Paramount Network’s television series Yellowstone is a huge hit, and I’ve been pondering why. After all, raising cattle is not something that one would guess most contemporary Americans would likely find particularly riveting.
It strikes me that there are two very different ways to view Yellowstone. To many like me, it’s consumed as a mafia story. Mafia families use extortion, violence, and other criminal methods to make money and preserve power and privilege, and that is precisely what Yellowstone’s Dutton family is all about, episode after episode.
There’s a lot to like about Yellowstone. It is entertaining, beautifully shot, and well-acted. As with many a mafia story, the story about what will become of the family members pulling out all the stops to maintain their power and privilege has been worth watching. Before watching it, I might not have believed that a Montana-based Sopranos yarn would work, but it does for me.
It’s far from perfect. The story line gets preposterous at times, the trash-talk scripting often feels particularly contrived, the level of violence displayed is gratuitous, and the simplistic characters seem mostly unwilling or unable to see gray areas in the situations they encounter. Talented actresses like Kelly Reilly could have been even more interesting to watch with scripts that weren’t so simplistic and over-the-top.
But beyond the familiar mafia formula, there is another very different way to view Yellowstone. Many viewers see mega-rancher John Dutton and his loyal family as superheroes, not criminals. They see an ultra-honorable family fighting for what they believe was once great about America – more hard work, more family loyalty, more agrarian lifestyles, less “politically correct” nonsense, and a might-is-right approach to ensure you always get your way.
In this case, the superheroes’ superpowers involve guns-a-plenty, humiliating trash-talking, bullying of dissenters, corruption of state and local government, and an unflagging certainty that it’s their God-given right to control anything they damn well want, despite what “the others” – urbanites, environmentalists, the insufficiently macho, and Native Americans – do or say.
A lot of people seem to see Yellowstone this way. Go to any rural or small town area, and you’re going to see folks wearing Yellowstone gear, just the way people wear Captain America, Superman, and Wonder Woman gear. These folks not only want to watch the Duttons, they want to be them.
Indeed, the Wall Street Journal reported that Yellowstone first became a hit in smaller, more rural markets, not on the coasts.
The show wrapped its fourth season Sunday night with an average 10.4 million total viewers on the Paramount Network, up from 4.5 million in season 1. The unconventional path “Yellowstone” took to ratings dominance shows how audiences can accrue and change over a series’ lifespan and how regional differences still matter…
Lafayette, Ind., is a “Yellowstone” stronghold. The area around Purdue University had the highest proportion of viewers during season 1 of any small market outside Montana and Wyoming, the region where “Yellowstone” is set, according to Nielsen data on viewers ages 25 to 54.
Loyalists there include Jim Hedrick, 62, whose company Horizon Ag Consulting works with farmers across the Midwest. He says “Yellowstone” mines issues that matter in his circles, such as family cohesion and the development of rural areas.
When “Yellowstone” premiered in 2018, the show ranked fourth in the 25-to-54 age group in the least-populated TV markets, categorized by Nielsen as D markets. In the country’s most populous areas—dubbed A markets, which include New York and Los Angeles—“Yellowstone” didn’t crack the top 50.
Like other superhero tales, Yellowstone sometimes gets pretty unrealistic. In the real world, no business, including ranching, is immune from criminal law enforcement, environmental protections, eminent domain rules, and political realities. Deep red rural states trend in those directions, but they’re not nearly as extreme as the Dutton-dominated Montana.
As such, the Yellowstone fantasy offers an escape for viewers who dream of a world where people who look and act like them find ways to control everything. That seems like the “secret sauce” that makes Yellowstone so delicious for so many.
Why are the Duttons viewed by so many as heroes rather than criminals? For many viewers, the Dutton’s brutal crimes are forgiven – lustily cheered on, even – because of the enemies involved. The Duttons hate the same people that Trumpists hate — fakey latte-sipping urban dwellers, clueless environmentalist brats, rule-bound government dweebs, hopelessly soft beta male, snowflake cucks, and coddled minorities.
And who doesn’t want to see someone stick it to those guys?
