love this show, this season's finale also doesn't hold up next to last year's finale, "Boy The Earth Talks To." That episode was a masterpiece, brilliantly edited, and it juggled numerous plotlines without feeling stuffed. The Wu/Lee showdown, the introduction of Hearst, his confrontation with Wolcott, Wolcott's suicide, Rev. Cramed stabbing Cy in revenge. And the crown jewel of that episode was the twin weddings that united the town--Bullock signing the charter with Jarry (literally) and Alma and Ellsworth (figuratively). It wrapped up nearly all plotlines neatly and opened up several more.
I don't feel that way about last night's episode, and I think the problems run deeper than the lost fourth season.
Posted by steve l on 2006-08-29 01:36:00 Edward Copeland on Season Three: "This season did have its flaws -- I think it was trying to keep too many balls in the air at once to do justice to them all and some stories didn't seem to amount to much. Was there really a point to the brief appearance of the Earp brothers in the camp? Mama Lou and Odell showed promised, but that too seemed to go nowhere. I'm still not seeing why we needed to spend so much time on Langrishe and his acting troupe, but I suspect we would have if we'd been given the fourth season we deserve. I also bet truncated, two two-hour movies won't be enough time to justify their presence either, but hopefully Milch will prove me wrong."

More here.
Posted by Matt Zoller Seitz on 2006-08-28 23:09:00 Regarding the HBO message board comment about Cy aiming for Bullock, I don't know who that message comes from -- whether it's someone with insider knowledge -- but rewatching the scene it doesn't play that way at all. Tolliver's comment (paraphrasing here) "If I'm quick enough about this maybe Mr. Hearst and I will both get to hear the lord judge Leon" seems to clearly mean he intends to kill Hearst, knowing he'll be killed immediately afterward. Plus, he's aiming the gun toward Hearst before Bullock is even outside - and it's hard to imagine that Hearst would entrust Tolliver, for whom he has little respect, to enact a plan where he fires a gun from his balcony at a spot near Hearst and his men.

The HBO official episode guide (which, like all HBO official episode guides, is not infallible at all) states that Cy is aiming for Hearst.

Assuming for the moment that that interpretation is correct (which is how I took it) I thought it was one of the most interesting and pivotal moments of the whole episode. As the show has charted the camp's course toward becoming a cohesive, cooperative whole, catalyzed by the malignant presence of Hearst in their midst, Tolliver has been the last true hold-out - especially once E.B reaffirmed his loyalty to Al and the camp. Though he attended the town elders' meetings and paid lip service to their efforts, he's been only in it for himself all along, playing both sides against the middle, working without shame for Hearst, and willing to assist Hearst in tearing down the town if it benefits him (and just as willing to assist the town in bringing down Hearst if that benefits him).

Only in the past two weeks, starting with his furious reaction to the killing of Ellsworth and now with his nearly suicidal action against Hearst, have we seen Cy really grappling with his conscience and despair over having assisted Hearst against the town. Sure, he's motivated most immediately by self-interested rage at his diminished, menial position in the Hearst hierarchy, and his own twisted sense of self-pity, and of course he's taking out this internal crisis barbarically, violently, against bystanders like Leon, Janine, Con, and his other prostitutes. But that moment where he wrestled with the urge to kill Hearst, coupled with his scene with Joanie in the same episode, moved him - for the first time, in my opinion - a couple of steps toward being a part of the cooperative whole that is Deadwood.

And with that note being struck, tying in with the theme of the episode (and series) of characters weighing their roles in the events of the community, and balancing their own self-interests with the good of the town, I could feel comfortable (though not nearly satisfied) if it were to turn out that last night's show was the last chapter we were ever to get in the saga.

Whether this was indeed the end, or whether two feature TV films close out DEADWOOD rather than a full season, given what we know about Milch's creative process and his penchant for shooting from the hip in interviews I'm choosing not to dwell too seriously on the idea that there was a four-season master plan that's been interrupted. While it's true that about a week before the bad news about season 4 surfaced Milch told an interviewer that the next season (i.e., season 4) would be his last, comments by actors and others associated with the show, and comments by Milch himself, suggest that he always intended the show to go on (Ted Mann has been suggested as a successor) after his departure - and perhaps that his departure could be delayed. Also, while he often mentioned a certain historical event in September 1879 that he thought would end the series, there's no reason to think that he was a hundred percent committed to that as the end point.

