The Hearst Portrayal in Deadwood - Deadwood (2004) Discussion

[–] slch112 9 years ago

I would expect most men with that level of success, especially those that lived during that period, had to get their hands more than dirty. I'm sure even the character of Hearst portrayed in the show never thought himself a true monster anything short of necessary. All that being said, these are all characatures of historical figures based on what we know and then exaggerated for the sake of drama. Also, to prove libel you must prove that one has lied with intent to harm character and thus cause some sort of loss. That seems impossible with someone who has been dead for so long.

reply

[–] awrobel 9 years ago

I was using the term libel merely as a figure of speech. I'm well aware of the liberties taken for the sake of drama as well, but I guess being a history geek and a Libra besides the Hearst portrayal, if inaccurate seems a bit harsh. Many of the characters we meet in Deadwood are certainly tainted and despicable but few are as formidable a figure of history as Hearst. Consequently making nebulous allegations against Bullock, for example, would not engender my sense of justice as much because of his obscure relevance to history. That might be nitpicking but I often encounter the same difficulties when reading historical novels in trying to discern fact from fiction. Sorry !

reply

[–] awrobel 9 years ago

I was using the term libel merely as a figure of speech. I'm well aware of the liberties taken for the sake of drama as well, but I guess being a history geek and a Libra besides the Hearst portrayal, if inaccurate seems a bit harsh. Many of the characters we meet in Deadwood are certainly tainted and despicable but few are as formidable a figure of history as Hearst. Consequently making nebulous allegations against Bullock, for example, would not engender my sense of justice as much because of his obscure relevance to history. That might be nitpicking but I often encounter the same difficulties when reading historical novels in trying to discern fact from fiction. Sorry !

reply

[–] slch112 9 years ago

No need to apologize. I was just giving my opinion as well. I actually have a feeling the history books/historical accounts aren't quite 100% accurate as to personality. I would think Hearst had to some things that many at the time found to be quite monstrous. If you just look at what he had done or what was done in his name (in the show) it might not seems so monstrous without the personality the actor portrayed. Yes he killed people but who didn't back then lol

reply

[–] awrobel 9 years ago

The surest way of knowing when one is viewing fiction is when a film states that it is " based on a true story " . I feel that this type of labeling should be replaced by the same labeling we find on packaging, where percentages are given to specific ingredients i.e. sodium, sugar , etc. In the case of film. it would inform the viewer of the actual percentage of what he was viewing was in fact based on authenticity. The fact is that history is a difficult subject to completely verify which cause some authors,like E.L. Doctorow , to write books on history but refer to them as novels and thereby repudiating the title of historian. After all history can often be a changing landscape that can seen through different lens over time. Case in point would be the wartime drama "Mission to Moscow (1943) where for the sake of art and politics we're given a skewed vision of reality. Walter Huston cast as the U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union during WWII must deal with that ever faithful and loveable curmudgeon, Stalin, who is portrayed here with affection as "Uncle Joe". Of course as a consequence of our wartime alliance with the Soviets this was image we had to display. Need I complete my analogy? As any student of history well knows Stalin, in retrospect, would be responsible for more deaths than any despot in history including Hiitler. Within this framework clearly the miscasting of Hearst's reputation here is surely nitpicking of the highest order.

reply

[–] Dash_Riprock 9 years ago

I believe that David Milch has an axe to grind against big business and corporations. In the season 3 finale comments track, he likened Rupert Murdoch to George Hearst and his son.
He just seemed bitter to me.

On the bonus disk one of the interviewees in the Deadwood history divided the Bullock and Hearst camps into Democrat and Republican based on today's standards which didn't sit well with me. The party of Lincoln is corrupt and the party of Jim Crow honorable.

reply

[–] CalamityDan 9 years ago

Well at least you're not bringing your OWN prejudices to the story. 

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] TaraDeS 9 years ago

awrobel Sat Oct 24 2015 22:03:03
Post Edited: Wed Nov 18 2015 00:11:53

I can't help but wonder whether the portrayal of George Hearst ever received any negative response from the Hearst family. In what little I could find regarding the elder Hearst ( father of William Randolph aka Citizen Kane) there appears to be little evidence that he was as evil as he is represented in the series. Though quite successful and ambitious there never is mention of any nefarious undertakings which would equal the monstrous portrait displayed by McRaney. I'm well aware of artistic license but this seems almost libelous. William Hearst had his faults, but was politically active during his lifetime running for elected office and using his papers as instruments to foster his ideals. Now it's true the younger Hearst had extraordinary wealth and power and used it to pressure his adversaries, but these attributes did not ultimately make him any worse than present day power broker. Though some might have exceptions with his methods to my knowledge he was not responsible for any capital crimes. Now that being said, it seems the only scion of the family who should take any heat might be Patricia Hearst and her "supposed abduction" by the left wing terrorist group the Symbionese Liberation Army. Strange, but in reverse logic , it is as if the great-grandfather is paying for the sins of his great-granddaughter !!

