HBO Television Show: True Detective

[Mecca]

k, I was pretty diplomatic and made an honest argument in here. no reason to throw me under the bus.

you're the best RMer ever, Dev.

[Dev]

k, I was pretty diplomatic and made an honest argument in here. no reason to throw me under the bus.

you're the best RMer ever, Dev.

thanks, breh

[epilogue]

I saw a defeated man. Have you tried online dating? I have and at times it can be fun and exciting to get to know someone, getting to that point can be defeating itself. Perhaps that is just my own baggage, but that's how I read it.

You know, I like that take a lot more. I should rewatch it. Hopefully, I'll get to do so soon when my wife watches the show for the first time. I've been happily married since 06, so a lot of dating culture -- especially modern dating culture -- is lost on me. It's very possible that I was reading things differently than intended.

But, I do think the aforementioned, so-called, feminist issues go further than that one scene. Even if I read that one incorrectly, it doesn't mean the show doesn't fall short where it's women are concerned.

[epilogue]

I like Dev way more than he thinks. And way more than he likes me. And that's okay.

[Mecca]

I saw a defeated man. Have you tried online dating? I have and at times it can be fun and exciting to get to know someone, getting to that point can be defeating itself. Perhaps that is just my own baggage, but that's how I read it.

You know, I like that take a lot more. I should rewatch it. Hopefully, I'll get to do so soon when my wife watches the show for the first time. I've been happily married since 06, so a lot of dating culture -- especially modern dating culture -- is lost on me. It's very possible that I was reading things differently than intended.

But, I do think the aforementioned, so-called, feminist issues go further than that one scene. Even if I read that one incorrectly, it doesn't mean the show doesn't fall short where it's women are concerned.

A simple version of what I said to Malloy in regards to what he was saying about the feminist argument: The show is about Marty and Rust and their story. Storytelling being the main theme of the show. The story itself contains a lot of features of things that we've seen before, but what carries the show is Marty and Rust (characters and cinematography specifically). Marty is shitty to women in general and he gets punished for it, so it doesn't exactly advocate his actions. It doesn't have to say something about feminism if the writer has nothing to say about it. That is just arguing perspective of a work of art, to me.

It would be one thing if it glorified cheating and beating, but it doesn't. If it did, then I think there is grounds to bring up the feminism argument.

[Dev]

I like Dev way more than he thinks. And way more than he likes me. And that's okay.

In my mind we buried the hatchet a long time ago, bruh.

[Malloy]

it's interesting to track how "feminist argument" assumes a greater pejorative connotation as the thread goes on, but not much surprising.

that said, i had multiple claims as to why this isn't great art. (however, i started out with the new yorker's character assassination, so maybe that first impression was also the strongest.) least among my claims was that there are a lack of "well-developed" characters, rust included. mecca and others disagreed with that take on rust. fair enough. i think the new yorker article cut to the quick of the cliche that ruste is.

and, having said that, it isn't necessarily a bad thing to work with cliches (flat characters). in fact, i think the contemporary trend of mythologizing character and overstating its importance in art works is counterproductive. it's limited in a fundamental way how people talk about art. as a resistance to that trend, give me flat characters any day of the week. but while giving me that, the work must acknowledge that it isn't about mimesis, but instead is about conventions, constraints and artifice.

my larger point remains: what is the show's meaning and how does it mean what it means? if i'm reading True Detective not as yet another examination of multi-faceted characters whom we come to know deeply, understand and care about, but instead as an examination of a genre that necessarily limits what those characters could be, about the ways in which narrative and the ideas of character that are born out of it are deficient, then i think True Detective could be exceptional. there seems to be a real argument in support of that interpretation. but the terms around which the discussion has revolved haven't been about the meaning of the show. they've just been how badass the characters are and the logic of their choices as detectives.

i'm not sure True Detective is coherent enough to have a meaning. my hunch is that it's an assemblage of cool looking and sounding stuff, not unlike another series i mentioned in this thread. but, i'm going back to look. i could be totally wrong.

[Iholdthepain]

Too... many... big... words...

[Harry Lime]

Perhaps the answer is simpler. Have we ever asked ourselves why the show is called True Detective?

[Harry Lime]

i'm not sure True Detective is coherent enough to have a meaning.

In order to be a true detective (as with any true writer, imo), one must investigate & accept (and work to defeat) the deeper crimes within themselves. Only then can they survive & live life to the fullest.

Rust claimed to know this about himself, but he still turned his back on that "light" he failed to see until the end. While Rust had interesting things to say, the more complicated one was Marty. His breakdown in the hospital mirrors Dante's absolution at the banks of heaven. In the end, I see both men being absolved.

That's True Detective to me.

[@SkitchP]

yeah, sorry Joey. Ive read hundreds of takes about people that loved, and hated, the final episode. Yours is the first that thought the "online dating" profiles thing was anything other than showing how lonely and pathetic he had become.

One thing that has me intrigued is that I wonder if this show doesn't work as well in a marathon viewing? I mean a huge part of what I liked about this show was, especially early on, the desolation. And after watching the show, that would linger into the next. It had a very specific... feel. and I wonder if watching the whole thing over a couple days would rob a viewer of that.

[epilogue]

yeah, sorry Joey. Ive read hundreds of takes about people that loved, and hated, the final episode. Yours is the first that thought the "online dating" profiles thing was anything other than showing how lonely and pathetic he had become.