I prefer to think (because it ties so nicely with what I love so dearly about the show) that Milch would have remained true to his process, and that even if he were preparing a final season that he knew would be the end, he would have been introducing new supporting characters and plotlines in the penultimate episode, and maybe rewriting the entire ending while the finale was filming (not to suggest he works haphazardly, just extremely attuned to his process). Perhaps mercifully, what we now know will never happen is what might have been the worst outcome of all -- years of Milchless DEADWOOD.
Posted by Greg C on 2006-08-28 23:05:00 I took the Langrishe-Claudia scene to set the stage for a fourth season exploration the artist's role in the larger world, i.e., "What the fuck is a theatre person to DO???" Cox was impressive.
Posted by Anonymous on 2006-08-28 20:58:00 From Heather Havrilesky's columnn over at Salon: "The start of the third season finale of "Deadwood," thespian Jack Langrishe serves as the Greek chorus, giving voice to the darkening clouds looming over the tiny South Dakota town. "This camp is in mortal danger!" he laments. "The man, Hearst, is a murderous engine. My friend, Swearengen, aware their combat is unequal, feels the appeal of the gory finish. Others I've just come to know stand candidates in the elections whose results they know may be moot. What, one is disposed to ask, in fuck ought a theater man to do?"

Langrishe may be feeling helpless, but unlike many of the other residents of Deadwood, he has an ominous grasp of the big picture in town and can see not only how high the stakes are, but also how many of the key players, though they may claim otherwise, might secretly thrill to the notion of impending bloodshed. Like any actor worth his salt, Langrishe is a keen observer of human behavior; he knows Swearengen, for one, could stomach a full-blown battle, even as he takes steps to avoid one. As a man of the theater, Langrishe may be uniquely equipped to manipulate Hearst, but also uniquely unprepared to face the "gory finish" that calls to the others.'

More here.
Posted by Matt Zoller Seitz on 2006-08-28 20:37:00 An interesting note - over on the HBO message boards, someone posted that when he pulled the gun at the end, Tolliver wasn't aiming for Hearst, but was under instructions to shoot at Bullock or one of the Pinkertons to start a massive firefight that would have leveled the town/killed the anti-hearst faction. Hearst apparently pauses after the ear comment and waits for Tolliver to shoot, but Tolliver doesn't, so Hearst rides off, with that part of his plan foiled.

I completely missed this if this is the case, so the episode will bear rewatching to see if there is any indication that this actually is the case.
Posted by Anonymous on 2006-08-28 20:28:00 Jonathan Toomey of TV Squad on the final "Deadwood" episode: "Maybe I sit alone with this belief, but I was royally disappointed with this finale. This entire season has been building up to this episode. It was supposed to be a magnificent explosion with guns a blazing as Bullock and Swearengen delivered Deadwood from the clutches of Hearst and his Pinkerton pistoleros. There was none of that. For the most part it was calm. It's clear that this finale was written with a full-length fourth season in mind and I only hope now that the remaining four hours of this wonderful series can do it the justice it deserves."

To read the full post, click here.
Posted by Matt Zoller Seitz on 2006-08-28 20:13:00 Alan Sepinwall on this episode: "We all knew that evil was going to triumph to some degree, in that Hearst's survival and later ascendancy to the U.S. Senate is the kind of historical fact that Milch wouldn't fudge (as opposed to, say, Bullock's family situation), but what was surprising was what a rout evil accomplished. For all of Al's plotting and maneuvering over the last half season -- the stuff with Wu and Hawkeye and the editorial and even Alma's walk to the bank -- Hearst got virtually everything he wanted. Ellsworth is dead, Bullock is out of a job and all of Deadwood's gold claims belong to him. I've said that I wasn't expecting any significant gunplay, but at the end all of Al's scheming feels like just another narrative dead end like Odell and the Earps. Really, the only thing Al accomplished was preventing his people from giving Hearst any justification to have his men start a massacre and burn the camp to the ground. And even that came with the pricetag of two bodies: Ellsworth and Jen."

To read more, click here.
Posted by Matt Zoller Seitz on 2006-08-28 20:02:00 Greg C: That's a fine, convincing, very measured analysis of both sides of this issue. I think the sticking point for all concerned is the gap between the events depicted and HOW they were depicted. I have no problem with the former and many problems with the latter, and as you say, the production process itself is probably responsible. Milch often flies by the seat of his pants, and the fact that the result is usually coherent, even elegant, doesn't mean he doesn't muff the occasional subplot (or in this case, main plot).

