When Hearst asks if some spirit overtakes him, you can see that Wolcott sees the out Hearst is offering, and it looks like he almost might take it. But instead he says a definite "No." He is in control and knows exactly what he's doing when he kills.
@@PlayNiceFolks Wolcott was a very decisive psychopath as presented here. Though he may show what resembles a personal issue therein when confronted of it, his nature to fall into it is like that of a reflex because it IS his nature.
@@PlayNiceFolks why does he know what he's doing? because he's sane. why does he kill? i'm tempted to keep an eye on for another year to see if some idiot actually tries to answer that question.
@@tamnaissixkiller8445 The mind is a misunderstood spectrum. We could consider it a blend of psychopathy mixed with a perfect storm of bipolar disorder, but the fact remains that he was simply written to do so.
Still can't tell to what extent Hearst is morally appalled (he still has morals?) and to what extent he's just offended at the thought of his own degree of risk and exposure by way of association.
Yeah, I think he's more concerned about his own liability in a town in which he is trying to establish himself as the domineering power, and this could have been a big weakness.
The early episodes of Season 3 show that Hearst has impulses almost as horrific as Wolcott’s. The only difference is that he possesses enough self-control not to act on them when it’s against his material interests.
His tone speaks volumes. He corrects himself and drops his tone slightly when he clarifies that the women Wolcott killed were not "women" per se, just "prostitutes". He's throwing Wolcott a bone, admitted he's not primarily angry about that. The real kicker is that Tolliver "disposed of the bodies for you". A shockingly stupid weakness which has now put Tolliver in a position to extort Hearst. Just saying it out loud makes Hearst enraged. His primary lieutenant has failed him. "We must end our connection" is pure business. He's not mad, he's just disappointed. The actual hookers are irrelevant to him.
@@radioactivehalfrhymeI feel like season 2 Hearst and season 3 Hearst are different characters. Hearst in season 3 is clearly a stand-in for HBO execs who cancelled the show and is a pure monster.
Tolliver didn't give them to the Pigs because he wanted to use the bodies as leverage against Wolcott. To blackmail him. If he gave the bodies to the pigs he wouldn't have any evidence of the murders.
I do not believe that it is a coincidence that Hearst's men are all of a certain nature. Wolcott, the Captain.....He employed others of course like the Pinkertons and his servants but these two he was close to. Like calls to like and a Wolf picks wolves for his lieutenants. I dont think its even fully concious. There was no discussion about what they were willing and unwilling to do. I think that when he met them he instinctively understood that they were of his tribe, whatever name you wanna give it, and he took them under his wing. All three of them give off a certain vibe. They have....certain tendencies and ways of thinking. Hearst is the King, the Captain his general, Wolcott his chief diplomat. But all belong to the same kingdom. Even Mr Lee shares these same tendencies even though he is not as close to Hearst as the others. The way Lee treated his whores immediately showed how different he was to Wu. Wu can be ruthless but its out of necessity. At his core he is an honorable man. Lee on the other hand has no better nature. He is of a different tribe. Hearst's tribe and all that implies.
If Wolcott was a wealthy and well skilled geologist and he was to receive severance pay from Hearst why did he hang himself? Couldn’t he find work elsewhere?
these 2 would be way down on the list for me which just goes to show how amazing the show was when even with these 2 both down on the list they were still both amazing characters
People bang on about how evil Hearst is, and he is a bit of a cunt, but he's genuinely horrified and disturbed at Wolcott's psychopathy. "To me, there is no sin . . . . " and you kinda expect him to qualify that with "So great" or "So heinous". But he doesn't. "To me, there is no sin.". That really gave Hearst the wire spider.
yes... today Wolcott would be called a serial killer who preys on prostitutes... killing them is part of his sexual perversion.... but if we are to believe Wolcott... he only indulged in it twice... but one of those times was in Deadwood and quite recent (we see it happen in the season)...
Hearst is visibly upset by these news, even though he's not exactly a saint himself. It's the Jungian Shadow: we hate in others the qualities that we don't want to accept in ourselves. Hearst is uncomfortably reminded that the drive, which makes him want to rape Mrs. Garret and shoot at her through the thoroughfare, is the very same that makes Wolcott murder women. Wolcott just has less self-control.
