Skip to main content

True Detective cont'd

As the dust settles on the “True Detective” finale, and the adventures of Rust Cohle and Marty Hart fade into the television firmament like the distant stars they found so meaningful, at least one thing is clear: it didn’t quite end the way we wanted it to. There is no doubt that the writer, Nic Pizzolatto, and director, Cary Fukunaga, pulled off a midseason coup, giving us a show in the January doldrums that caused temporary mass insanity. Like one of Rust’s intoxicating philosophical koans about sentient meat, “True Detective” cast a kind of spell over its viewers, convincing them that no matter what it was they were watching it was at the very least something worth the hours of debating, clicking, parsing, and comment-section feuding.
Moreover, the gorgeous cinematography depicting Louisiana in the gloaming, the delectable short-anthology format, and the movie-star bona fides made us believe that we were watching something novelistic, even approaching the level of high art. The comments that Pizzolatto gave along the way helped that interpretation: he asserted that the show was not interested in genre, in being a typical cop procedural. So the loyal waited, and withheld final judgment. About halfway through the season, critics like Emily Nussbaum began to poke holes in the series, calling into question its shaky use of women and its dorm-room rhapsodies. Fans and skeptics hurled Twitter bile back and forth; no one budged. It was up to the show’s finale for one side to be declared triumphant. Then the finale happened.
No matter what camp you were in when the show started (and I was in the camp that wanted to believe up until the bitter end), it is hard going to fully praise the series finale. After all the Googling about Cthulhu and eighteen-nineties horror stories, we were left with a fairly maudlin buddy-cops-take-down-a-psychopath-and-bond-for-life story.
When I heard pleas from several friends in the week leading up to the last episode that “True Detective” would “stick the landing,” it wasn’t just out of a hope that the narrative would tie up in a satisfying catharsis. The statement was filled with more anxiety than that—the need for a tangible return on obsessive investment.
The disappointment of the “True Detective” finale suggests how we are entering a confusing and precarious time in television’s evolution: we approach a show as an artistic achievement with all the privileges and responsibilities that this brings, when we may have done better to embrace it instead as pleasurable genre trash. (Trash in the purest, most joyful Pauline Kael sense of the word.) If we had accepted “True Detective” as a gothic procedural (albeit one with snappy dialogue and an undeniable woman problem) instead of as the latest incarnation of highbrow TV, then the last episode may not have felt as deflated (or defining) as it did. ("True Detective and the art of the television final," New Yorker)

The show associated practitioners of child rape/murder with genuine mystery, a past that grows bolder as we perhaps thin, maybe not just out of our cowardice but for its peculiar righteousness -- the same people having their go with that were still united to symbols we might just be stupidly being ruled by. And we were reacting not so much like Richard Dawkins -- what total garbage! magic twaddle and swamp primitives and there was ostensibly some option other than to take it as gothic procedural?! -- but more ... this sounds maybe about right: hope the genius anthropologist cop and the cop with overall a decent compass can brace their truths, because we can credibly muster that! There's something out there demanding above all sacrifice, of the most innocent and vulnerable, and who's legitimacy can make thorough devotees out of multitudes; and even if we stand apart we may not quite have it in us to confront it. I think that was part of the draw of the show -- it seemed somehow to maybe address our own world; and I think would have drawn our riveted attention however we'd prepared ourselves to engage it. 
To me it dodged the mysteries it first had the instinct/courage to reveal, and this should inflate their power if some other show wants to take it on -- Cthulhu 1, our best 0. The best of us were hoping to be left after the eighth episode maybe not so much high-fiving over the sweet perfect landing, but a bit stunned -- taking some time to take in what we might have been shown about our world, ourselves.

What's going on with Putin and the Ukraine? Geopolitics? Or has some powerful tribal spirit -- back vividly into the universe -- taken possession over him, demanding oppression of the guilty weak? And us maybe -- if that's Her will maybe we should just let Her have it.

I'll follow that up just by saying that our age is of two motives -- one, to eek forth significant new progress; and two, to destroy swaths of the young, weak, and vulnerable. If someone were to argue the latter part was Cthulhu's work, this would be a lie -- but yet I think closer to the truth than the prosaic self-interest and greed we're determined to see as responsible; and our response to shows like this shows we at some level know it. 


Popular posts from this blog

Full conversation about "Bringing Up Baby" at the NewYorker Movie Facebook Club

Richard Brody shared a link.Moderator · November 20 at 3:38pm I'm obsessed with Bringing Up Baby, which is on TCM at 6 PM (ET). It's the first film by Howard Hawks that I ever saw, and it opened up several universes to me, cinematic and otherwise. Here's the story. I was seventeen or eighteen; I had never heard of Hawks until I read Godard's enthusiastic mention of him in one of the early critical pieces in "Godard on Godard"—he called Hawks "the greatest American artist," and this piqued my curiosity. So, the next time I was in town (I… I was out of town at college for the most part), I went to see the first Hawks film playing in a revival house, which turned out to be "Bringing Up Baby." I certainly laughed a lot (and, at a few bits, uncontrollably), but that's not all there was to it. I had never read Freud, but I had heard of Freud, and when I saw "Bringing Up Baby," its realm of symbolism made instant sense; it was obviou…

"The Zookeeper's Wife" as historical romance

A Polish zoologist and his wife maintain a zoo which is utopia, realized. The people who work there are blissfully satisfied and happy. The caged animals aren't distraught but rather, very satisfied. These animals have been very well attended to, and have developed so healthily for it that they almost seem proud to display what is distinctively excellent about them for viewers to enjoy. But there is a shadow coming--Nazis! The Nazis literally blow apart much of this happy configuration. Many of the animals die. But the zookeeper's wife is a prize any Nazi officer would covet, and the Nazi's chief zoologist is interested in claiming her for his own. So if there can be some pretence that would allow for her and her husband to keep their zoo in piece rather than be destroyed for war supplies, he's willing to concede it.

The zookeeper and his wife want to try and use their zoo to house as many Jews as they can. They approach the stately quarters of Hitler's zoologist …