I spoke to McShane a couple of years ago at an awards dinner and asked him if it was difficult memorizing those long monologues. He said the monologues themselves weren't hard because the rhythm was so distinctive -- like song lyrics. But the circumstances made things difficult. He said, with gallows humor, that Milch was incapable of just letting an actor do a long monologue, that there always had to be a wild card gesture thrown in -- i.e., talking to a goat or a severed head, or getting a blowjob or a gleet exam. He also said Milch was a serial reviser, and the cast often had to memorize entirely new pages mere minutes before rolling film. "How close does he cut it?" I asked him. He smiled and said, "Sometimes the pages are still hot from the Xerox machine."
Posted by Matt Zoller Seitz on 2006-08-28 19:50:00 For what it's worth, I'd like to add my voice to those who had no problem with the way Utter and Bullock's reactions to the killing of Jen were presented. First off, we were not shown the conversation where Star informed Utter and Bullock of the situation (for better or worse). So by the time they got to the Gem, Utter and Bullock had been apprised of the situation, and talked/argued it out with Sol (who was surely desperate to do anything to avoid Trixie's death).

Second, I really think there was the emergency of the possible coming annihilation of the camp, and imminent danger to Trixie (whom as a favor to Sol Bullock would have spared) to consider. Bullock no doubt knew in the heat of the moment that there was no time then to worry about the innocence of Jen, that he couldn't stop her from having been killed, that in a sick way it may have been the only way to avoid far more bloodshed, and that Hearst (who had put a time limit of less than an hour on the delivery of the body before he reigned hell on the camp) had to be dealt with, all other considerations needing to wait for later.

Once the ruse worked on Hearst, Bullock immediately soured on Al pointedly, spoke of writing the family (his preferred way of working out his guilt over murders he is powerless to stop or bring justice to), and he and Utter both, after Hearst left town, spoke of their uneasy consciences, which I took to be specifically referring to Jen's fate. Personally I didn't need any more handwringing from anyone while a bloodbath was perhaps less than quarter of an hour away. And it would have been ruinous to betray any division in front of Hearst and his henchmen.

Bullock, I recall, seemed to have no problem going along with Dan and Al's killing of Hearst's henchmen at the Gem, though it was technically unprovoked, nor did he wring his hands over Morgan Earp's killing of the Pinkerton in a fight of dubious fairness. I know those victims were not innocent in the way Jen was, but then again it just shows that Bullock has, as sheriff, developed a sense of which killings offend his sense of moral justice and which might be due to pressing circumstances.

Also, I don't recall either Utter or Bullock doing anything about the brutal mistreatment and killing of the Chinese prostitutes under Lee (correct me if I've forgotten an instance of where they stood up for them). So I'd say a historically accurate, if unsavory, attitude on their parts about the relative worths of the lives of various members of society came into play here, regrettably.

It was interesting and - I felt - fitting that Doc Cochran, the show's true moral center from the beginning of the series, a man who has cared for every life and soul he possibly could in the camp, regardless not only of social standing or ethnicity but also of whether they were morally worthy of his care - was completely absent from last night's descent into the gray area of moral abyss.

It might be worth noting that in a recent interview Ian McShane spoke candidly about the filming of last night's episode. He said it was unusual even by Milch's standards, with Milch having stopped the actors in the middle of a scene, announced the script was all wrong, and stormed off, emerging less than two hours later with fifteen new pages and saying, "Okay, I fixed it." The actors were given twenty minutes to prepare before cameras rolled. Maybe McShane was exaggerating a bit, but it sounds like one of the most significant of Milch's famous last-minute rewrites occurred mid episode. I personally thought it worked, not knowing what was changed and what wasn't; others, who felt the episode was off, might suspect that Milch's haste was reflected on-screen.
Posted by Greg C on 2006-08-28 19:35:00 Steve L: "Deep down, Tolliver's attitude toward his girls may be the rule and not the exception among Deadwood's characters."

I think you're right about this, and it's good to bear it in mind while watching (or now I should say revisiting) the series.
Posted by Matt Zoller Seitz on 2006-08-28 17:55:00 Remember that Al was smart enough to get Sol to rope Bullock in and to tell him the lie that the deed was already done. Bullock is presented with a fait accompli, and the only way he can do anything about it would either get Trixie killed or get the town shot up.
So he's left with one thing: writing her next of kin, just as he wrote the Cornishman's family, this time about a crime he was complicit. I don't have a problem with what we were shown, but I do think we're missing a scene between Sol and Seth where Seth learns of the deed and realizes there'll be one more shameful compromise to make.
Posted by rd on 2006-08-28 17:53:00 Bullock did make a snide crack to Al after Al said he didn't write letters to people's families, something to the effect that Al would probably be even less likely to do it in this case. But that's as much outrage as he showed to Al.