I always empathized strongly with Hearst. He was the only one that saw the big picture i.e. capitalism / free markets and the efficiencies and prosperity it promised. That vision, which forced him down his path, made him outcast amongst his fellow humans, which off course, were the biggest beneficiaries off his sacrifice.
yeah...looking for excuses, for some sort of absolution, even at the end every man's mind was their own province back then...and their sole responsibility. disordered men, like Wolcott, had no place in the world, unless (a) they were able to effectively mask their urges, or (b) they were useful to someone powerful like Hearst "it happened in Mexico;" as if these circumstances just fell into his lap. Brilliant writing from Milch, but in the service of depicting Wolcott as, at bottom, what he was - an empty shell, without even the conviction to be honest about it
@@EthanAnthony907 It is all in how we define things, just as Walcott defined himself in ways he found complimentary. What is the claim? "I fight for gender equality." One could take great claim in being an abolitionist in 1850. There would have been peril associated with that stance in some circles and none in others. Today, however, to make that declaration would seem to be rather insipid. Pointless. There are some localized examples of slavery, most human trafficking, and when they are cracked down upon, democrats protest. Ice raids a under age brothel in Oakland and democrats protest in front of the house. The border patrol demands some proof that men really are the fathers of girls they bring across the border and democrats protest. California, completely run by democrats, pass a law making it illegal to arrest an underage prostitute and claim virtue. They assert that having prostitution on their juvenile record would be harmful to them later in life. As opposed to actual juvenile prostitution? Juvenile records are sealed. It certainly seems that availability has been legislated. In today's world, feminism is just another power arc utilized by the Democrat party, by every metric, women have at the least equal rights, and in some cases extraordinary rights. I'm not Mra or mgtow or any other identitarian "specialist." Just a regular guy who has seen enough to know when the public is being propagandized. I wonder if you might consider how much you have been influenced. If you have read to this point, thanks. Have a great 2019.
@@EthanAnthony907 Working folk are alright by me. I know that there are many facets to your party. I wonder if much of that party hasn't abandoned you? Not that both parties haven't disregarded many, if not most, of us who actually produce for a living. (i'm a farmer) You are right, I mischaracterized you within my imagination. Glad to make your acquaintance.
This would have been a great series except the dialog is so bogus...nobody in the late 1800s spoke like the characters do in this series. They took such great pains to look authentic and then blow it on the dialog.
Deadwoods dialogue is the thing that more than anything else sets the show apart and above most other shows. And it's at its best when it's at its most bogus.
@@Matt-pc5cd It is just a pet peeve of mine, explaining too why I don't much care for Shakespeare's tragedies...not so much the style as the fact no one would have those thoughts...imagine an illiterate chief like Macbeth saying, "All the world's a stage...".
When your actions disgust a man as Vicious and Ruthless as Mr. Hearst, you know you done goofed!
Exactly!!
Whoopsie daisy!
Damn good point.
i always felt he was more disgusted at how bad it would make their association look.
I don't think Hearst was so much disgusted by Wolcott's actions as concerned about how they would affect his bottom line if they were discovered.
When Hearst asks if some spirit overtakes him, you can see that Wolcott sees the out Hearst is offering, and it looks like he almost might take it. But instead he says a definite "No." He is in control and knows exactly what he's doing when he kills.
Why, tho
@@PlayNiceFolks Wolcott was a very decisive psychopath as presented here. Though he may show what resembles a personal issue therein when confronted of it, his nature to fall into it is like that of a reflex because it IS his nature.
@@PlayNiceFolks why does he know what he's doing? because he's sane.
why does he kill? i'm tempted to keep an eye on for another year to see if some idiot actually tries to answer that question.
@@tamnaissixkiller8445 The mind is a misunderstood spectrum. We could consider it a blend of psychopathy mixed with a perfect storm of bipolar disorder, but the fact remains that he was simply written to do so.
@@PlayNiceFolksits bread into humans(some)
I love the way hearst backs away from wolcotts asking if he ever considered why he was writing the letter
Still can't tell to what extent Hearst is morally appalled (he still has morals?) and to what extent he's just offended at the thought of his own degree of risk and exposure by way of association.
Yep not about morals.He’s more concerned that he was sloppy enough to get caught. Different in Mexico though, easier to sweep it under the rug.
Yeah, I think he's more concerned about his own liability in a town in which he is trying to establish himself as the domineering power, and this could have been a big weakness.
The early episodes of Season 3 show that Hearst has impulses almost as horrific as Wolcott’s. The only difference is that he possesses enough self-control not to act on them when it’s against his material interests.