Agree with what you say about George Hearst.
Wrote a longer post about him and his family.
Alas, the Thread is gone (IMDb storage cleaning). 

TaraDeS (Tue Nov 5 2013 08:54:25)
....
George Hearst was in real not a devil-reincarnation though for sure no cozy boy either.
He grew up on a small farm and after his father died he took care of his mother, his younger sister and his younger handicapped brother. He only got a few years school education, the most he taught himself. While others hanged around in pubs and brothels, he explored the country looking for good occasions and lucrative mines.
Please decide yourself what really made George Hearst become an old rich man.
For me he was more diligent, focused and more intelligent. Prosperity and political influence came later.
It's amusing how they explained it in this TV series with capitalism and corrupt policy...probably often very true!
But the start had been for the most people in this young United States the same, so:
Why some succeed and some declined?
Ok, sometimes only bad luck.

For its great characters, wonderful actors, credible atmosphere and for teaching me (making me read) will rate this series now very high.

Today evening will watch again "Citizen Kane" by Orson Welles.
This famous movie is about the only child of George Hearst, newspaper tycoon William Randolph Hearst. And though son Hearst tried to, he wasn't able to prevent the movie publishing.
Orson Welles wasn't attacked physically.
Some of Orson Welles' other ingenious work vanished...nobody knows how and why. 

polluxlm (Tue Sep 23 2014 00:26:13)

Well, it is historically accurate that the so called robber barons acted pretty much the way Hearst is depicted.
....

TaraDeS (Wed Sep 24 2014 22:16:22)

It's historically NOT accurate regarding the person of George Hearst.
If I would be a descendant of him (what I'm not) would have sued the makers of this show.
Because some others committed murders it's not ok to put these killings into his shoes, only because it fits so nicely to the story arc.

After all George Hearst is part of American history and to show him in this way sullies not only him. Though like this series very much, what they did with some real people is historical fraud and words like "if" or "can be covered up" or "would" and "could" dislike very much in context with historical facts.
That it "works well dramatically" is no "documentary justification" cause there are few facts to justify how they portrayed him.
Prosperity is not a crime.



reply

[–] awrobel 9 years ago

I'm glad I found someone who has the moral fiber to support my views. One of my problems with historical novels or films is that they conflate fact and fiction and it becomes impossible to distinguish between the two. Being a history nerd I like to know as much as is possible of the true facts. It would be one thing to misguide the audience of events, dates and other pertinent facts in the storyline, I'm well aware that what I'm watching is seeking first and foremost to entertain. That being said however, when one takes a historical character and depicts him/her as a mass murderer, with no evidence to suggest it's true, that I think is a bridge to far. Call me crazy, but this should really be treated as a posthumous case of libel since the dead can no longer defend themselves! If someone out there can give me evidence to the contrary I would be most interested.

reply

[–] CalamityDan 9 years ago

I'm glad I found someone who has the moral fiber to support my views.

Are you serious? Wow.

Here's a news flash: Fictional Drama. Does that mean anything to you?

reply

[–] TaraDeS 9 years ago

awrobel (Thu Dec 10 2015 19:53:11)
Post Edited: Thu Dec 10 2015 20:00:02

I'm glad I found someone who has the moral fiber to support my views. One of my problems with historical novels or films is that they conflate fact and fiction and it becomes impossible to distinguish between the two. Being a history nerd I like to know as much as is possible of the true facts. It would be one thing to misguide the audience of events, dates and other pertinent facts in the storyline, I'm well aware that what I'm watching is seeking first and foremost to entertain. That being said however, when one takes a historical character and depicts him/her as a mass murderer, with no evidence to suggest it's true, that I think is a bridge to far. Call me crazy, but this should really be treated as a posthumous case of libel since the dead can no longer defend themselves! If someone out there can give me evidence to the contrary I would be most interested.

CalamityDan (Thu Dec 10 2015 20:13:39)

Are you serious? Wow.
Here's a news flash: Fictional Drama. Does that mean anything to you?

