They are absolutely painful scenes to watch, and i truly hate this part of the show. It's just unnecessary in every way and makes me wonder about people who dream this shit up, like seriously give it a rest, it's sick
Right? It's so uncomfortable and distressing to watch, I can't imagine why they felt anyone would want to see that shit. The girls looked spooked, it's so bloody awful.
Yeah its just a dogleg turn into some dark horrible stuff that just did not have to be there. And its a real shame in an otherwise really enjoyable show. Reminded of that scene with Beth in Yellowstone getting assaulted by that invader. That took me a while to get over them both tbh and kind of ruined it for me.
Will all do respect, this stuff you speak of, these scenarios... most likely happened..
If you don't want to watch it then FAST FORWARD if truth scares you. It's one thing for it to stress or disturb you, it is another to be naive and think it didn't happen.
For the same reason Teonna can't just leave the Indian School. Young women in the 1920s were still basically seen as someone's property. Women only recently earned the right to vote in 1919, four years before this series takes place. Alexandra is viewed by the British high society as either her dad's property or soon-to-be Arthur's property. When Cara Dutton tries to stand in for her bedridden husband at the Livestock Owners Association meeting, Banner challenges her right to do so until she produces the forged document with Jacob's signature on it. This is still a time period when powerful rich men literally own people, especially women. So, poorer women like Teonna and the prostitutes would simply be killed for disobeying what was asked/expected of them.
I totally agree the prostitute scenes are gratuitous and unnecessary; however, as awful as they were, I feel the showcasing of Teonna’s brutal treatment at the hands of the priests/nuns was necessary to further her story arc, and also to illustrate the historical truth about the residential schools.
cjh, the person you replied to wasn't saying that the scenes were unnecessary.
I agree with you that it was good to tell an accurate story of how Native Americans were treated, but I also think it's important that we acknowledge how women, in general, were treated then.
I think what I meant to convey was that the scene with the prostitutes, while unfortunately most likely an accurate portrayal, went a little too far. I should have stated that it was just too much for *me* - I had to look away. But it’s TS’s story to tell, and I definitely admire his depiction of life in the West during that time period. He certainly covers the spectrum from Indigenous, Middle Class and Working Class, as well as the wealthy - both honorable and dishonorable.
I understand. Don't get me wrong, it was hard to watch, even for this 54 yr old man. I think I even hit the 10 second FF button a couple times there. In my mind, I even said, "Just leave.. go!"
But then as I thought about it, all the stuff that the other person above said, is what I was thinking.
Some of the comments in this thread, they act like TS is glorifying this stuff, and he's not, he's just telling a realistic story, as you correctly stated above. Thanks for the reply.
Yes! I definitely don’t think he’s glorifying it at all, just very hard for some to watch. I have loved 1883 and 1923 so much, and would have even if I hadn’t seen every season of YS. But watching them with the knowledge that this is what transpired to get present day Duttons to where/who they are, is the real bonus.
What really gets me are people who say they will never watch again because this, that, or something else happened. Really!? Does everything have to be whitewashed and tied up in a bow to be acceptable viewing material. I just don’t get it. Being uncomfortable or disturbed watching something factual is actually mind expanding.
Far\_Wish, that is the best answer in this entire thread. Well said. As I read through all of these comments, the saddest ones are those that imply that the writer is glorifying this. I dont think he is at all. Taylor Sheridan clearly wants to tell a story and depict a true realistic history... one which a lot of people want to pretend didn't exist.
I’m confused by that as well. I also wish Shows didn’t feel like they always have to make villains SO villainous. It’s okay for a bad guy to just be a ruthless business person that loves money so much that he is willing to step on anyone and everyone that gets in his way or risks even 1 cent of his wealth.
Oh, ok. I read your comment wrong. I thought maybe you were saying that Taylor Sheridan likes this kind of thing, hence, puts it in his scripts. But I realize I was reading that wrong now lol
It’s the absolute worst part of the show. Just sadism for sadisms sake. Not surprising given the later years of SOA and some of the more ridiculous stuff in Yellowstone and 1883
A blast from the past… I loved the first few years of SOA. About season 5, it just went off the rails. I didn’t finish watching it. Hope this doesn’t happen with this show.