Is it possible that they took Al's intention to take it all on himself and try to take Hearst out if the lie was discovered as Al's atonement?
Posted by Anonymous on 2006-08-28 17:47:00 Matt--I think you're right. It may not have come out in my last post, but I also felt everyone aside from Johnny accepted the plan far too easily. (Although Al's lie tricked them and they may not have been able to stop the killing, Bullock should have said something--at least flared his nostrils!)
It makes me reconsider these characters' attitudes towards the prostitutes. Yes, Sol loves Trixie, and yes, Charlie is sweet on Joanie. But Bullock never really did all that much when Wolcott slaughtered the Chez Ami girls, and Utter's beating of Wolcott seemed to be motivated more by his threatening of Joanie than his murders. Deep down, Tolliver's attitude toward his girls may be the rule and not the exception among Deadwood's characters.
Posted by steve l on 2006-08-28 17:15:00 I'm cancelling HBO. They sold me 3/4 of a work, and I believe they should repay me for the past 3 years. In lieu of that, they'll certainly never get another dime from me. Other fans who are fed up should register at http://SaveDeadwood.tv and pick up some ideas, addresses, and support from other outraged subscribers.
Posted by bbshenry on 2006-08-28 17:10:00 Is this Milch's fault, for not detailing the moral mechanics at play here, or is it my fault for thinking more highly of the characters than they deserve?

I'll revise myself, or at least my previous post, a bit. I agree with you that it does stand out, regardless of my logical understanding of why they weren't outspoken on it. For the above question, a little bit of both, and I'm in the same arena.

Outside of the show, I can think of two sets of reasons why this occured. First, the end of Bullock saying he doesn't know how he'll sleep at night feeling like [whatever his words were], are meant to convery his (unspoken to Al) disgust at the act, not just the events as a whole. I don't think thats it, but I've been wrong before. Or, the quiet was meant to be a point in itself, of the change in the characters after this failed battle with Hearst. The mechanics of capitalism are bloody, and we're complicit in it. I think the latter is the case. Either approach is valid, but both also requrie a bit more from the show to let us know which way its pointing.

Only area I disagree on is that some think we needed to see the act. The off-camera presentation I think is more disturbing, kind of like Reservoir Dogs and the ear. It also fed the gut-head disagreement I had, knowing Al was going to do exactly what he said and do her in, but my gut wanting to see the opposite.

Cheers!
Posted by James on 2006-08-28 16:58:00 patk and hilary: Regarding certain Deadwood characters seeing the murdered woman as "just another whore." Given Charlie's fondness for Joanie and Sol's long relationship with Trixie, I don't believe that Al's plan would have caused them so little consternation.

Is this Milch's fault, for not detailing the moral mechanics at play here, or is it my fault for thinking more highly of the characters than they deserve?
Posted by Matt Zoller Seitz on 2006-08-28 16:40:00 I thought much the same thing last night, Matt. Why would Bullock let this pass without so much as a word or even look of disgust. I think Hilary gets right down to it. She's a prostitute, and in that town, essentially a sex slave. Bullock hasn't jumped to rescue all the girls from their abusive and horrible life in the past, why would he jump now when one of them has their life quickly, cruelly, and unfairly ended? It's just how it is in Deadwood for the majority of women.
Posted by James on 2006-08-28 16:40:00 Steve L: "Swearengen's lie saved them from having to make a moral choice--and also kept them from trying to stop him."

True enough, but the blank expressions on Utter and Bullock's faces as they stood guard didn't bespeak any moral torment at all, and I just flat-out didn't believe that. It's as if they'd suddenly turned into the villain's henchmen. I thought even Dan showed more awareness of the horrendous moral/spiritual consequences of this killing than the representatives of law and order.

My objection is not that Bullock and Utter and other Deadwood citizens with a moral compass went along with Al's plan -- or accepted it after the fact -- it was that there was little done to prepare us to believe that these characters would just accept such a morally grim gambit. Bullock's a man who stands up for anyone who's pushed around, even if standing up for them gains him nothing (the General, for instance). Ditto Charlie. And keeping the murder offscreen was just a cop-out; of all the people Al has killed or ordered killed, this is the one that hurts the most -- it confirms that he's a savage and in some ways always will be. How many throats have we watch Al cut? We even saw him strangle the reverend at the end of Season One, as morally unstable a killing as TV has ever depicted.