Both of us knew and know, that Deadwood isn't a Documentary.
For this we didn't need a news flash from CalamityDan.
(nomen est omen)

How George Hearst appears here as the devil incarnate is simply wrong.
As said, if I would be a member of the Hearst family (what I'm not) would have sued the producers of this show.
It's not only a "posthumous case of libel".
It disparages the reputation of a family and American history as a whole.

Perhaps the Hearst family was simply aversed to re-appear in the spotlight, after all these dubious happenings around Patty Hearst?

P.S.
Deleted my reply to CalamityDan.
Aversed to more calamities either. 

reply

[–] hammerbutt 9 years ago

There is no such thing as posthumous libel in the US. Once you are dead anyone can crap all over your name.

reply

[–] awrobel 9 years ago

Well, when you think about that it kind of makes me sick frankly! Taking a person's reputation and disparaging it is one thing when one is around to defend it, but quite another when one is dead and gone. The way I see it, if an individual has led a virtuous and honest life and then have it debunked for no apparent reason is the ultimate betrayal, not mention injustice!. Especially, when that individual is labeled a murderer ! Remember also that ones memory also reflects on the family and friends he leaves behind. Clearly the great villains of history have created great collateral damage to those closest to them which is particularly unfortunate for the innocent victims. But to be told, for example, that your father or grandfather was a heinous individual, which is fact is quite removed from the truth, I personally find to be unsettling. Now as for the argument in respect to it being fictional drama, that clearly has it's limitation when that fiction dismembers a person's entire reputation with no evidence to support it. Hey, we're not talking about an character who is an amalgam of different peoples who once lived, we talking about targeting a historical figure with specificity! Besides isn't there an old adage which states "Never speak ill of the departed" ! That seems to hold doubly so for those wrongful accused.

reply

[–] TaraDeS 9 years ago

hammerbutt (Fri Dec 11 2015 11:50:28)

There is no such thing as posthumous libel in the US.
Once you are dead anyone can crap all over your name.

That's bad and perhaps time for a change.
The deceased may not care anymore, but his living descendants do.
And historical forgeries aren't funny either.
George Hearst was a father/5x grand-father and a person of historical weight.

Here an interesting discourse:

Dignitarian Posthumous Personality Rights
An Analysis of U.S. and German Constitutional and Tort Law
Published by Berkeley Law Scholarship Repository, 2008
....
....
Reputation is an integral and important part of the dignity of the individual. It also forms the basis of many decisions in a democratic society which are fundamental to its well-being [..]. Protection of reputation is conducive to the public good. It is in the public interest that the reputation of public figures should not be debased falsely. To ensure this acceptance with regard to the deceased, the U.S. would have to incorporate a posthumous personality right into its own fabric of constitutional values and tort laws. It would need to find an American analogue to the foreign version presented here. Helpful for integrating the posthumous personality right into U.S. law could be an equal chances dimension:
A structure and climate that encourages free expression within a frame of equal chances in the communication process installs the state in a protective role for disadvantaged minorities and the speechless, which encompasses the deceased as they can no longer speak.
Free speech in order to criticize the Government is one thing; free speech disadvantaging the speechless is another matter.
.....
.....
In addition, the public does not always realize the falseness of facts and it does not counterbalance them sufficiently when the targeted person is speechless. Thus, the constitutionalization of U.S. defamation law led to an underestimation of the social costs of wrong statements.
....
....
This is above all true for creative works which depend on the use of real-life inspirations. But in cases of severe infringements of personality rights, freedom of speech has to step back.
....
....
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1351&context=bjil

Hmmm, maybe Germany should sue the producers of Deadwood.
Ok, too late and probably wouldn't impress the US much.
Or even worse, could cause a roaring laughter. 
Here a further read:

Libel Tourism:
Protecting Authors and Preserving Comity
http://georgetownlawjournal.org/files/pdf/99-1/Taylor.pdf&quot%3B&gt%3B

Enough with reading for me today.
Will rather watch the next episode of American Horror Story (2011).
Should be sufficiently fictional and nobody will sue Lady Gaga.
Then again...no, now really...over and out.

reply

[–] mikepr3 9 years ago

Just when I thought this board couldn't get any weirder.