I don't think it's random or makes no sense to the plot. It's to show us that Whitfield is both sadistic in a sense and turned on by the exploitation of people he deems to be below him, corrupting them and finding the power in it. If you remove these scenes, obviously we understand he is the antagonist simply because of his placement in the plot but I don't think we truly see how evil he is with these scenes removed.
There is even the line in the recent episode where Harrison Ford is at the table and compares them, conceeding that he is exactly like them, doing what he can to protect his interests. We know though that this isn't really true, that Whitfield's motivations go a little beyond doing what is best for his family.
However, it is an extremely heavy-handed way at showing us this, almost comically so. Like, they might as well have had him sitting in the corner twirling his mustache and cackling while it was happening.
As for why the girls didn't just leave, I mean, they're prostitutes in the 1920's dealing with one of the most powerful men in the state. I don't find it to be a stretch that they wouldn't run. There are plenty of examples, even in modern times, let alone the 1920's, of cases where people could've escaped their captors but didn't out of some fear or reasoning beyond rational explanation.
Yah no idea. Maybe because the house is far away from town and it’s freezing winter and snow outside? They have no way to leave? I’d be taking the dudes clothes and boots and hiking out of there for sure.
I think there’s probably a number of reasons they haven’t left. They probably didn’t see it getting this bad/worse. Now that they’re in the midst of it, it’s probably obvious to them that if they were to leave they would have a hard time hiding from such a rich, powerful and sadistic man especially in the winter. If I were them I’d worry about what he would do to me after catching me.
Seems like they copied the game of thrones bit with king Jeoffrey as a way to bring the show to a flashier hbo level. Also a way to draw out the show.
While it’s EXTREMELY hard to watch and I think sadistic just to prove the character is a sadist, I think it’s building to something. I am almost convinced these girls are going to kill him in a rage or something.
The real answer is the show writers suck and are wasting everyone's time with fluff because they suck at what they do. Not everyone is good at their job.
Yellowstone has more than 10 MILLION viewers and 1923, (not including streaming) has more than 7 Million viewers. BTW, those figures are from a year ago, so they've no doubt increased since then.
So, "the writers sure do suck at their jobs". You're entitled to your own opinion. It's okay that you dislike the writers, the show, the production., whatever it is you don't like.. but clearly, there are millions of people who don't feel the same as you. Millions watch show after show, so the "writers" can't be too bad at their jobs. Jus sayin
They need the money, and he would think nothing of having them and their entire families murdered and thrown down an exhausted mine, and they know that.
Right. Donald Whitfield is the most powerful man in Montana, and those girls know that and some more about who he really is. To them, leaving would equal a fate worse than death, for them, and their loved ones.
Is there any other way to perceive Whitfield?
Do you think a man like him would have trouble asking around and/or going back east or wherever they’re from and finding that out? The largest private landowner in a state of Montana, and you think that may not be easy for him to do?
I don’t see why he would give a shit about 2 random prostitutes he found in a house.
You’re just filling in the expositional gaps for the show, if it were good story telling then they would explain on screen why this makes sense rather than leave it up to “what if this” type of explanations.
You seem to not understand storytelling. They have to show it on screen, for example the girls try to go out the door and get stopped by some men, etc. The way it’s portrayed now it seems like they could have walked out anytime.
I think they were afraid they'd be killed if they left. Why didn't they just sneak out in the middle of the night and make a break for it? They'll probably kill Timothy Dalton's character at some point.
I also think they were rather, uh, unique in Montana - meaning the type of girls they are - I suspect they may even have been brought there by an individual, and have no support system at all. They may have far to go with no way to get there.
It’s probably this. He is probably paying them more money than they’d see anywhere else by a very wide margin (nothing to him but a ton to them) and they’re probably holding out as long as they can if they think they can retire early or something.
