Deadwood: The Movie Spoilers

[Zorral]

Not reading here because I still haven't had the time to watch it myself.  However, this article on the history of the Deadwood newspaper, The Black Hills Pioneer, should be of interest to all Deadwood fans:

https://slate.com/culture/2019/06/deadwood-newspaper-black-hills-pioneer-hbo-milch-swearengen-merrick.html

[Martini Sigil]

I laughed my ass off when Swearengen called Trixie a loopy c*nt....hahahahahahaha

[Rockroi]

So, yeah, I feel like I am the wet blanket in this discussion.  While I liked what I saw, I thought the episode tried way way way too hard to be a complete story-arc that would substitute for that fourth season we never got INSTEAD of trying to be a good 2-hour episode of Deadwood.  

The episode was far too reminiscent of what we saw at the end of Season 3- the town must band together against Hearst; in doing so an older, venerable male character is slain; Hearst overshoots his authority; Trixie - for reasons that are completely undefined - makes a play against Hearst and the two must jump through all sorts of hoops to deal with the resulting calamity.  

And Jane and Jonie are lesbians.  Yep.

The thread in this story is that Al Swearengen is dying, and that was done reasonably well, but I like my Al Swearengen swearing and fighting and killing.  

But my problem was that the episode tried so hard to "pick up where we left off" and that just fell flat.  It all felt manufactured and stilted.  And what was strange was that nobody in the show thought, "Hey this seems like we just did all this 10 years ago." Because they did.  Only now the "conflict" is forced and hard to really get deep into.  When Elsworth was slain it was the culmination of almost three seasons of tension and even then it was not resolved.  Here, the conflict felt strangely manufactured and phony.  

I thought because they had to fit everyone in, they criminally underutilized everyone.  Again, this is natural given the parameters.  The show could have used a lot more Dan and Doc.  But I did not think anyone was OVERused.  The dialog was almost always terrific, but the story itself was flat.  And because the story was so simple and plain, we never got the depth we required.  Why were Seth and his wife now so close when, before, their relationship was so formal and stilted?  Why was Dan dressed up?  Seemed sort of important now.  How is Sofia?  Is Doc still dying from TB? Whaty happened to the Opera company?  

Oh, and let's not do flashbacks.  One thing I always liked about Deadwood was that they showed you ONCE and if you didn't get it, that was your fault.  Now?  We rewind everything.  That looked awful.  

I also could have done with a LITTLE homage to some of the cast members who passed.  No mention of Cy Toliver or Richardson. 

So much of the movie was still very strong; McShane was aces and so was Oliphant.  I liked many of the supporting cast, Alma Garrett and a few others.  Wu was great.  

But I thought the story was an Erzats season 4; a desperate attempt to rectify how season three failed to conclude properly.  And this way of trying to shore it all up showed that you cannot just "press pause" on a production and hope to pick it up again 10 years later.  

All things considered, I thought this was an above-average production, but it was telling a story that would have been an A+ had it been an entire Season 4.  

And that missed opportunity is one I guess I will never get over. 

[RumHam]

1 hour ago, Rockroi said:

So, yeah, I feel like I am the wet blanket in this discussion.  While I liked what I saw, I thought the episode tried way way way too hard to be a complete story-arc that would substitute for that fourth season we never got INSTEAD of trying to be a good 2-hour episode of Deadwood.  

The episode was far too reminiscent of what we saw at the end of Season 3- the town must band together against Hearst; in doing so an older, venerable male character is slain; Hearst overshoots his authority; Trixie - for reasons that are completely undefined - makes a play against Hearst and the two must jump through all sorts of hoops to deal with the resulting calamity.  

And Jane and Jonie are lesbians.  Yep.

 

You're not the only one. I loved the experience of watching it. So great to be in that world again with those characters after so long. Also not sure on your tone there but Jane and Joanie were lesbian lovers back in the third season. Joanie was established as a lesbian in season one when Kirsten Bell guested. 

It almost seems like Milch decided to retell the story of the finale and this time "tell 'em something pretty." As you say it's basically the same setup, only the good guys not only prevent Hearst from buying the land he killed for they also get to burn his timber. Then they also have Bullock drag him to a (very temporary) cell by the ear again, and on the way he's brutally beaten by a mob.  