Yellowstone is a kind of Rorschach test that is being seen different ways depending on the individual viewer’s biases and values. How you interpret it reveals personality characteristics, such as an authoritarian instinct and willingness to rationalize violence and other crimes.
I have no proof of this, but it seems a safe bet that there is a strong correlation between Trump fans and people who view the corrupt, murderous Duttons as righteous superheros rather than a privileged, power-obsessed crime family.
(By the way, the other way that Yellowstone is fantasy is that the actors like Kevin Costner and Kelly Reilly who are playing right wingers’ heroes are not conservative in their real lives. After campaigning for Reagan earlier in his life, Costner has campaigned for Barack Obama and the Biden Administration’s Pete Buttigieg. And the English actress Reilly is reportedly a Democrat.)
Because Yellowstone has proven so overwhelmingly popular, we surely will see more programming like it. We can expect more “us against them” narratives giving comfort and encouragement to viewers whose fondest wish is to own the libs without pesky laws in the way.
If I were a right-wing billionaire intent on fanning the culture war flames as a means to maintain and grow my financial power and privilege, I’d bankroll more Yellowstone-like shows to provide entertaining propaganda tools to compliment the news-like propaganda tools that those billionaires already control to great effect.
Everyone likes to fantasize about being a superhero, and shows like Yellowstone offers heroic role models and road maps for white people bending and breaking laws to maintain their privilege in a rapidly changing world.
And you know what? If the acting, story, scenery, and production levels are as good as they are in Yellowstone, the chances are that plenty of liberals like me will probably watch the coming Yellowstone clones, though through a very different lens.
Interestingly, I watched the first few episodes. I often enjoy shows about family drama and have visited Montana, Wyoming and I have relatives in North Dakota. I didn’t keep watching Yellowstone. I didn’t realize why. Now I do. This essay has given me the insight I needed to understand why I didn’t like a show even though I was interested in the premise I expected. The people are mean, cruel and self satisfied. They treat each other harshly. I have no sympathy or interest in their lives. I hope some watchers will begin to realize what I did soon. Thanks for the insights.
Yeah, the fact that so many worship those characters is a window into their souls. I grew up in South Dakota, and that harshness is definitely present in some people in places like that. Thanks for the read.
I have a hard time understanding why you support this show… There are other cool shows to watch, where we are not supporting negative ideals.
That’s a good and valid question. i know it’s kind of a cultural and political phenomenon, so am interested to see what it’s about and now how it will end. It also kind of reminds me of my native state of South Dakota, though an exaggerated version of it, so that look into red state world is interesting to me.
I enjoy “Yellowstone” in the same way I enjoyed “Dallas” thirty ago, but neither of them reflect(ed) reality as I understand it now or then. Dallas got so campy that it started parodying itself, but Yellowstone is way better shot and acted than Dallas ever was. I haven’t finished the season so no spoilers please!
If I had to to look for a deeper meaning for why it has crossover appeal, I think even us liberals enjoy a good ass-kicking if the fight is cast as a binary fight between good and evil the writers are smart enough to give us a few fig leaves (Kayce’s wife is Native American, there’s a Black ranch had and another one with pink hair and a gender-fluid vibe, John Dutton talks a lot about environmental stewardship, the conflicts with the local tribe are respectful and they often find ways to work together against the outsiders, etc.) to obscure some of the issues you identify. That said, you are 100 percent right that it’s the Sopranos in chaps and 4x4s.
The gross thing is that when the Duttons are constantly pontificating about “preserving their way of life” what it usually really means is never having to change to concede any power, practice or privilege, which almost no one is entitled to in this fast-changing world. That’s a natural instinct, I understand, but I hate how the writers usually glorify it, as if all change is evil and all status quo preservation is automatically justified, and that rural Americans are more victimized than others. You don’t get to freeze the game board when you’re ahead. That’s not how life works or ought to work.
I mean, John Dutton’s worst case scenario is that he makes a $500,000,000 by selling SOME of his land for an airport, makes some more selling land to other developers, he ranches in a slightly different way and place, and his kids get to live out their own lives instead of fighting their whole lives to preserve his dream. When that’s your worst case scenario, you’re pretty damned privileged. He’s not exactly being sent to a death camp.