reply

[–] awrobel 9 years ago

I applaud you on your tenacity in defense of individual integrity. Despite the criticism it appears evident to both of us that an injustice had occurred. To many it might be menial, but again though views may differ, we seem to agree that sometimes facts should trump a good story. To be clear, I enjoyed the series and its characters and found it to be most entertaining. However, I was distressed to find the misguided portrait of Hearst hard to understand when they so easily could have created a fictional character instead. The series has long since ended but had I viewed it during its initial run I'm sure I would have had the same questions. Now as to the motives of the writers, I can only assume that since William Randolph Hearst's ( the son) reputation was far from stellar and had been diminished further by Hollywood, the writers must have felt that the audience would have no problem in accepting their vision of his father. The research you presented is clear validation of what we both felt viscerally. After all is said and done the core of my argument is that a man's reputation and his integrity should be sacrosanct and certainly not be trifled with upon his demise as a mere triviality.

reply

[–] jbhartley14 9 years ago

Oh dear...Now I feel an almost overwhelming urge to compensate the poor Hearst family for the unfair portrayal of the elder George in this FICTIONALIZED program. Anyone else want to kick in a few bucks to help smooth things over?

reply

[–] asktheages 9 years ago

LOL. Yes, please help this poor family in their time of need.

reply

[–] jbhartley14 9 years ago

Amen. Some people go off on the strangest tangents..And thank God for them! Gives the rest of us a break from all this...reality.

reply

[–] TaraDeS 9 years ago

jbhartley14 (Sun Jan 3 2016 15:00:47)

Oh dear...Now I feel an almost overwhelming urge to compensate the poor Hearst family for the unfair portrayal of the elder George in this FICTIONALIZED program. Anyone else want to kick in a few bucks to help smooth things over?

asktheages (Mon Jan 4 2016 02:32:38)

LOL. Yes, please help this poor family in their time of need.

jbhartley14 (Mon Jan 4 2016 18:52:38)

Amen. Some people go off on the strangest tangents..And thank God for them! Gives the rest of us a break from all this...reality.

Yes, it's always good to see one person laugh and pray.
Leastwise makes him forget briefly his low family and life.



Who laughs last didn't understand the joke.

reply

[–] jbhartley14 9 years ago

That's interesting..I was merely trying to add some humor to what was a rather dry and clinical discussion. Your response was to label me and my family as "lowlifes". Since the entire thrust of your discourse was rant about unsubstantiated libel, haven't you just single-handedly negated your own argument? Oopsie! Ahh well.. Now you've opened a whole new can of worms.

reply

[–] TaraDeS 9 years ago

jbhartley14 (Sun Jan 10 2016 07:34:00)

That's interesting..I was merely trying to add some humor to what was a rather dry and clinical discussion. Your response was to label me and my family as "lowlifes". Since the entire thrust of your discourse was rant about unsubstantiated libel, haven't you just single-handedly negated your own argument? Oopsie! Ahh well.. Now you've opened a whole new can of worms.

You only confirmed what I've said. 

Time Is on My Side...(Jerry Ragovoy)...32C3

reply

[–] jbhartley14 9 years ago

Yes..Exactly. Perhaps you should have a look at my more recent post "History Is A Lie Mutually Agreed Upon" There may bean idea or two in there you hadn't considered.

reply

[–] TaraDeS 9 years ago

jbhartley14 Tue Jan 12 2016 18:52:31
IMDb member since April 2014

Yes..Exactly. Perhaps you should have a look at my more recent post "History Is A Lie Mutually Agreed Upon" There may bean idea or two in there you hadn't considered.

Your recent OP here sounds as if you watched too much Winnetou - 1. Teil (1963).



For 11 days no post on this Board.
We'll see how it becomes busy now. 

Time Is on My Side...(Jerry Ragovoy)...32C3

reply

[–] firstwinsgop-1 9 years ago

Very few Americans knew of George Hearst prior to Deadwood. All they knew about was his son who basically just started a Newspaper from all the hard work and wealth his father had built. Deadwood made George Hearst famous again, and because of the show many people looked him up and discovered his true biography. So I don't think he would mind.

reply

[–] Doom 9 years ago

Good point.

And, to me, they should also be looking up Gerald McRaney, seeing as he's the main one (brilliantly) responsible for making Hearst into such a bastard.

------

Wait a minute... who am I here?

reply

[–] haze58 9 years ago

Gerald McRaney would simply say, "Wait a minute, you mean I was portraying THAT George Hearst?"

-

reply

[–] TaraDeS 8 years ago

Nothing new...IMDb closes.
Combing through my old messages.
Was a good discussion with you.

Gute Nacht
🌙

reply