One thing that has me intrigued is that I wonder if this show doesn't work as well in a marathon viewing? I mean a huge part of what I liked about this show was, especially early on, the desolation. And after watching the show, that would linger into the next. It had a very specific... feel. and I wonder if watching the whole thing over a couple days would rob a viewer of that.

Cool. Then, that's gotta just be me projecting. So I'll take back some of my criticism regarding Marty's arch. When I rewatch the show hopefully that will be clearer for me.

I think tone is important, but there has to be something else happening. For me David Lynch is the best example I can think of. If TD is only about feel or tone, or is predominately about feel or tone, then I wonder if that's enough.

Going back and reading through the thread, I think I'm right there with Malloy. And I worry that my arguments have hurt his. He's done a much better job of articulating, I think, the concerns and opinions we seem to share.

[@SkitchP]

yeah, sorry Joey. Ive read hundreds of takes about people that loved, and hated, the final episode. Yours is the first that thought the "online dating" profiles thing was anything other than showing how lonely and pathetic he had become.

One thing that has me intrigued is that I wonder if this show doesn't work as well in a marathon viewing? I mean a huge part of what I liked about this show was, especially early on, the desolation. And after watching the show, that would linger into the next. It had a very specific... feel. and I wonder if watching the whole thing over a couple days would rob a viewer of that.

Cool. Then, that's gotta just be me projecting. So I'll take back some of my criticism regarding Marty's arch. When I rewatch the show hopefully that will be clearer for me.

I think tone is important, but there has to be something else happening. For me David Lynch is the best example I can think of. If TD is only about feel or tone, or is predominately about feel or tone, then I wonder if that's enough.

.

I think there's some validity (and valid concern) to this. It was a show that excelled in creating 2 interesting characters (and that's all it needed to me, regardless of gender), and an even more interesting tone. So while I was a part of that world and actively watching it, that tone maintained a certain importance in how I viewed the show. I felt like i was in the same space as Marty and Rust, and appreciated that tone as a way to turn the setting into essentially, another equally important and compelling character.

but looking back, as I am distanced from the tone of watching it week to week, the value of that tone and feel begins to fade from memory. I don't "feel" true detective anymore. In hindsight, without that feel, it's just a damned entertaining cop show I watched, that was well performed and presented. The biggest problem I see is I am not sure whether I should rate True Detective lower in my mind because that feel faded, or give them even more credit for creating such an engaging tone in the first place.

[epilogue]

In hindsight, without that feel, it's just a damned entertaining cop show I watched, that was well performed and presented. The biggest problem I see is I am not sure whether I should rate True Detective lower in my mind because that feel faded, or give them even more credit for creating such an engaging tone in the first place.

I'm right there with you on this. Which is why I'm not prepared to put it up there in the GOAT category. But they do deserve credit for the tone they created, even if it waned as the show progressed. That kind of feel is hard to sustain, even for 8 as few as 8 hours.

[epilogue]

I like Dev way more than he thinks. And way more than he likes me. And that's okay.

In my mind we buried the hatchet a long time ago, bruh.

I missed this post earlier. Thanks, Dev. I've always appreciated your candor.

[Harry Lime]

With my take, and reading Nic Pizzolatto's brief discussions about what he was trying to accomplish, I know for a fact that there is more to it than just "tone".

[Harry Lime]

even if it waned as the show progressed. That kind of feel is hard to sustain, even for 8 as few as 8 hours.

Episodes 1-5 was some of the best television ever made.

[epilogue]

even if it waned as the show progressed. That kind of feel is hard to sustain, even for 8 as few as 8 hours.

Episodes 1-5 was some of the best television ever made.

I don't know that I would say "ever made" but I won't disagree. Those first 5 episodes were absolutely outstanding.

[Dev]

I like how people try to condescend towards the show by claiming that Rust is a paper things character. People are just trying to discredit what is obviously true about the show. The characters are fantastic. Honestly, I hated Rust's take on the "eternal recurrence", but otherwise his insights were the best part of the show. Also, Marty's parable is probably more evocative than Rust's, so don't be so quick to throw Marty out as a disposable character. That shit was real, whether you like him or not.

Further, I watch some shows for philosophical entertainment, some for their cinematic content, and some for both. For me, True Detective was a totally cerebral experience, I enjoyed the philosophical elements, but even more I enjoyed the tone/pacing/ cinematography. When Malloy says, "what is the shows meaning, and how does it mean what it means?", I think he effectively says nothing. I don't think TD has some ultimate message, and the meaning it does have, based in character development is readily apparent. I'm pretty sure this is not the examination of a genre either. The genre is simply explored, and used as a forum to tell the characters stories… If this is a meta-text on the genre, it fails. But, it isn't.

[epilogue]

The two leads are interesting characters. But they unravel a bit, especially Rust, I think. He ends up becoming a sort of sketch of himself. And there are times that the writing thinks its more clever and wonderful than it really is. Platitudes abound but they dress up as philosophical insights. Mostly, this is in the second half the series.

But, yes, I agree that Marty and Rust, on the balance, are very engaging characters, and well made. It only makes it that much more frustrating that some of the other characters aren't given the same care. Because dude is clearly capable of giving it to us.