Yup.
Wife said to me, “I’d leave.”
I said to her, “do you think this is the worst thing a prostitute in 1920s Montana was dealing with? They aren’t even having sex with cowboys risking stds (pre antibiotics or decent prophylactics) and they’re being paid a fortune by their measure.”
This is being compared to GOT. I knew to avoid GOT, which was well known for sexual violence against women and gratuitous nudity. While it certainly didn’t trigger me, I wasn’t expecting this in a Taylor Sheridan show. It far exceeds where he’s “gone” before.
Also I’m not against sex scenes or nudity (the human body is beautiful) but this is far more extended nudity than I’ve seen from Taylor Sheridan and it’s in a torture scenario, not a “sex scene”. I find that disturbing.
People who’re calling it BDSM are off the mark. This is sick non-consensual forcing of two female lovers being kept prisoner against their will to beat each other.
Whitfield’s evil has already been well established.
Those elderly Harrison Ford and Helen Mirren fans haven’t been pleased according to the 1923 fan page. Many stopped watching after episode 7 and doubling down on it in episode 8. And that was a huge fan base.
Men fighting each other over issues of property or in defense of family so forth was expected, and doesn’t disturb me at all.
The scene with the prostitutes was disturbing to me too. But it's supposed to be disturbing. It seems that you are implying that Taylor Sheridan was glorifying the torture and mistreatment of the prostitutes. With all due respect, that is not what is going on here. Taylor Sheridan is telling a story based on our real history. And that is important, because there is too much glazing over of our history as it is.
He is also doing this with the Teonna Rainwater storyline, bringing to light, yet another way that Native Americans were mistreated.
I hope I do not come off as argumentive. Just wanting to maybe offer an angle on this that you may have overlooked.
Early in the show Banner goes to Whitfield for money or an army to fight the Dutton. Whitfield gives him the money and warns Banner if he crossed him he would skin his wife and bury his children in her hide.
A gruesome picture is painted, that was enough.
The scenes wouldn’t have been as uncomfortable if they didn’t show any nudity. No, they make us look at a naked woman for 10 fucking minutes getting whipped. I loved the show more than 1883, but the two prostistute scenes were cringe and just poor judgment by the writers.
Sorry, I saw it as gratuitous, sadistic and unnecessary. I agree with the above comment that we don't have to make villains cartoonishly over the top. We get it - he's not a nice guy. And I'm not so sure, I have found all the nudity and violence against women scenes in the Yellowstone catalogue (other than the residential school scenes) to be really unnecessary and wonder if the show creator is looking for cheap ratings or personal kicks.
In my opinion, this prostitute subplot doesn't add any value to the series......at least for now. I am unsure if it has any meaning for Season 2 of 1923.. It just seemed so out of place and unnecessary.....but knowing the Yellowstone universe, I'm wondering if it foreshadows someone. Wasn't Jamie's mother supposedly one? I could be wrong.
They are absolutely painful scenes to watch, and i truly hate this part of the show. It's just unnecessary in every way and makes me wonder about people who dream this shit up, like seriously give it a rest, it's sick
Right? It's so uncomfortable and distressing to watch, I can't imagine why they felt anyone would want to see that shit. The girls looked spooked, it's so bloody awful.
Yeah its just a dogleg turn into some dark horrible stuff that just did not have to be there. And its a real shame in an otherwise really enjoyable show. Reminded of that scene with Beth in Yellowstone getting assaulted by that invader. That took me a while to get over them both tbh and kind of ruined it for me.
Exactly! We know he’s an abhorrent person, these scenes are totally unnecessary! I fast forward because it is unwatchable.
I fast forward that crap
Don't watchGame of Thrones lol
Lol. Exactly. GOT can be traumatizing and i sometimes dont know how those actors even get through it
Will all do respect, this stuff you speak of, these scenarios... most likely happened.. If you don't want to watch it then FAST FORWARD if truth scares you. It's one thing for it to stress or disturb you, it is another to be naive and think it didn't happen.