To be clear all of this was totally awesome, it just seemed kinda opposite the spirit of the original series. and you know, reality. 

Edit: oh and then his final move against Trixie is so limp it seems like it should be a deleted scene you show kids who aren't ready for the "hearst then has all or some of the Starr family murdered" ending. 

[Ran]

Quite right that their relationship as lovers was established in season 3, though fairly subtly. I can perhaps see the argument against a character like Charlie Utter to be quite so broad-minded as he is in the film, but then again he was a pretty unconventional man on the show, and pretty non-judgmental about the goings on in Deadwood. But that they were lovers, or going to become increasingly intimate, was definitely there.

Really like the use of that quote, @RumHam. It's certainly true that Milch's farewell ends on a high point, "something pretty", with so much of the threat unresolved. That a senator like Hearst could get the tar beaten out of him by a mob doesn't bother me -- some crazy things happened to politicians in the 19th century -- and that he would resort to trying to use bought lawmen to try and deal with Trixie on short notice seems like an interesting development for the character who is becoming enmeshed in the American political system. But it's obvious enough that in no way does what happened represents the final word on Hearst's desire for revenge against Trixie or, now, Bullock. Might as well have played "Don't Stop Believing", to remind us that the story doesn't end just because the credits roll.

It seems like I can imagine a way out of it, though, Trixie and Bullock bargaining by getting Alma to sell the land to Hearst, because in the end all he cared about was his schemes to increase his dominance in whatever endeavor he set his mind to. Trixie was a distraction, an affront but one that he could set aside (as he offered to set it aside when approaching Swearengen) if he got what he wanted. 

(I admit, the death of Charlie didn't quite lead to what I thought, with the auction, though. I had assumed in its immediate aftermath that it'd transpire that he'd have made a will (leaving the land to Jane, maybe), and Hearst's murder merely an opening to more bad behavior. But I suppose it was fitting to Charlie's character that he never really thought that far ahead of himself, and might even have been superstitious about what making a will meant.)

 

 

[Rockroi]

 

 

 

7 hours ago, RumHam said:

Also not sure on your tone there but Jane and Joanie were lesbian lovers back in the third season. Joanie was established as a lesbian in season one when Kirsten Bell guested. 

Clearly, Jonie was a lesbian from season one and the terrific Bell episode and that she and Jane had been together and established in season 3.  That was not my point. I am not saying "They suddenly became lesbians."

My point was that the relationship doesn't go anywhere nor further anything else in the story.  It's very much like Seth and Martha's relationship.  Okay they are together, fine.  And their relationship is much closer than it was 10 years earlier.  Okay,  So, what happened?  What's the point?  When Seth gets Hearst, Martha shoots him this horrified look.  Why? What is it in their relationship that we would need to know that is in jeopardy due to his handling of Hearst?  We never know.  Their relationship is never integrated into the overall episode, nor in anything involving Alma (which was a shame).  

Same thing with Jonie and Jane; what is it about their relationship that is interesting or that is integrated into the overall story. It's the opposite; it's just there.  As an example, if you edited out Joanie and Jane's scenes together what impact would it have on the story?  None.  They do not interact in any way with the story between Seth and Hearst or Al.  They are this small appendage that in and of itself has very little depth or variety.  

I sort of left that way about Sol and Trixie as well, but she throws that "A-Pox-On-All-Your-Houses" scene.  But even there- if Sol was not in any scenes, would you have missed him?  I'm glad he was there - just as I was glad Jonie and Jane were, but I wanted to see them integrated into a wider story and not just "Here is the lesbian couple."  That's not in and of itself interesting just as Sol and Trixie being together is not in and of itself interesting.  

And you could say, "Well that's true of most of the characters in the movie..." and you would be right.  And that's really my criticism with this movie; I felt as if it was a whole bunch of "Hey, here is this character you once liked; they are doing much the same thing as before.  See? Here s/he is.  They are talking like they did before!  Nothing has changed!"

You have to do more than just show me the characters; they have to actually be involved in the story.  And Joanie and Jane - like most of the characters in the episode - weren't.

