Louis O’Carroll: I spent a lot of time humming and hawing over the opening passage of this review; there’s an innately human fixation on beginnings and endings when it comes to any type of fiction, and, given Deadwood‘s distinct lack of a conventional ending, it wouldn’t make for a great start if I were to miss the mark on the beginning of what is often considered to be one of the most important pieces of scripted television ever.

And yet, after one episode, I must admit that I don’t have a firm grasp of where Deadwood is going. The pilot of almost every great drama ever made contains that one scene that’s a microcosm of that its mission statement (I’m talking about the likes of Jimmy McNulty’s conversation about Snotboogie, or Don Draper’s conversation with Sam the waiter, or Tony Soprano’s first session with Melfi); “Deadwood” – irritatingly the name of the pilot – appears to lack that scene. ‘Appear’ being the operative word, as I have no doubt that Deadwood is the type of show that doesn’t show its hand as easily as others. That scene is probably in there, but I most likely need more context to find it.

And hopefully my complete unfamiliarity with this show will make for some interesting recaps! Of course, it won’t just my complete unfamiliarity of this show that will be mercilessly mocked, it will also be that of my good friend Sam Killian, who I managed to sucker into taking half of the workload of this intimidating assignment. Sam and I are almost symbiotic in some regards, though we vehemently and violently disagree on some things (something something House of Cards), so there should be an interesting enough contrast between the two of us.

I’ll let you give yourself a proper introduction, Sam, you vain bastard. After that’s out of the way, how did you feel about “Deadwood”? Were you left as unenlightened as I was?

Sam Killian: And then there was Sam. I don’t know if I could really call myself a television buff as it were – my true loves stem from theatre primarily. Indeed, I find that television often has to go a long way to impress me – I’ll readily throw myself into a film or a play, but a serial has to try harder. What I seek out in anything, television included, is something interesting – things that are fresh and new and never-before-seen. My favourite show of ever is Twin Peaks, which neatly encapsulates everything I look for in a TV show – it’s fresh, it’s offbeat, it forces you not only to think on a higher plane, but to feel in an unexpected fashion, forcing you to feel horror and humour and sorrow and love simultaneously. But this isn’t about Twin Peaks, nor is it about House of Cards, Louis, which remains a decadently theatrical and above all satisfying show. Predictability doesn’t come into it – we all know what’s going to happen in any given series or episode… My philosophy is always that the thrill is in the chase and never in the capture. Which brings us neatly to the pilot of the Deadwood.

To be honest, what I would have loved here was a 90-minute long, exposition bloated pilot to firmly establish a town, an atmosphere, and a people. Expectations often go unheeded. Still, a solid episode. Three firmly established characters, and several minor ones whose faces and names I forgot within seconds of their being introduced. Some nice character pieces, i.e. the opening scene, which left Bullock firm in our minds, and the climax, which gave us plenty to mull over regarding the relationship and conflict between Bullock and Hickok. And yet, I know instantly who my favourite character SHOULD be – Swearengen has everything I usually want. Cool accent, sharp dialogue, good set of hair, and dubious moral fibre. So why did I feel unfulfilled regarding his appearances? I want him to develop more than anyone else. So bravo, Deadwood. I am hooked in at least one regard… All I really want is a wild west Saul Goodman. Is that really too much to ask?

Two qualms with the episode. The action introduced of the missing family was well-executed and established a lot of context within the town (racism towards Indians etc) – but ultimately fruitless. ‘Cause it wasn’t Indians. It was just some guy. Who’s dead now. A bigger bang would have been appreciated to start off… By me, anyway. My other huge problem is the total lack of even one strong female lead to latch onto. Three women in the pilot – one’s a prostitute who gets beaten around by everyone, one’s a wife who never leaves her room, and one is just an eye-rollingly irritating sidekick who I didn’t even recognise as a woman until the end of the show. Could this change? I’m sure it will. Still, I was surprised from HBO – given how strong their women usually are, how they surpass the men with great regularity in terms of depth. I know what historical context dictates but it’s hard to have a really interesting show without a diverse cast. I realise I’m being very hard on a pilot, but it leaves the series with a lot to live up to.

LOC: Because I consider myself a lover of TV over any other medium, I think I was always going to warm more to “Deadwood” – and, by extension of that, Deadwood – than you, Sam. I have no issue with a show that takes its time methodically fleshing out its setting and characters – not to say that your issues with “Deadwood” stem from your being impatient – no; just that I am more suited to the planting-a-seed-and-watching-it-grow style of world-building that it looks Deadwood will utilise.

That being said, yes, I also had my share of issues with “Deadwood“. First, though, I’d like to address yours.

