Deadwood - d'oh

As my holidays draw to a close, so too does my obsessive viewing of TV shows on DVD. So far, I have knocked off all three series of BBC's Robin Hood, two series of The Big Bang Theory, two series of Friday Night Lights and now I have just finished watching the third and final series of Deadwood.

I had to Google the latter today after watching the final episode in the wee hours of the morning. I thought perhaps I missed something as I felt somewhat dissatisfied at the way the show wrapped up. I didn't expect an out-of-place montage tying up loose ends a-la Pushing Daisies, but I thought there would be some sense of closure for us viewers.

However, it wasn't until this morning’s googling that I discovered two things. Firstly, a fourth season was initially expected, which I decided could account for the anti-climactic ending…. But more importantly I was confronted with my own ignorance (at least in terms of American folklore), upon learning that the entire show was significantly based on fact!!! D’oh!

While watching I had been surprised at some of the liberties taken, through the introduction of 'Calamity' Jane and 'Wild' Bill Hickok, not realising until today that most of the other characters and many of the events of the show were actually also based on - as quoted by Wikipedia - 'historical truths' with a few embellishments added for the purposes of entertainment.

This knowledge would have informed my viewing and – more importantly - my expectations considerably had it been conferred on me previously. Had I realised that there was some need to adhere to factual accounts; it would have lessened the aforementioned disappointment that the storyline didn’t reflect the kind of TV-land ending that allows viewers to sleep contentedly at night.

A friend had tried to convince me to watch Deadwood for years but I had refrained, having little interest in the 'western' as a genre. However, as it happened I discovered it in the same way I discovered some recent passions, Big Bang Theory and Entourage - through re-runs on television.

Although I sped through the three seasons of the show and often refused to delay gratification, watching episode after episode, I didn't LOVE love it, ie. It isn't something I would watch again and again - my definition of a show I love.

There is no doubting, however, that the show was made by clever people and that is something I appreciate (hence my love of West Wing, Pushing Daisies, Buffy etc). The scripts and dialogue were amazing and it wasn't until the second or third season that I became conscious that each line from a character's mouth was akin to Shakespearean prose (albeit slightly more colourful!), with the quality of the vernacular and use of soliloquies and monologues growing each episode.

I have to admit to being a bit gobsmacked while watching the first episode. No one had warned me about the language. Don't get me wrong, I swear like a trooper, dropping the F-bomb far too much and I must admit that the c-word doesn't even worry me much nowadays.... but I wasn't prepared for it on my free-to-air-TV viewing. Wikipedia quotes that 'fuck' was used 43 times during the first hour of the show, setting the tone for the rest of the seasons, with the word used 1.56 times every minute of footage. I expect the word 'cocksucker' featured as a pronoun almost as much. Of course once inured to the language you realise that being called a (language alert!!!) loopy fuckin' c_nt is in fact a term of endearment. At least in the characters' eyes.

However, watching all three seasons in such quick succession allowed me to ponder a bit on my perceptions and my own reactions to them. The first episodes introduce us to the two main characters, Seth Bullock (former Montana Sheriff and wannabe Hardware store owner in the lawless Deadwood) and Al Swearengen, owner of the local pub and whorehouse. As I had seen half a dozen episodes on TV before borrowing the DVDs, I felt I already had a sense of the two protagonists: Bullock was a controlled and 'just' man with a sense of right and wrong; while Swearengen ruthlessly murders (by this own hand and others) for his own gain, treating all of those around him (liked and disliked) with disdain.

So... it didn't really occur to me sometime until late in the second season that - in some respects - their roles (on the TV show at least) had reversed. Swearengen had become the smarter 'player' weighing up the politics of the situations before him and demonstrating acts of kindness; and Bullock, faced with personal problems and complications was prone to 'flying off the handle' and acting irrationally. Bullock was now the wildcard, his rage simmering just beneath the surface. Those (like me) prone to online trawling for information would know there are entire Forums devoted to the ‘evolution’ of Swearengen throughout the show.