This isn't a case of my blanching at characters making tough choices; I'm irked that the episode gave us a spoonful of sugar to help the medicine go down. In its own way, it told us something pretty.

I like the bleakness of the episode, with Hearst leaving after having gained about 80 percent of what he wanted, but with his monstrousness confirmed to the town and himself(some of his illusions about himself challenged, particularly the idea that's invulnerable and can scare anyone into kowtowing to him). I loved that Milch and company signed off with a reminder that Deadwood is still a nasty place, and that people make self-interested, often loathsome choices -- but I thought the narrative mechanics weren't properly calibrated here.

That said, this was a powerful episode, for all its problematic aspects, and I am really going to miss this series.
Posted by Matt Zoller Seitz on 2006-08-28 16:30:00 The bleakness was a suprise to me too.

I was struck, through my sobs, by the downright jaunty closing music: Springsteen and his jangly folky collective exhorting me--and Mary--NOT to weep.

Pharaoh's army's been drowned, we're promised, and the song repeats that line again and again, because it's hard to believe it. Hearst got a lot, but Deadwood stands -- not just its buildings but its soul intact. "Brothers and sisters don't you cry/They'll be good times by and by."

Except now we won't get to see them.

A thousand thanks for these Deadwood essays, Matt.
Posted by Kate on 2006-08-28 16:17:00 My understanding was that Al told Sol he'd already done it, when he hadn't, and Sol being "healthy-minded", believed him. So everyone thought there was no point arguing about a fait accompli. I did expect more backlash from Utter, Bullock et. al., though.
Posted by Anonymous on 2006-08-28 15:43:00 Also, about Sol, Seth and Utter's surprising acquiescence to Jen's murder--if I remember right, when Swearengen told Sol about Hearst's demand, he also lied and said that he already killed the prostitute that was to stand in for Trixie. Sol then went to Bullock's home to tell him and Charlie.
All three believed the murder was a done deal, and even if they found it distasteful, there was nothing else to do but offer her up to Hearst. Swearengen's lie saved them from having to make a moral choice--and also kept them from trying to stop him.
Posted by steve l on 2006-08-28 15:33:00 Also, good point, Hilary. I didn't think of it, but they may just have seen her as just another whore.

Which is sad to think about, but probably true.
Posted by PatK on 2006-08-28 15:31:00 Matt, my feeling on why Charlie and Seth didn't object to what Al did to Jen, was that they knew they were backed into a corner. It was sadly necessary, and there was no point in arguing. They didn't want Trixie to die either, if just for Sol's sake.

Everyone's made compromises (to the point, last week Charlie was buddying with Al's people), and this was another. They were just trying to live through Hearst. Which they did, but not without a high price.
Posted by PatK on 2006-08-28 14:53:00 I really wasn't expecting the bleakness of this episode. Yes, Hearst left after being exposed as a monster and bully (which I suppose constitutes some kind of victory) but once he got Brom Garrett's claim, what real reason did he have to stay?
Instead, we got every kind of defeat imaginable. Alma's claim strongarmed from her, Bullock cheated in a rigged election, Ellsworth dead, an innocent prostitute slaughtered as a sacrificial lamb. Even Wu's nice new suit was ruined a few episodes back.
I think Milch knew there'd be some unease among his viewers over this episode, and he showed it in the final exchange of dialogue. We're like Johnny Burns, looking for some shred of hope (did you make it so she didn't hurt?), and Milch is Swearengen, muttering to himself "Was I to tell him something pretty?"
Posted by steve l on 2006-08-28 13:21:00 I think despite our view of Jen as an innocent (and Johnny's heartbreaking testimony that she's "a nice girl"), I think maybe part of everyone else's seeming nonchalance was that Jen was just a whore... she was Al's property, and if Al saw fit to kill her, the upside was too tantalizing -- appeasing Hearst and keeping what remained of a town they'd all finally committed to. I agree on missing the actual throat slitting though. It may have been the worst murder in the history of Deadwood, and even if the town was going to be complicit, I didn't want it made any easier on us too.
Posted by hilary on 2006-08-28 13:02:00

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Categories

The Attic

GIVEAWAYS

CONNECT WITH