I agree that the episode’s conflict wasn’t particularly revelatory, nor do I suspect it will play a part in any of the series’ major arcs, but would you believe that the pilot I was reminded of most while watching this unfold was that of The Sopranos? Now, “The Sopranos” would easily rank among the best pilots of all time, I’m sure you’d agree, but, interestingly enough, its structure was remarkably similar to “Deadwood“, in that it had a self-contained arc used to mark territory introduce characters. Granted, The Sopranos‘ lasted for the first four episodes as opposed to just the first, and it took it up a notch in its fifth episode, “College” (one of the best episodes of The Sopranos – one of the best episodes of any show, ever), but the basic principle is the same here.

So, what I’m trying to say is that while it may not hold up particularly well when compared to the likes of The Sopranos, that is The fucking Sopranos I’m talking about. Comparing it to one of drama’s all-time greats probably isn’t fair, especially after having seen only one episode, so I will reserve judgement on whether “Deadwood”‘s self-contained story was a success until I can contextualise it in the grand scheme of things.

Yes, there was an alarming dearth of compelling female characters throughout this pilot, but all I’d say to that effect is that Anna Gunn is coming; I somehow doubt that the actress who played Skyler fucking White would ever be able to play an non-compelling character, so I’m ready to sit that one out too.

My main issue with “Deadwood” is something you touched on, but only briefly, and that’s its oddly muted characterisation. As you said, we end the episode with only three characters (well, four, if you count the tragically deceased Tim Driscoll) on our minds. It’s slightly at odds with the fabulously vivid introduction of the sprawling and fascinating Deadwood, in Seth Bullock’s first ride through the town; buoyed by HBO’s seemingly endless pockets, Deadwood is a thrillingly realised place, and I look forward to spending the next three seasons there.

Its inhabitants certainly have the potential to be interesting, multilayered characters, but by episode end we’re left with three moral archetypes: we have Seth Bullock, a complete paragon, Al Swearengen, the personification of moral ambiguity, and what appears to be a villain in the form of Bill Hickok. The three are portrayed beautifully (I’m not familiar with Ian McShane, but Timothy Olyphant plays a similar role to Raylan Givens here, while Keith Carradine plays thrillingly against the weary old man we saw in Fargo) by their respective actors, and are fleshed out just barely enough for me to be looking forward to seeing their encounters.

SK: I suppose the things I’m most looking forward to are:

1) Swearengen developing – bearing in mind that he was blessed with the singular honour of being the last show of the pilot, one can only assume his character has a long way to go.

2) A wider look at Deadwood that fleshes out as many minor characters as possible.

3) A larger amount of the overall budget to be spent on creative interpretations of facial hair. We saw some interesting moustaches in this pilot, but for me it was the ‘wow’ factor that was sorely missing.

4) A weird futuristic hallucinations with robots.

5) Musical numbers utilising 70’s Krautrock.

LOC: Alright, Sam, that’s more than enough out you, actually. This isn’t fucking David Lynch.

I read somewhere, (most likely on the A.V. Club) that the three ‘big’ HBO dramas (Deadwood, The Wire, The Sopranos) explore the inception of modern America, its inherent brutality, and its moral decay respectively. While I certainly can’t fully attest to that yet, I can certainly see how this Deadwood could explore this avenue as the series progresses. In the pilot’s most viscerally exciting scene, we see Seth Bullock giving a criminal an impromptu execution, pressured by the gun-toting owner of the horse the convict had stolen. It’s a wonderful way to bring us kicking and screaming into the world of the show, one where life is cheap and short, full of death and ‘cocksuckers’. And that’s even before it introduces us to what may just be the show’s most important character; a place where not even that flimsy law seen in Montana is upheld; one run by the brutally pragmatic pimp with a strange accent: welcome to Deadwood.

Louis‘ Grade: B+

Sam’s Grade: B

Some other thoughts:

SK: The only stray thought I have is the delightful quote from Scrubs:

JD: I’m gonna need you to go back in there and use some form of the word ‘die’. Dead, dying, deadsies, Deadwood.

Turk: Deadwood?

JD: Did you know cowboys used to curse?

LOC: On that note, I couldn’t help but feel throughout that the omnipresent ‘cocksucker’ was a little anachronistic. I’m sure they did their research, but it did feel a little out of place.

SK: Favourite moment – Hickcok and Bullock shoot together – some mighty blurred lines between good and evil in Deadwood.

Least favourite moment – Bullock is a dick to coyotes.

LOC: There you go, Sam, always getting to the important stuff. The way we’re planning on doing this is to cover one episode each weekly, only doing this crosstalk format for episodes we deem noteworthy. Unfortunately, I will be without internet access for three weeks beginning this Saturday, and so you are stuck with this specimen until my return. He will continue to recap Deadwood at whatever pace he damn well pleases, so I hope you all enjoy absurdly obscure references to Sondheim musicals and Roman Polanski’s filmography.