[Ran]

I find the Martha-Seth thing very strange. Their relationship was growing increasingly closer from within an episode or two of her arrival in Deadwood all the way through the end of season 3 (think back on that conversation about Bullock not showing his "customary sweetness", a phrase which says quite a lot about where their relatonship is at). They ended up exactly where they seemed to be heading as season 3 closed, IMO. I didn't need any more integration of this into the episode than to see the children and their invitation for "Uncle Charlie" to come to dinner. Martha's reaction to the Hearst situation was her fear that Seth was going to do something that could not be recovered from, both in terms of a response from Hearst or Heart's avengers and in terms of Seth's own moral code.

[Rockroi]

1 hour ago, Ran said:

I find the Martha-Seth thing very strange. Their relationship was growing increasingly closer from within an episode or two of her arrival in Deadwood all the way through the end of season 3 (think back on that conversation about Bullock not showing his "customary sweetness", a phrase which says quite a lot about where their relatonship is at). They ended up exactly where they seemed to be heading as season 3 closed, IMO. I didn't need any more integration of this into the episode than to see the children and their invitation for "Uncle Charlie" to come to dinner. Martha's reaction to the Hearst situation was her fear that Seth was going to do something that could not be recovered from, both in terms of a response from Hearst or Heart's avengers and in terms of Seth's own moral code.

I did not get that at all from Martha and Seth at the end of season 3.  The entire time I thought that Seth was holding up to his duty to be Martha's husband after the death of his brother (prior to Deadwood).  I never got any semblance that they were close.  To me, their relationship was cordial and dignified, never warm.  And this is what made Alma's situation all the more heartbreaking; she and Seth had the warmer and more passionate relationship.  That was contrasted by his dignified and proper relationship with Martha.  That was such an integral part of his story; Seth was maintaining his duty to Martha over his desires to Alma.  He could either have passion or duty; never both.  

Now, that's not to say that people cannot grow closer over 10 years.  10 years is a long time.  Maybe they did get close.  Okay, that's fair.  But that's my problem -- I gotta see that growth before I can just accept it.  That's what made Seth and Martha so strange to me.  Here he was passionately kissing her and holding her and now they have 3 kids (maybe 2, they were utterly unimportant).  Okay, I would have liked to see them bridge that gap.  

But I am being greedy because I can't have that 4th season; I can only have a 2-hour movie so that "flash forward" is what I had to accept.  I can accept it, it just leaves a lot to be desired.  

[Mexal]

2 hours ago, Rockroi said:

I did not get that at all from Martha and Seth at the end of season 3.  The entire time I thought that Seth was holding up to his duty to be Martha's husband after the death of his brother (prior to Deadwood).  I never got any semblance that they were close.  To me, their relationship was cordial and dignified, never warm.  And this is what made Alma's situation all the more heartbreaking; she and Seth had the warmer and more passionate relationship.  That was contrasted by his dignified and proper relationship with Martha.  That was such an integral part of his story; Seth was maintaining his duty to Martha over his desires to Alma.  He could either have passion or duty; never both.  

Now, that's not to say that people cannot grow closer over 10 years.  10 years is a long time.  Maybe they did get close.  Okay, that's fair.  But that's my problem -- I gotta see that growth before I can just accept it.  That's what made Seth and Martha so strange to me.  Here he was passionately kissing her and holding her and now they have 3 kids (maybe 2, they were utterly unimportant).  Okay, I would have liked to see them bridge that gap.  

But I am being greedy because I can't have that 4th season; I can only have a 2-hour movie so that "flash forward" is what I had to accept.  I can accept it, it just leaves a lot to be desired.  

Wasn't it at the end of Season 2 that Seth chooses Martha? And in Season 3, they seemed to be working just fine. It's not hard for me to imagine that in 10 years, Alma leaves to go back to NY (or where ever) and Martha/Seth have a nice life together. Not sure why it needs to be spelled out.

I get your point about the plot. It did feel like a repeat. I didn't mind though as I was happy to be back in the world, to see some of them have moved on, some of the town has grown up and to continue to enjoy the characters and dialogue that made Deadwood so great in the first place.

[Rockroi]

 

 

 

4 hours ago, Mexal said:

Wasn't it at the end of Season 2 that Seth chooses Martha? And in Season 3, they seemed to be working just fine. It's not hard for me to imagine that in 10 years, Alma leaves to go back to NY (or where ever) and Martha/Seth have a nice life together. Not sure why it needs to be spelled out.