For that reason, it’s difficult for me to rally around John the way so many do.
We’re in a weird inflection point where the pace of change is outstripping the ability of most of us to keep up. Words we’ve always used are suddenly offensive, the history most of us were taught is being reinterpreted, institutions we thought were enduring and anchoring are turning out to be less so than we thought. Jobs that were the ticket to a middle-class or better life in the 1960s and 1970s have gone away or been unbundled so that the work remains but not the benefits, schedule stability or status. In an era like this I can understand the appeal of “keep things the same.”
I’m an optimist so I continue to think we’ll catch up and adapt, but – at a minimum – the race is going to be much closer than I thought 20 years ago. In 2000 or so, everything about stepping into the 21st century seemed pretty optimistic. Your younger readers may not remember the late 90s as well as I do, but the years before 9/11 when the budget was balanced, Clinton’s approval rating was in the 60s and the promise of personal computing and ubiquitous connectivity seemed like shiny gifts available to all seem pretty good in hindsight. It’s mildly disappointing that one of the most popular uses of all that tech is making content like Yellowstone available to anyone, any time, anywhere or any device. Amazing but trivial compared to what futurists predicted.
The only similar time in my life was 1967-72 but the big difference is the amplifying effect of social media. Everything spreads faster and farther than ever, it’s more easily stripped of context, it’s much more susceptible to the influence of bad actors and the sheer volume is .
Add in the erosion of traditional media’s influence, globalization, economic dislocation and all of a sudden something like Yellowstone becomes a shared escapism for the 25-year-old gig worker watching it on her phone in her car between Instacart deliveries and the 60-year old factory worker watching it on cable who got laid off five years ago because the local manufacturer went under or outsourced production to Vietnam and who wouldn’t – or couldn’t – acquire the skills needed to stay in the economy.
The way these new technologies have been introduced to humanity represents a giant experiment on par with building a nuclear reactor and handing it to our children without supervision or instruction other than, “This is cool; play with it and see what you can do with it.” As you might imagine from that little thought experiment, the results have been decidedly mixed.
True, tragic, and characteristically well-stated. Still, if the InstaCart guy violently lashes out at his employers to “preserve his way of life,” he’s rightfully not treated as a hero by society.
Certainly a lot of the marketable skills I developed in my 20s and 30s are no longer marketable in my 50s and 60s. A lot of the rules have changed too. So, I have a small sense of what people are going through, and absolutely think they should be better supported by their government, employers, and neighbors than they are in this ridiculously individualistic society. But again, you don’t get to act like a mafia don to stop change.
Agreed!
For what it’s worth, I never watched the Sopranos. I think the depiction of the horrors of a mob lurking just below the surface of suburban normalcy seemed a little too plausible to make it enjoyable. I guess my willingness to suspend belief and watch a cowboy version of the show is because the setting is so far beyond my personal frame of reference, the Yellowstone might as well be Mars.
For similar reasons, I’ve never really enjoyed any of the police/medical/fire shows because I feel like I have all I can handle in those areas just reading the news. My idea of good entertainment is pure escapism with a happy ending. Good guys win doing the right thing, the bad guys get what’s coming to them, the protagonist rides off into the sunset with their love interest gets my vote for the Academy Awards every year.
If anyone wants a list of movies, I have one.
The last sentence should have read: If anyone wants a list of THOSE movies, I have one. I put brackets around the word for emphasis and I guess WordPress didn’t like it.
I’ll definitely take that list, Pollyanna.
I never wanted to watch The Sopranos or other mafia-worshipping shows. The incredible number of murders on Yellowstone without any repercussions, and other crimes, is ridiculous. I like Kevin Costner or I wouldn’t have even started this show. We keep watching, because we watch too much TV, but don’t find anything redeeming about any of the main characters…
Agree. It does get ridiculous. Never an investigation, never a news story, never any charges. Just an endless string of serial murders with no consequences. It makes the show flow faster, but it gets so far fetched after a while.
I think Game Of Thrones.
Hmmmm.