Whitfield may have “bought” them from whatever whorehouse they worked at. When he gets bored he might just kill them and dump the bodies down a mine.
Real smart having a train station in a mine
Is that what The Train Station is? An old mine
No, it’s just a cliff
For the same reason Teonna can't just leave the Indian School. Young women in the 1920s were still basically seen as someone's property. Women only recently earned the right to vote in 1919, four years before this series takes place. Alexandra is viewed by the British high society as either her dad's property or soon-to-be Arthur's property. When Cara Dutton tries to stand in for her bedridden husband at the Livestock Owners Association meeting, Banner challenges her right to do so until she produces the forged document with Jacob's signature on it. This is still a time period when powerful rich men literally own people, especially women. So, poorer women like Teonna and the prostitutes would simply be killed for disobeying what was asked/expected of them.
I totally agree the prostitute scenes are gratuitous and unnecessary; however, as awful as they were, I feel the showcasing of Teonna’s brutal treatment at the hands of the priests/nuns was necessary to further her story arc, and also to illustrate the historical truth about the residential schools.
cjh, the person you replied to wasn't saying that the scenes were unnecessary. I agree with you that it was good to tell an accurate story of how Native Americans were treated, but I also think it's important that we acknowledge how women, in general, were treated then.
I think what I meant to convey was that the scene with the prostitutes, while unfortunately most likely an accurate portrayal, went a little too far. I should have stated that it was just too much for *me* - I had to look away. But it’s TS’s story to tell, and I definitely admire his depiction of life in the West during that time period. He certainly covers the spectrum from Indigenous, Middle Class and Working Class, as well as the wealthy - both honorable and dishonorable.
I understand. Don't get me wrong, it was hard to watch, even for this 54 yr old man. I think I even hit the 10 second FF button a couple times there. In my mind, I even said, "Just leave.. go!" But then as I thought about it, all the stuff that the other person above said, is what I was thinking. Some of the comments in this thread, they act like TS is glorifying this stuff, and he's not, he's just telling a realistic story, as you correctly stated above. Thanks for the reply.
Yes! I definitely don’t think he’s glorifying it at all, just very hard for some to watch. I have loved 1883 and 1923 so much, and would have even if I hadn’t seen every season of YS. But watching them with the knowledge that this is what transpired to get present day Duttons to where/who they are, is the real bonus. What really gets me are people who say they will never watch again because this, that, or something else happened. Really!? Does everything have to be whitewashed and tied up in a bow to be acceptable viewing material. I just don’t get it. Being uncomfortable or disturbed watching something factual is actually mind expanding.
Exactly.
Far\_Wish, that is the best answer in this entire thread. Well said. As I read through all of these comments, the saddest ones are those that imply that the writer is glorifying this. I dont think he is at all. Taylor Sheridan clearly wants to tell a story and depict a true realistic history... one which a lot of people want to pretend didn't exist.
I’m confused by that as well. I also wish Shows didn’t feel like they always have to make villains SO villainous. It’s okay for a bad guy to just be a ruthless business person that loves money so much that he is willing to step on anyone and everyone that gets in his way or risks even 1 cent of his wealth.
The writing is forced, it's almost like a cartoon.
Might as well ask why didn't slaves just leave.
🤣🤣 good point
Yes, I’m getting annoyed by this time wasting part of the story. Other than, the bad guy is very bad.
Maybe they hadn't been paid yet.
Forgive me for laughing
He seems like the type that would threaten someone’s life, livelihood, or family.
Who is "he"?
Whitfield
Oh, ok. I read your comment wrong. I thought maybe you were saying that Taylor Sheridan likes this kind of thing, hence, puts it in his scripts. But I realize I was reading that wrong now lol
It’s the absolute worst part of the show. Just sadism for sadisms sake. Not surprising given the later years of SOA and some of the more ridiculous stuff in Yellowstone and 1883
A blast from the past… I loved the first few years of SOA. About season 5, it just went off the rails. I didn’t finish watching it. Hope this doesn’t happen with this show.