He does "choose" her, but its not out of passion or desire, but out of duty.  And you are correct that they could have developed a true romance; that could have happened. 

My issue is that I want to see the development (impossible for a 2-hour movie, I grant you), and not this "Okay, this is how it is now because the story demands it."  One of the major themes in this episode was that Alma WAS the "one that got away" and Seth has to relive that by seeing her again.  He still loves Martha; we just don't see how he was able to build that relationship with her given 1) the initial issues between them and 2) the death of their son.  Alma was not the only impediment.  

[red snow]

I didn't have a problem with it. It was pretty clear to me that over the course of 10 years they had developed feelings for each other. Not surprising with several kids and at a time when divorce wasn't really an option. Far better than them being utterly distant or horrible to each other. The feelings seth still had for Alma was there but he simply wasn't the kind of person to abandon his duty. 

I was far more disappointed that Alma hadn't moved on. Maybe she had a life back in New York but in the film it seemed as though her life had been frozen into pining after Seth which was a bit sad. 

[Rockroi]

3 minutes ago, red snow said:

I didn't have a problem with it. It was pretty clear to me that over the course of 10 years they had developed feelings for each other. Not surprising with several kids and at a time when divorce wasn't really an option. Far better than them being utterly distant or horrible to each other. The feelings seth still had for Alma was there but he simply wasn't the kind of person to abandon his duty. 

I was far more disappointed that Alma hadn't moved on. Maybe she had a life back in New York but in the film it seemed as though her life had been frozen into pining after Seth which was a bit sad. 

I agree with that first part insofar as Seth had moved on and that made more sense, story-wise.  IF he was still distant to Martha, its sort of this strange appendage in the story.  And we would not like Seth so much.  We were okay when he was in love with Alma, but with her gone and him being cold to Martha, we would have thought of him as kind of a dick. And Seth was always all about Duty.  And punching guys in the face.  

But, strangely, I did not get the feeling Alma was still pining for Seth.  I didn't get much from Alma at all.  Again, that's another example of my issues with the story; I don't know why she was there at all until she outbids Hearst so she can have a nice "Objective Fulfilled" green check-mark next to her name for finally getting back at Hearst for buying her land.  Or something.  

[Mexal]

27 minutes ago, Rockroi said:

I agree with that first part insofar as Seth had moved on and that made more sense, story-wise.  IF he was still distant to Martha, its sort of this strange appendage in the story.  And we would not like Seth so much.  We were okay when he was in love with Alma, but with her gone and him being cold to Martha, we would have thought of him as kind of a dick. And Seth was always all about Duty.  And punching guys in the face.  

But, strangely, I did not get the feeling Alma was still pining for Seth.  I didn't get much from Alma at all.  Again, that's another example of my issues with the story; I don't know why she was there at all until she outbids Hearst so she can have a nice "Objective Fulfilled" green check-mark next to her name for finally getting back at Hearst for buying her land.  Or something.  

Yea, I wasn't sure why Alma was in Deadwood either. Again, I didn't much care since I enjoyed seeing her again but agreed the story short shifted her.

Just an aside, Molly Parker had very limited time to film since she was in Vancouver filming Lost in Space Season 2. She was able to make it down on the weekends but not be there regularly so Milch limited her story.

[red snow]

1 hour ago, Rockroi said:

I agree with that first part insofar as Seth had moved on and that made more sense, story-wise.  IF he was still distant to Martha, its sort of this strange appendage in the story.  And we would not like Seth so much.  We were okay when he was in love with Alma, but with her gone and him being cold to Martha, we would have thought of him as kind of a dick. And Seth was always all about Duty.  And punching guys in the face.  

But, strangely, I did not get the feeling Alma was still pining for Seth.  I didn't get much from Alma at all.  Again, that's another example of my issues with the story; I don't know why she was there at all until she outbids Hearst so she can have a nice "Objective Fulfilled" green check-mark next to her name for finally getting back at Hearst for buying her land.  Or something.  