His tone speaks volumes. He corrects himself and drops his tone slightly when he clarifies that the women Wolcott killed were not "women" per se, just "prostitutes". He's throwing Wolcott a bone, admitted he's not primarily angry about that. The real kicker is that Tolliver "disposed of the bodies for you". A shockingly stupid weakness which has now put Tolliver in a position to extort Hearst. Just saying it out loud makes Hearst enraged. His primary lieutenant has failed him.
"We must end our connection" is pure business. He's not mad, he's just disappointed. The actual hookers are irrelevant to him.
@@radioactivehalfrhymeI feel like season 2 Hearst and season 3 Hearst are different characters. Hearst in season 3 is clearly a stand-in for HBO execs who cancelled the show and is a pure monster.
Wolcott was good. Same actor that killed Wild Bill. Brilliant acting of 2 different characters in the series.
I did not know that. Impressive.
I never noticed that lol awesome
Until halfway through 2nd season I thought Wolcott was the brother of the actor who killed Wild Bill.
He was also an extra in the movie. He was the guy who shouted "I hope you die in the street like my dad!" near the end.
@@plastichouseplant I was going to say the same thing!
2 of the most memorable characters on a show that's full of memorable characters.
That "Well!" was so powerful
What's extra sad is that the poor girls were just disposed of. Probably buried in the woods, bringing them to Wus pigs would've been too high profile.
Tolliver didn't give them to the Pigs because he wanted to use the bodies as leverage against Wolcott. To blackmail him. If he gave the bodies to the pigs he wouldn't have any evidence of the murders.
How many people have not recognized Wolcott as the same actor as Hickcocks murderer? I was stunned when I noticed…..this man is an actor.
Holy moly, can’t believe I didn’t notice that! Credit to the actor in that case🍻
He is a chameleon. He also makes a cameo in the movie in the scene where a mob attacks Hearst.
Crap! Great pull!!!
He also plays the horse that kicks Steve the Racist Drunk in the head. The man is a genius.
"Wild Bill, u one for one"!
He was the "Jack the Ripper" of Deadwood.
WELL?!
😳
Hearst is the greatest villain in TV show history.
Too bad the movie ruined him by reducing him to a cartoon character.
They really softened Swearengen up way too much the movie also
@@walterbrobwell he was sick
Remember, folks... he played Jack AND Francis. I didn't even know until the 3rd playthru.
Even Hearst has his bright lines.
such a great deconstruction of "luck"
An incredibly intense scene that reveals the genius of David Milch
It happened in Mexico and now its happened here.
Greatest show ever.
I really think it is
I do not believe that it is a coincidence that Hearst's men are all of a certain nature. Wolcott, the Captain.....He employed others of course like the Pinkertons and his servants but these two he was close to. Like calls to like and a Wolf picks wolves for his lieutenants.
I dont think its even fully concious. There was no discussion about what they were willing and unwilling to do. I think that when he met them he instinctively understood that they were of his tribe, whatever name you wanna give it, and he took them under his wing. All three of them give off a certain vibe. They have....certain tendencies and ways of thinking. Hearst is the King, the Captain his general, Wolcott his chief diplomat. But all belong to the same kingdom.
Even Mr Lee shares these same tendencies even though he is not as close to Hearst as the others. The way Lee treated his whores immediately showed how different he was to Wu. Wu can be ruthless but its out of necessity. At his core he is an honorable man. Lee on the other hand has no better nature. He is of a different tribe. Hearst's tribe and all that implies.
Fantastically put.
lol like hearst is any better
1:31 Agreed.
1:44 chills
He looks a lot like John Cleese! 😃
What a scene. Incredible 🙀😿
If Wolcott was a wealthy and well skilled geologist and he was to receive severance pay from Hearst why did he hang himself? Couldn’t he find work elsewhere?
Reputation
Listen to the little sound Wolcott uses in the end of the scene.... he's Sheldon Cooper's great great grand-dad... :p
Best two characters in the show
certainly the most darkest
these 2 would be way down on the list for me which just goes to show how amazing the show was when even with these 2 both down on the list they were still both amazing characters
Not even close, the best
Is that the guy from Simon and Simon?
yes
WELL!😀
People bang on about how evil Hearst is, and he is a bit of a cunt, but he's genuinely horrified and disturbed at Wolcott's psychopathy. "To me, there is no sin . . . . " and you kinda expect him to qualify that with "So great" or "So heinous". But he doesn't. "To me, there is no sin.". That really gave Hearst the wire spider.
It's killing without purpose, there's no angle to it, so even Hearst can't wrap his head around it.
