Is this the place where I say I'll be happy when Ogged is better able to get out of the house?
Swearengen is not redeemed by the love of a good woman.
I don't say you have to like the show, ogged, I just think you shouldn't try to rationalize your dislike by bogus argument.
Well, my good slol, I'm slightly more than halfway through the first season, so I might be, uh, extrapolating a bit, but he's still the Dennis Franz character.
And I said "civilized," not "redeemed," because he's already beyond redemption.
I think it's fair to say that Swearengen is not redeemed, period.
I never watched NYPD Blue, so I can't say more. I'm willing to give you long odds that Olyphant is a helluva better actor than Caruso, though.
Ah. Well, I'll go with not civilized, ever, either.
How is that claim logically invalid?
The form of the argument as I understand it, young Ben, is "X and Z were made by Y. X turned out, in retrospect, to suck, therefore Z will turn out in retrospect to have sucked."
Don't know about logically invalid, but it may be a suspect analogy; the dialogue on Deadwood is not trying to seem per se tough or authentic. It's deliberately formal.
Bullock isn't Caruso, either. There's a real sense that Bullock can be a pretty bad guy, and that ability is also what makes him effective.
Is it possible that ogged is watching a knock-off version of Deadwood? Are you sure it isn't titled Deedwood, ogged?
Bullock isn't Caruso, either. There's a real sense that Bullock can be a pretty bad guy, and that ability is also what makes him effective.
Caruso was exactly the same way. Seriously, those guys seem just about interchangeable to me.
I maintain that you're all being duped by the tough-guy-ism.
There's a real sense that Bullock can be a pretty bad guy
This is right, and obvious from the opening scene of the first episode, when Bullock very clearly gives serious thought to the proposition of going outlaw. That's consistent through the series, as the confrontation with the Earps indicates. Bullock is wound so tight because he's keeping his own bad impulses in check.
I maintain that you're all being duped by the tough-guy-ism.
Actually, a lot of the tough-guyism creeps me out, especially the kind of stuff SCMT refers to in the previous thread.
a lot of the tough-guyism creeps me out
Yeah, agreed, but a lot of the show is about Swearengen as maestro and Bullock as his brave antagonist.
The form of the argument as I understand it, young Ben, is "X and Z were made by Y. X turned out, in retrospect, to suck, therefore Z will turn out in retrospect to have sucked."
You didn't make an argument. You made a claim: Just as X turned out to suck, so too will Z turn out to suck. There's no claim there that the reason Z will turn out to suck is that it shares a creator, Y, with X, only that a structurally similar process will take place. I thought what you might have meant was that it's incoherent or a pragmatic contradiction to say that something seems good now but will probably later reveal itself to be bad, but since that isn't true, and you've now revealed yourself not to have any idea what you actually said, I'll just have to go with "ogged didn't think through his statement and is resorting to typical Persian bluster to cover his hairy hide.".
Bullock as his brave antagonist
I don't remember when this shifts, but it definitely shifts pretty early in the program. I couldn't say whether it was an intentional fakeout by Milch, or just something that evolved, but that dynamic vanishes right quick. It's my impressionistic memory that it started to go away right after Wild Bill was killed, in the first set of meetings about how to deal with the murderer.
And I guess that doesn't count as a spoiler. Wild Bill Hickok died playing poker in Deadwood. Everybody knows this, right?
11: The difference is that you're supposed to be creeped out by the tough guy-ism in Deadwood; Bullock is creeped out by the tough guy-ism in himself, I think. And Swerengen and Bullock don't have a relationship where they can be easily categorized as "antagonists"' their positions shift with the changing fortunes of Deadwood.
Ben, it was pretty damn obvious that Milch was the connection between paragraphs one and two. I'm sorry you missed that, and I promise to include more signposts to ease your way in future posts.
The brilliance of Bullock as a character almost certainly comes from Olyphant's performances, combined with whoever directs him; he has less and less dialogue as time goes on and is compelled, in very non-Shakespearean fashion, to act off the line. He is very good at this, and manages to be both very funny and realistic.
It all came to me in a flash: of course, Labs is the Caruso character, Mr. Smoldering Righteousness, and Ogged is the Dennis Franz character, the violent hothead who is civilized by the love of a good woman.
I don't remember when this shifts, but it definitely shifts pretty early in the program.
It's already shifting now, but they don't have anything like an alliance. We'll see, I guess.
you're supposed to be creeped out by the tough guy-ism in Deadwood
I think this (just like the impossibility of making an anti-war war movie) never works.
Ogged is the Dennis Franz character, the violent hothead who is civilized by the love of a good woman
Assumes facts not in evidence.
just like the impossibility of making an anti-war war movie
This is more of your credulous highbrow enthusiasm for pomo baloney, isn't it?
Assumes facts not in evidence.
The story arc of this blog isn't over yet. Look for it in Season 9.
who is civilized by the love of a good woman.