Of course, I realise that my early viewing was coloured by a lack of character development and the more dimensions to which we are privy, the more the characters change. But it was a useful lesson to me. I made my mind up too quickly. I jumped in and judged who the baddies and goodies were without much thought. And then I found it hard to change my allegiances. Bullock was the hero for God’s sake! As the seasons progressed, I found myself becoming more and more disappointed in him; as if he was letting me (personally) down through his increasingly-uncontrolled actions.

I gather (again, via Wikipedia) that the real-life Swearengen didn't demonstrate the same human touches as his screen character, and similarly, Bullock seems to have done well for himself in politics and in business - his real-life perhaps not fraught with the same complications as his Deadwood character.

When Season 4 didn’t progress, creator David Milch was to have wrapped the show up via a series of TV movies, but four years later these have not eventuated. A shame really, because while I can learn what happened to their real-life namesakes... I would kinda like to have known what would have happened to the Deadwood characters I'd known on-screen.

The X Factor

A few weeks ago, I was about to pull the plug on my anti-climactic Saturday night TV viewing when I came across a TV documentary about East Timorese leader, and current Prime Minister, Xanana Gusmão.

I was in East Timor between 1999 and 2001 and met Xanana a few times. I saw him speak, often in Tetum the local language, but although my comprehension was minimal I didn’t need to understand the words to know that he could certainly command a room.

At that time, he had the respect and admiration of a whole generation of East Timorese. His oratory skills and impassioned performances were amazing and he had the ability to quell angry masses frustrated with everything from the world’s inaction to the United Nation’s plodding progress in his country.

He had something that many others do not. Charisma. Presence… a certain something.

But it got me thinking about that X Factor. That ‘something’ which separates Australian Prime Minister Bob Hawke, from John Howard or Kevin Rudd; and Bill Clinton from others who came before and after.

I remember when I was at school watching a young Sigrid Thornton in the TV mini-series All the Rivers Run and movie Man from Snowy River. In the late 1970s and early 1980s she was Australia’s sweetheart, eventually departing for the USA where she scored the lead in a (fairly-ordinary) TV western which ran for a couple of years. I recall reading a quote about her in a magazine at that time where someone described her allure, saying that the camera loved her; that it ‘ate her up’. And it did. We saw it years later when she graced Australian small screens again in the late 1990s in Sea Change. She had a ‘certain something’ that she continues to bring to our screens, even today.

I was reminded of this notion of charisma as I breezed through BBC’s Robin Hood recently. I have already confessed my lust for Richard Armitage’s Sir Guy of Gisbourne, but what surprised me was how engaging I found Robin himself. Slim and (I suspect) not-universally-attractive, Jonas Armstrong brought something to the screen which surprised me. In trying to describe him (in the role) to someone, I said he ‘twinkled’. An unlikely candidate for the X Factor, Armstrong gave us a cheeky loveable larrikin who drew us in and before long (for me, anyway) he embodied Robin Hood.

I’m not always as enamoured with TV characters and wonder if it is all about the X Factor. I watch the TV show Castle for example, because I am a Nathan Fillion fan (from way back). But I cannot - I repeat - I CANNOT, stand Stana Katic’s smug Kate Beckett. She is certainly pretty and Hollywood-skinny so I find it hard to articulate why I haven’t ‘taken’ to her character, other than a certain coldness or lack of depth? I suspect it is an issue of charisma. And when a character is uninspiring, unsurprisingly I can’t engage with them or the show. It is the reason, I suspect, that I used to love Law & Order – Criminal Intent, but never watched the original Law & Order; and perhaps the same reason I skip Law & Order – SVU if Mariska Hargitay isn’t featuring.

It isn’t just about acting, although it does help. I will watch almost anything with Aussie TV actor, Claudia Karvan in it because she just brings ‘something’ to the screen every time. Similarly I am enjoying our new television offering, Offspring, starring Asher Keddie who is remarkably engaging as the self-deprecating Nina.

It’s why we want the good guys to win. Or the bad guys to prosper. It’s why we forgive Bill Clinton’s indiscretions or ignore Bob Hawke’s oafishness. It’s why certain actors or shows appeal to us and others don’t. It’s how some people can command a room or a show, and others can’t… the X Factor which has nothing to do with singing and dancing.