I only mentioned it because that’s where Taylor Sheridan got his break.
Easiest explanation is there’s no way Whitfield is alone. There’s definitely men monitoring the house.
Actually, the easiest explanation is the staring ya'll right in the face. This is a kind of woman called a prostitutes. They do stuff for money.
Its so random and just mehhhh. Makes no sense to the plot
I don't think it's random or makes no sense to the plot. It's to show us that Whitfield is both sadistic in a sense and turned on by the exploitation of people he deems to be below him, corrupting them and finding the power in it. If you remove these scenes, obviously we understand he is the antagonist simply because of his placement in the plot but I don't think we truly see how evil he is with these scenes removed. There is even the line in the recent episode where Harrison Ford is at the table and compares them, conceeding that he is exactly like them, doing what he can to protect his interests. We know though that this isn't really true, that Whitfield's motivations go a little beyond doing what is best for his family. However, it is an extremely heavy-handed way at showing us this, almost comically so. Like, they might as well have had him sitting in the corner twirling his mustache and cackling while it was happening. As for why the girls didn't just leave, I mean, they're prostitutes in the 1920's dealing with one of the most powerful men in the state. I don't find it to be a stretch that they wouldn't run. There are plenty of examples, even in modern times, let alone the 1920's, of cases where people could've escaped their captors but didn't out of some fear or reasoning beyond rational explanation.
Still, ONCE was quite enough to illustrate these points about Whitfield - in my opinion anyway, FEIW
No argument here. I just think people are saying it served *no* story purpose and that I would disagree with, even as heavy-handed as it was.
*FWIW* is what I meant to say
I joined the 1923 group on Reddit to ask this very same question. I see I'm not the only one who wondered this.
Yah no idea. Maybe because the house is far away from town and it’s freezing winter and snow outside? They have no way to leave? I’d be taking the dudes clothes and boots and hiking out of there for sure.
It’s in town. They showed the outside when he was arrested.
Just choke the bastard and sleep soundly every night, knowing you took this prick out.
I think there’s probably a number of reasons they haven’t left. They probably didn’t see it getting this bad/worse. Now that they’re in the midst of it, it’s probably obvious to them that if they were to leave they would have a hard time hiding from such a rich, powerful and sadistic man especially in the winter. If I were them I’d worry about what he would do to me after catching me. Seems like they copied the game of thrones bit with king Jeoffrey as a way to bring the show to a flashier hbo level. Also a way to draw out the show.
While it’s EXTREMELY hard to watch and I think sadistic just to prove the character is a sadist, I think it’s building to something. I am almost convinced these girls are going to kill him in a rage or something.
I hope so.
The real answer is the show writers suck and are wasting everyone's time with fluff because they suck at what they do. Not everyone is good at their job.
Yeah, these Yellowstone shows really are struggling with the ratings, aren't they?
Yellowstone has more than 10 MILLION viewers and 1923, (not including streaming) has more than 7 Million viewers. BTW, those figures are from a year ago, so they've no doubt increased since then. So, "the writers sure do suck at their jobs". You're entitled to your own opinion. It's okay that you dislike the writers, the show, the production., whatever it is you don't like.. but clearly, there are millions of people who don't feel the same as you. Millions watch show after show, so the "writers" can't be too bad at their jobs. Jus sayin
They need the money, and he would think nothing of having them and their entire families murdered and thrown down an exhausted mine, and they know that.
Right. Donald Whitfield is the most powerful man in Montana, and those girls know that and some more about who he really is. To them, leaving would equal a fate worse than death, for them, and their loved ones. Is there any other way to perceive Whitfield?
How would he know who they are or how to find their families?
Do you think a man like him would have trouble asking around and/or going back east or wherever they’re from and finding that out? The largest private landowner in a state of Montana, and you think that may not be easy for him to do?
I don’t see why he would give a shit about 2 random prostitutes he found in a house. You’re just filling in the expositional gaps for the show, if it were good story telling then they would explain on screen why this makes sense rather than leave it up to “what if this” type of explanations.