Self-nominations are bad form, Becks.
manages to be both very funny and realistic
A friend who is a fan of the show told me that he watched a few episodes with people who weren't familiar with the show, and they burst out laughing every time Bullock was on screen, because they found the performance comically over the top...
Olyphant, however, was a swimmer at USC, so he's ok in my book.
I laugh all the time at Bullock, and regard him partly as comic relief. I don't think this is a misreading, either. He's got to become more impotent and irrelevant as the town civilizes.
You're David Milch's sockpuppet, aren't you?
I'll keep watching, but I'm feeling suspicious!
You're David Milch's sockpuppet, aren't you?
Well, not his "sock" puppet....
My wife hates the tough-guy dialogue in NYPD Blue for exactly the same reason the ogged singles out. It just seems fake once sufficient attention is paid to it. Personally, I don't mind it. I don't care that it's inauthentic. Stylised and over-the-top can be fine, too.
Don't you all remember? Has it been so long? Ogged's aesthetic judgments are not to be seriously engaged with, but to be mocked. Someone go back and link to the appropriate threads. We shouldn't have to learn this all over again.
Re dialogue: sweet sounding words are an end unto themselves. This has always been true in all forms of theater, and there has never been good dialogue, "realistic" or not, that did also sound pretty. Mamet's words are man-pretty, choppy but still musical. That's not an indictment.
Text, you frat boy, ad hominem arguments are banned, except in cases where an ad hominem argument warrant has been issued by the proper authorities, of course.
I never joined a frat. Is there a special warrant for inaccurate ad hominems?
also, 34 should read "that did not also sound pretty." I am almost certain I wrote it that way.
27: as somebody who just started watching this season, and who knows the rough outlines of the previous seasons but hasn't seen them, this seems about right to me, too. Practically every scene with Bullock in recent episodes has involved him angrily uttering threats from between clenched teeth. I kind of expect him to burst into tears and stomp off the set at any moment.
But I can understand how previous awesomeness on his character's part might excuse his current inability to express anything besides furious impotence.
How could you have known that I'm drunk? Ogged, quit spying on me.
ogged, your aesthetic sensibilities are banned. Seriously, you watch cop dramas? And you're open to the argument that X is good/not good depending upon how it might be seen years from now? Is that the cocksucking George W Bush school of aesthetics?
I haven't watched all the special features on the last DVD of the first season yet, but as regards the dialogue, it's a self-aware attempt at mixing victorian speech with miner-town talk. It's not meant to be an accurate example of how people talked. I think it's probably supposed to have a similar character. In any case, it's not of the same type of dialogue as NYPD Blue apparantly was, and so I don't see it as being vulnerable to the same criticisims.
Anyway, I'm watching season 2 currently, and the females, which began being more active in season 1, are definatly more active so far. So at the least, Deadwood is not exclusively about the male situation.
In addition to being quick-tempered and righteous, the creator of the show is trying to depict Bullock as being lost, so that's also a central part of his character.
I believe in the first season there's a commentary track with McShane and Olyphant, and the latter doesn't come off as intellectually ambitious, let's say.
The main difference between the dialogue on NYPD Blue and Deadwood is that the former appealed to an extant tradition--the Raymond Chandler, noir-type tough-guy speak--whereas the latter sounds like nothing ever heard before. It has more in common with something like Riddley Walker or Finnegans Wake, in that it's wholly artificial. It aims to sound authentic, in some respect, but not realistic. (As B. said as the other thread wound down.)
As you note, at first the words don't sound quite right coming from anyone's mouth (Ellsworth being a possible exception). It takes Olyphant longer than most to nail it down; but then again, the same would be true of any film in which the language was so self-consciously literary. (Generally speaking, that is...but I'd bet it take Olyphant longer than most to nail it down, too.)
43 - You've seen The Girl Next Door, right? (No, I haven't either. But I can imagine.)
I'm not criticizing the dialogue for not being naturalistic, and of course it's far more ambitious and cooler than the dialogue on NYPD Blue, but I have a suspicion that once the novelty wears off, it too will seem like a kind of silly attempt at grittiness, or toughness. I could be wrong. Unlike the pop music threads, which were perhaps deliberately provocative, I'm genuinely curious and undecided about this show.
Deadwood is valuable and extremely interesting to watch just because of its style of dialogue, independent of any other factors. #44 has it right.
I have a nagging suspicion it's not entirely clear yet, so let me make an unequivocal statement:
ogged, you're wrong.
Do you promise to come back and admit it if, in five years, you think "Oh, what a silly boy I was, liking that silliness?"
The internet tells me
The pinky swear is most commonly acted out between those under the age of twelve, and usually between females**. A pinky swear should not be taken lightly. The contract is serious, and not to be broken. Breaking of a pinky swear oath may result in screaming, crying, yelling, loss of friendship, loss of trust, and/or retaliation by either or both of the participants.
Are you really ready for that kind of bond?