She seemed pretty upset to me at the wedding reception when her dance with bullock was cut short. Similarly her intervention at the auction seemed as much about helping bullock as sticking it to Hearst and honouring Charlie. Maybe i was just reading too much into Molly Parker's expressions and looks in those scenes though as i agree there weren't many verbal cues.

[Zorral]

19 hours ago, RumHam said:

Milch decided to retell the story of the finale and this time "tell 'em something pretty.

Milch suffers from Alzheimers, and though on set, didn't run anything.

Molly Parker, the actor playing Alma, had other shooting commitment at the same time, so had hardly any time to be on set, so she was truncated. But like all the others who could be there, they moved hell and high water to do it, no matter how little

It wasn't quite 'right' though everything was 'right'.  I dunno.  Wait, that's not quite true.  It felt like ... fan service, done with limitations of time.

But both McShane and Olyphant carried the swag for which this series got them so well known, despite one dying and the other moving his hair from his head to his top lip.  So, ya?  

 

[RumHam]

4 hours ago, Zorral said:

Milch suffers from Alzheimers, and though on set, didn't run anything.

I know I read the new yorker profile  

I don't recall reading anything about what his role on set was (other than obviously, diminished due to his condition.)  but he still wrote it, so my point stands. It's possible because of his disease that he wrote a smaller percentage of the dialogue while his assistants filled in the blanks. 

 

[Astromech]

7 hours ago, RumHam said:

I know I read the new yorker profile  

I don't recall reading anything about what his role on set was (other than obviously, diminished due to his condition.)  but he still wrote it, so my point stands. It's possible because of his disease that he wrote a smaller percentage of the dialogue while his assistants filled in the blanks. 

 

Now that you mention it, Hearst's speech after he arrives in Deadwood seemed a little off to me, like someone trying to imitate Milch's dialogue in the show. Just my reaction to it.

[Zorral]

11 hours ago, RumHam said:

I know I read the new yorker profile  

I don't recall reading anything about what his role on set was (other than obviously, diminished due to his condition.)  but he still wrote it, so my point stands. It's possible because of his disease that he wrote a smaller percentage of the dialogue while his assistants filled in the blanks. 

 

Milch didn't write anything for the movie we saw.  Which surely explains why the language which came off so naturally in terms of tone, rhythm and pace in the television series, never quite hit the the mark in the movie.

I mean that in the series, from the first episode even, at first one didn't even notice the 16th century, mated with late 19th century, especially American, ever expanding narrative sentences.  For instance, we see them very often in Frederick Douglass's writing, particularly in his various autobiographies and editions of his autobiographies.  That was how natural it was, that we had some time before we even noticed its extensive roll and metaphor.  Perhaps that it was so frequently (far less so in the movie) punctuated by expletives had something to do with distracting us from the real expression.  It was an astonishing gift to television by both the writer and the actors.  This didn't occur in the movie.  Or perhaps, unreliable as we audiences are, we had come to take it for granted.

[RumHam]

10 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Milch didn't write anything for the movie we saw.  Which surely explains why the language which came off so naturally in terms of tone, rhythm and pace in the television series, never quite hit the the mark in the movie.

I'm not sure where you're getting that from? He is the sole credited writer of the movie. Everyone has been talking in interviews like he wrote it. It's possible this is all some cover up and he was too unwell to actually contribute much, but if you're making that claim you have to provide some evidence. 

[Zorral]

6 minutes ago, RumHam said:

I'm not sure where you're getting that from? He is the sole credited writer of the movie. Everyone has been talking in interviews like he wrote it. It's possible this is all some cover up and he was too unwell to actually contribute much, but if you're making that claim you have to provide some evidence. 

From articles in Vulture, among others.  It was the first to reveal that Milch had Alzheimers and thus couldn't actually work on the film.  I put up a link to that either in this Deadwood topic or the one before it dropped.

It was his concept.  People worked from that.  So sure he gets sole credit, that's how it works.  But he couldn't write any longer.  That's how the disease operates. When they began working, he wasn't mildly ill.  Also the way he worked on the series, which had a lot to do with why it was so fresh and natural, and also with why the plug was pulled, is he'd tear up the script and shove the new stuff into their hands even during shooting.  This was famous at the time.  That didn't happen with the movie, which again, is why it sounds just -- well off.  An imitation, rather than the original.