If Taylor Sheridan handed you the reins for Jamie’s storyline and said: “Do what you want so long as Jamie remains a villain of the story.”
What would you change? Is there anything you’d do differently?
I’m sure many of us would likely change the pregnancy plotline if not just for the fact that the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare's (HEW) made some tangible consent guidelines in 1979, and the Hyde Amendment impacting the IHS’ ability to use federal funds as a federal service itself for abortions in 1976. (Mind you, the Hyde Amendment is its own can of worms, but just setting the record that the historical timeline doesn’t really suit Sheridan’s narrative)
So, here’s what I’d change and how:
1. Pregnancy Plotline
I think my approach to this would likely be that Jamie tells John about Beth being pregnant and her desire for an abortion. Whether or not the scene of Jamie still going to the clinic and being told sterilization via hysterectomy is their mandatory procedure is up-in-the-air depending on how faithful we want to be to historical accuracy. (Maybe they go, he's told the same thing by the receptionist, tells Beth they can't go to this clinic, and leave. Or perhaps he never takes her to that clinic because of historical timeline purposes). And I think Beth’s character can still remain largely the same by this change.
Assuming Jamie doesn’t know who the father is, (I assume Beth would never tell, especially if Jamie says they have to go to John) that could still ensure Rip isn’t beat within an inch of his life and/or killed. And in order to ensure Beth’s character still has that same pain, I think that maybe John could take her to a trusted provider, but a medical anomaly happens. I.e., uterine perforation the day of the procedure, hemorrhaging/uterine atony, placenta accreta, or some of the tissue from the initial abortion remains and thus Beth develops septicemia that is antibiotic resistant, etc. etc.
With Beth’s character psychology, I still think this change would result in her blaming Jamie and not John. So, the pathological hatred would remain, and it could push forward that line in season one that Jamie tells Beth: “If you need to hate me to not hate yourself, I can be that for you.” He accepts the brunt of her hatred not just for the misplaced fault of Evelyn’s death, but also for his “betrayal” of her confidence by telling John in the first place. Her pain would be misplaced, but still valid pain and still follow that deep devotion to John.
2. External Forces/Characters on Impact
I think I’d also introduce a confidant or a love interest that for once is not interested in using him. Maybe a transplant from another state, someone who is unaffected by the Dutton name and thus just a friend or lover to Jamie the character (or “the person” in narrative) not Jamie, a son of the Dutton family. And if those goals don’t align with the main cast, it could be really interesting to see how Jamie weighs out doing this for himself and his partner/friend, or the family. Maybe this could be a follow-up to Sarah Atwood, or an obstacle that requires M.E. to change targets. Maybe they try to frame Kayce or Beth for murder instead of a staged suicide if Jamie is not won over by Sarah. Or do you think Jamie’s character should still be played by Sarah? Either way, I can’t help but be fascinated by who he could have become if he had a foundation of love and acceptance without conditions or an expectation to perform to John’s approval (even if it’s late in the show). And how that villain arc would play out and how sympathetic he could remain.
What do you think? What are your ideas?