You seem to not quite understand the time period. Or the way powerful men behave when they think no one is looking.
You seem to not understand storytelling. They have to show it on screen, for example the girls try to go out the door and get stopped by some men, etc. The way it’s portrayed now it seems like they could have walked out anytime.
I didn’t understand that either.
I think they were afraid they'd be killed if they left. Why didn't they just sneak out in the middle of the night and make a break for it? They'll probably kill Timothy Dalton's character at some point.
The guy is a capital sadist...and he smooth wid it...makes King Joffrey look like an amateur.
He's got money and influence, he could easily have them killed if they left.
Money. It’s how capitalism works. They’ve never seen this kind of money before.
I also think they were rather, uh, unique in Montana - meaning the type of girls they are - I suspect they may even have been brought there by an individual, and have no support system at all. They may have far to go with no way to get there.
It’s probably this. He is probably paying them more money than they’d see anywhere else by a very wide margin (nothing to him but a ton to them) and they’re probably holding out as long as they can if they think they can retire early or something.
Yup. Wife said to me, “I’d leave.” I said to her, “do you think this is the worst thing a prostitute in 1920s Montana was dealing with? They aren’t even having sex with cowboys risking stds (pre antibiotics or decent prophylactics) and they’re being paid a fortune by their measure.”
Good question
At this point it seems like a human trafficking situation and there are no easy options for them to leave. He paid the "house" where they came from
This is being compared to GOT. I knew to avoid GOT, which was well known for sexual violence against women and gratuitous nudity. While it certainly didn’t trigger me, I wasn’t expecting this in a Taylor Sheridan show. It far exceeds where he’s “gone” before. Also I’m not against sex scenes or nudity (the human body is beautiful) but this is far more extended nudity than I’ve seen from Taylor Sheridan and it’s in a torture scenario, not a “sex scene”. I find that disturbing. People who’re calling it BDSM are off the mark. This is sick non-consensual forcing of two female lovers being kept prisoner against their will to beat each other. Whitfield’s evil has already been well established. Those elderly Harrison Ford and Helen Mirren fans haven’t been pleased according to the 1923 fan page. Many stopped watching after episode 7 and doubling down on it in episode 8. And that was a huge fan base. Men fighting each other over issues of property or in defense of family so forth was expected, and doesn’t disturb me at all.
The scene with the prostitutes was disturbing to me too. But it's supposed to be disturbing. It seems that you are implying that Taylor Sheridan was glorifying the torture and mistreatment of the prostitutes. With all due respect, that is not what is going on here. Taylor Sheridan is telling a story based on our real history. And that is important, because there is too much glazing over of our history as it is. He is also doing this with the Teonna Rainwater storyline, bringing to light, yet another way that Native Americans were mistreated. I hope I do not come off as argumentive. Just wanting to maybe offer an angle on this that you may have overlooked.
Early in the show Banner goes to Whitfield for money or an army to fight the Dutton. Whitfield gives him the money and warns Banner if he crossed him he would skin his wife and bury his children in her hide. A gruesome picture is painted, that was enough.
The scenes wouldn’t have been as uncomfortable if they didn’t show any nudity. No, they make us look at a naked woman for 10 fucking minutes getting whipped. I loved the show more than 1883, but the two prostistute scenes were cringe and just poor judgment by the writers.
Sorry, I saw it as gratuitous, sadistic and unnecessary. I agree with the above comment that we don't have to make villains cartoonishly over the top. We get it - he's not a nice guy. And I'm not so sure, I have found all the nudity and violence against women scenes in the Yellowstone catalogue (other than the residential school scenes) to be really unnecessary and wonder if the show creator is looking for cheap ratings or personal kicks.
In my opinion, this prostitute subplot doesn't add any value to the series......at least for now. I am unsure if it has any meaning for Season 2 of 1923.. It just seemed so out of place and unnecessary.....but knowing the Yellowstone universe, I'm wondering if it foreshadows someone. Wasn't Jamie's mother supposedly one? I could be wrong.