I haven’t watched (yet?), but it sounds to me like some kind of mishmash of the Ammon Bundy story, as written by Louis L’Amour.
Kinda. The Duttons are made to have some likeable, human moments, like the Sopranos, and I’m not sure how likeable Ammon is.
My apologies, I just got to this. I think we’re on to something, Joe. Rather than you or me ranting about the specifics of the latest MAGA-verse idiocy, the “cultural” signal/noise impacts might lure in a broader crowd. Everyone loves to be entertained, whether they want to admit it to themselves or their committed friends, right?
But you make several interesting points. I love to kick around the backroads of red-state USA. Mainly for the space and scenery, but a bit for the people as well. As you might expect, being a passing traveler, I rarely get involved in political conversations with the locals. Hell, in the COVID era my “local interactions” have gone from chatting up the cowboys and gals in small town bars, to sitting alone in a corner, inhaling a burger, slugging down a single beer and splitting.
But one of my amateur sociologist perspectives locks in to the implausible aspirations of the grumblers I (usually overhear.)
As you say, the “urban crowd” is to “Yellowstone” fans, millions of people supposedly looking down on them, when in actual fact, most urbanite liberals never gave them much thought prior to the rise of the Tea Party/redneck/MAGA revolution.
But what I also hear is their feeling they’ve been cheated out of or denied something to which they deeply want and are entitled. In practical terms its the lifestyle they see on TV, which, other than truck commercials in football games, is almost exclusively focused on thin, toned, well-manicured, multi-cultural urbanites and all the stuff they can afford.
My point to them, in the (very) few times I’ve tip-toed into an actual conversation, is to (gently) ask how did they expect to achieve/afford what modern American capitalism is selling us all, (and inferring that is their right to consume), dozens-to-hundreds of miles away from where that kind of economy/wages exist? More to the point, what is it they really aspire to? What is it they WANT?
A trio of guys in Nevada bar have lingered in my memory. Grousing about some “Democrat fuck up” while idling watching FoxNews, they talked about how much they liked the “freedom” of living out West, (this place was over 100 miles from goddam Reno), the fresh air, lack of crime, yadda yadda and of course the easy access to stuff they loved to do, like huntin’ up in the mountains with their buddies.
Great. Fine. I get that. But the trade-off was not pulling down Manhattan hedge fund asshole style money and not having the cash on hand for the latest $1200 iPhone.
They were okay average guys. And the bitching was of the pretty generic low-information (occasional) voter barstool variety.
The payoff/punchline moment for me was as I said good-bye, walked out the door and took in the sight of three $60,000 -$70,000 new pickups lined up at the curb.
My take away was they were living the life they wanted, and in most respects enjoying, but couldn’t/didn’t want to admit it to themselves or to any passing stranger.
I’m a recovering South Dakotan, though at this point, after having left 40 years ago, my friends would never claim me as one of their own. And after you wrote “Alabama of the midwest” here, I definitely lost whatever was left of my “favorite son” status!
My pals in SD readily articulate a long list of things they love about their way of life in a more rural, low-tax/low-service red state. And if pressed, I have a long list of perceived advantages about my way of life in a more urban, high-tax/high services blue state. We both claim to be content with our set of benefits and tradeoffs. So why can’t we both just be happy for each other? To each our own.
There is a superiority complex in the mix that I find self-delusional and tiresome. With many, there is a righteous vibe that the rural way of life is wholesome, common sensical, and “what made America great,” while the urban way of life is dangerous, shallow, sinful, and “what’s wrong with this country.”
I’ve lived in both places, and I see good and bad in both places. But many of my red state friends don’t see it that way.
I’ve also been watching the highly entertaining HBO series Succession lately. I don’t know anyone who would assert that the Roys are noble folk heroes, the way many do with the Duttons, though both are powerful, privileged families fighting to preserve their way of life.
I think that superiority complex about “our way of life” is what leads many red staters to cheer on the Duttons as noble folk heroes, while I think of them as inflexible, selfish serial criminals, the rural version of the Sopranos. For them, the lifestyle is romanticized enough to justify the means.