I was going for something silly, and boyish, per your previous comment. But serious. And not at all gay. NTTAWWT.
the use of the phrase "oh, what a silly boy I was" is not at all gay. But it imparts that ogged is probably a homosexual.
I hereby consummate our pinky swear, slol.
So, if there's something you'd like to try
If there's something you'd like to try
ASK ME - I WON'T SAY "NO" - HOW COULD I ?
Let us consider comment 56 the virtual spit on our virtual fingers.
48 - That link is odd. It's as if my participation in this conversation was a matter of destiny. Lend me some fucking free will, eb.
Lend me some fucking free will, eb.
eb?
64 - You mean it's pronouned like the "eb" in "Jeb"?
You mean it's pronouned like the "eb" in "Jeb"?
No, I meant eb hasn't been seen on this thread. Has he?
Oh, I see. No, eb foretold of my coming in the one I linked to. He is my prophet. Revere him.
I'm surprised at the attention paid to the dialogue in these threads. I'm just saying the style is fine by me. I watch b/c of the characters. And for the gratuitous use of "cocksucker".
I could never stand NYPD Blue, but I don't see any of the connections ogged is drawing. It could be partly that ogged is trying to drawing them halfway through the first season instead of near the end of the third, where they're more manifestly absurd (not only isn't Swearengen redeemed/civilized by the love of a good woman, he isn't loved by anybody in the first place).
I've never seen Deadwood, but Larry King is ambivalent.
once the novelty wears off, it too will seem like a kind of silly attempt at grittiness, or toughness
But isn't that just inherently a problem with all generic conventions? When they're new, they seem original (and indeed, are); once we get used to them *as* conventions, they seem . . . conventional.
B, why do you try to pick fights with me? Who really expects Deadwood type dialogue to become a convention?
I try to pick fights with you because I know I can take you, cancer boy.
As surely as the cocksucker sucks and the balls of a balless man are clipped, the very air portends that it will be so, my Mexican friend.
Hi. Back from Rosencrantz. It's as much fun as I remembered. I think just about anything The Player says would be relevant to this thread and the other, but this one, in its pure mcmanusness, caught my attention:
We're more of the love, blood, and rhetoric school. Well, we can do you blood and love without the rhetoric, and we can do you blood and rhetoric without the love, and we can do you all three concurrent, or consecutive. But we can't give you love and rhetoric without the blood. Blood is compulsory.
And another:
ROSENCRANTZ: What is your line?
PLAYER: Tragedy, sir. Deaths and disclosures, universal and particular, denouements both unexpected and inexorable, transvestite melodrama on all levels including the suggestive. We transport you into a world of intrigue and illusion ... clowns, if you like, murderers---we can do you ghosts and battles, on the skirmish level, heroes, villains, tormented lovers---set pieces in the poetic vein; we can do you rapiers or rape or both, by all means, faithless wives and ravished virgins---flagrante delicto at a price, but that comes under realism for which there are special terms. Getting warm, am I?
ROSENCRANTZ (doubtfully): Well, I don't know....
PLAYER: It costs little to watch, and little more if you happen to get caught up in the action, if that's your taste and times being what they are.
CC: Night, all.
My insanely comprehensive response to ogged and Michael in 69.
Perhaps an arrow in Ogged's quiver?
Oops, no injury meant to Clownę in 79.
I'm not sure that cuts it, as far as parody goes. That shot lingered on his face for a full 15 seconds. It needed something like...something like Ed Burns did on the last Entourage. On HBO shows, people walk around while they monologue, they don't just sit there. Swearengen would've circled his desk, pulled a bottle of whisky from the drawer, poured himself shot, took another from the bottle, replaced it, caressed his heathen head (or at least addressed it) ... I'm all for parody, and think Deadwood's ripe for it.
Only, I think a successful one'll require people try a little harder. 'Cause if there's one thing a parody should never do, it's drag ...
If I am reading these comments correctly, the consensus seems to be that ogged should watch at least 25 hours of the show before he can talk about its merits?
That seems a little excessive.
That seems a little excessive.
It seems that way now, but the next 50 comments will convince you otherwise.
Preach it, winna. I've finished the first season, and the show is just now sorta kinda starting to go in the direction they've been saying. One feels compelled to ask what kept these other folks watching, and moved to wonder when they'll admit they just like to see prostitutes being beaten.
I don't think there's a peculiar desire to see prostitutes being beaten; it just so happens that the only women on the show who are regularly beaten are prostitutes.
This is where we leave you hanging, right?
I watched the first season of Deadwood, expecting to like it almost as much as I liked the Wire, watched a few episodes of the second season, and then just sort of lost interest. I don't know why.
I liked the Rome series, though I concede that I ought not to have liked it.
It's becoming obvious that you people are not my friends.
Does Unf even remember this blog exists, btw? I remember him being a Deadwood fan.
Awesome. You're invited over for Bourbon and Deadwood-watching.
I requested the first DVD of the first season from Netflix. If I don't like it I'm blaming everyone but ogged.