Why did he kill them anyway? Did he get some kind of pleasure out of it or what?
yes... today Wolcott would be called a serial killer who preys on prostitutes... killing them is part of his sexual perversion.... but if we are to believe Wolcott... he only indulged in it twice... but one of those times was in Deadwood and quite recent (we see it happen in the season)...
I don't think he was able to perform and killing them keeps his secret.
Killing them might be the only way he could "get off"?@@ariadneschild8460
He was a psychopathic killer and a sociopath. Why does any serial killer kill? A host of reasons.
Hearst is visibly upset by these news, even though he's not exactly a saint himself. It's the Jungian Shadow: we hate in others the qualities that we don't want to accept in ourselves. Hearst is uncomfortably reminded that the drive, which makes him want to rape Mrs. Garret and shoot at her through the thoroughfare, is the very same that makes Wolcott murder women. Wolcott just has less self-control.
He's only upset because Wolcott is his second hand man which will inevitably affect his own reputation. He's not disturbed because of his amorality
0:43 "WOW!!!" This is what Hearst does when he's actually impressed by someone. Doesn't happen often.
WELL* lol
So did Hearst have Wolcott kill himself in this scene? When he told him to make a severance?
No, a "severance", meaning just to separate from him in relationship, both business and personal.
hes referring to severance pay
Well!!!?!?!?
I always empathized strongly with Hearst. He was the only one that saw the big picture i.e. capitalism / free markets and the efficiencies and prosperity it promised. That vision, which forced him down his path, made him outcast amongst his fellow humans, which off course, were the biggest beneficiaries off his sacrifice.
Empathized... with Hearst? o_o Or aspects of him in season 2?
i felt so bad for Wolcott in this scene...
MrLilfee he...he’s a serial killer of women...
yeah...looking for excuses, for some sort of absolution, even at the end
every man's mind was their own province back then...and their sole responsibility. disordered men, like Wolcott, had no place in the world, unless (a) they were able to effectively mask their urges, or (b) they were useful to someone powerful like Hearst
"it happened in Mexico;" as if these circumstances just fell into his lap. Brilliant writing from Milch, but in the service of depicting Wolcott as, at bottom, what he was - an empty shell, without even the conviction to be honest about it
@@EthanAnthony907 lobo
@@EthanAnthony907 It is all in how we define things, just as Walcott defined himself in ways he found complimentary. What is the claim? "I fight for gender equality." One could take great claim in being an abolitionist in 1850. There would have been peril associated with that stance in some circles and none in others. Today, however, to make that declaration would seem to be rather insipid. Pointless. There are some localized examples of slavery, most human trafficking, and when they are cracked down upon, democrats protest. Ice raids a under age brothel in Oakland and democrats protest in front of the house. The border patrol demands some proof that men really are the fathers of girls they bring across the border and democrats protest. California, completely run by democrats, pass a law making it illegal to arrest an underage prostitute and claim virtue. They assert that having prostitution on their juvenile record would be harmful to them later in life. As opposed to actual juvenile prostitution? Juvenile records are sealed. It certainly seems that availability has been legislated. In today's world, feminism is just another power arc utilized by the Democrat party, by every metric, women have at the least equal rights, and in some cases extraordinary rights. I'm not Mra or mgtow or any other identitarian "specialist." Just a regular guy who has seen enough to know when the public is being propagandized. I wonder if you might consider how much you have been influenced. If you have read to this point, thanks. Have a great 2019.
@@EthanAnthony907 Working folk are alright by me. I know that there are many facets to your party. I wonder if much of that party hasn't abandoned you? Not that both parties haven't disregarded many, if not most, of us who actually produce for a living. (i'm a farmer) You are right, I mischaracterized you within my imagination. Glad to make your acquaintance.
This would have been a great series except the dialog is so bogus...nobody in the late 1800s spoke like the characters do in this series. They took such great pains to look authentic and then blow it on the dialog.
That has been my impression also, but I don't know how anybody spoke in the late 1800s.
Deadwoods dialogue is the thing that more than anything else sets the show apart and above most other shows. And it's at its best when it's at its most bogus.
@@Matt-pc5cd It is just a pet peeve of mine, explaining too why I don't much care for Shakespeare's tragedies...not so much the style as the fact no one would have those thoughts...imagine an illiterate chief like Macbeth saying, "All the world's a stage...".
Boy, did you miss the point, Mr. Marsh.
@@michaelhall2709 I think you missed mine.