Red Mosquito

Malloy wrote:http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/television/2014/03/03/140303crte_television_nussbaum

A lazy and self-serving writer takes a line that was spoken once and wasn't that integral to the story/characters to bring them down a peg such as:

To state the obvious: while the male detectives of “True Detective” are avenging women and children, and bro-bonding over “crazy pussy,” every live woman they meet is paper-thin.

Mecca wrote:

Malloy wrote:http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/television/2014/03/03/140303crte_television_nussbaum

A lazy and self-serving writer takes a line that was spoken once and wasn't that integral to the story/characters to bring them down a peg such as:

To state the obvious: while the male detectives of “True Detective” are avenging women and children, and bro-bonding over “crazy pussy,” every live woman they meet is paper-thin.

i think quibbling over the misappropriation of a line from the season misses the article's larger point

or, put another way, i don't think nussbaum's argument is dependent on those quotes, with or without context

Malloy wrote:

Mecca wrote:

Malloy wrote:http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/television/2014/03/03/140303crte_television_nussbaum

A lazy and self-serving writer takes a line that was spoken once and wasn't that integral to the story/characters to bring them down a peg such as:

To state the obvious: while the male detectives of “True Detective” are avenging women and children, and bro-bonding over “crazy pussy,” every live woman they meet is paper-thin.

i think quibbling over the misappropriation of a line from the season misses the article's larger point

that the writer doesn't really like the show and thinks there are better things to watch? That's all well and good, but TD's greatness derives from the way it is shot, the performance of McConaughey and the storytelling in general. The article did nothing to dissuade me of that opinion.

Malloy wrote:or, put another way, i don't think nussbaum's argument is dependent on those quotes, with or without context

only the argument in that paragraph. It reads the same way that a criticism of the film Bridesmaids was that it was more "girl funny." Both are aimed towards the viewpoint of people from one gender and the opposite gender has very little depth. It'd be great if they could combine the 2, but it was Marty and Rust's story. Regardless, I thought Monaghan played a strong role despite the little airtime she actually had.

Mecca wrote:

Malloy wrote:

Mecca wrote:

Malloy wrote:http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/television/2014/03/03/140303crte_television_nussbaum

A lazy and self-serving writer takes a line that was spoken once and wasn't that integral to the story/characters to bring them down a peg such as:

To state the obvious: while the male detectives of “True Detective” are avenging women and children, and bro-bonding over “crazy pussy,” every live woman they meet is paper-thin.

i think quibbling over the misappropriation of a line from the season misses the article's larger point

that the writer doesn't really like the show and thinks there are better things to watch? That's all well and good, but TD's greatness derives from the way it is shot, the performance of McConaughey and the storytelling in general. The article did nothing to dissuade me of that opinion.

i agree with you that in part nussbaum's argument is that there are "better" shows on television. in a certain way, that point is a criticism of the conversation surrounding True Detective. and i think it's valid, given how quickly viewers have been to anoint it best show ever.

and there's no denying that the shows aesthetics, narrative structure and acting by the two leads are great. in fact, i think nussbaum acknowledges those, but she doesn't belabor them, because everyone else already has. instead she points out structural problems, like rust as a character. and i think she's totally right to do that. it's much more interesting to me to think about why people would go in for a character like that, rather than how mcconaughey portrays him. untangling those two aspects may be impossible, but it's something to consider.

the "survivors" v. "witness" crystallizes (and to varying degrees resolves) the problems that nussbaum points out. if this is a show about witnesses, it makes some sense that the victims (primarily women and children) aren't heard from. but, were there not female witnesses, too?

Malloy wrote:

Mecca wrote:

Malloy wrote:

Mecca wrote:

Malloy wrote:http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/television/2014/03/03/140303crte_television_nussbaum

A lazy and self-serving writer takes a line that was spoken once and wasn't that integral to the story/characters to bring them down a peg such as:

To state the obvious: while the male detectives of “True Detective” are avenging women and children, and bro-bonding over “crazy pussy,” every live woman they meet is paper-thin.

i think quibbling over the misappropriation of a line from the season misses the article's larger point

that the writer doesn't really like the show and thinks there are better things to watch? That's all well and good, but TD's greatness derives from the way it is shot, the performance of McConaughey and the storytelling in general. The article did nothing to dissuade me of that opinion.

i agree with you that in part nussbaum's argument is that there are "better" shows on television. in a certain way, that point is a criticism of the conversation surrounding True Detective. and i think it's valid, given how quickly viewers have been to anoint it best show ever.

and there's no denying that the shows aesthetics, narrative structure and acting by the two leads are great. in fact, i think nussbaum acknowledges those, but she doesn't belabor them, because everyone else already has. instead she points out structural problems, like rust as a character. and i think she's totally right to do that. it's much more interesting to me to think about why people would go in for a character like that, rather than how mcconaughey portrays him. untangling those two aspects may be impossible, but it's something to consider.

the "survivors" v. "witness" crystallizes (and to varying degrees resolves) the problems that nussbaum points out. if this is a show about witnesses, it makes some sense that the victims (primarily women and children) aren't heard from. but, were there not female witnesses, too?

this show isn't about witnesses per se, it is about two men and their story. There are very few shots through the entire show that do not include Marty or Rust for that reason.

Mecca wrote:

Malloy wrote:or, put another way, i don't think nussbaum's argument is dependent on those quotes, with or without context

only the argument in that paragraph. It reads the same way that a criticism of the film Bridesmaids was that it was more "girl funny." Both are aimed towards the viewpoint of people from one gender and the opposite gender has very little depth. It'd be great if they could combine the 2, but it was Marty and Rust's story. Regardless, I thought Monaghan played a strong role despite the little airtime she actually had.

i don't think nussbaum is saying it's a "boys'" show. and i hope you aren't making that claim either in the sentence that i bolded. i assume you're just elaborating on the claims that certain kinds of criticism make.

and to iterate, i think the show is well cast and very strongly acted. it's the structural issues, like how monaghan's part was written (or, her "airtime," as you put it) that i and nussbaum are talking about.

Mecca wrote:

Malloy wrote:

Mecca wrote:

Malloy wrote:

Mecca wrote:

Malloy wrote:http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/television/2014/03/03/140303crte_television_nussbaum

A lazy and self-serving writer takes a line that was spoken once and wasn't that integral to the story/characters to bring them down a peg such as:

To state the obvious: while the male detectives of “True Detective” are avenging women and children, and bro-bonding over “crazy pussy,” every live woman they meet is paper-thin.

i think quibbling over the misappropriation of a line from the season misses the article's larger point

that the writer doesn't really like the show and thinks there are better things to watch? That's all well and good, but TD's greatness derives from the way it is shot, the performance of McConaughey and the storytelling in general. The article did nothing to dissuade me of that opinion.

i agree with you that in part nussbaum's argument is that there are "better" shows on television. in a certain way, that point is a criticism of the conversation surrounding True Detective. and i think it's valid, given how quickly viewers have been to anoint it best show ever.

and there's no denying that the shows aesthetics, narrative structure and acting by the two leads are great. in fact, i think nussbaum acknowledges those, but she doesn't belabor them, because everyone else already has. instead she points out structural problems, like rust as a character. and i think she's totally right to do that. it's much more interesting to me to think about why people would go in for a character like that, rather than how mcconaughey portrays him. untangling those two aspects may be impossible, but it's something to consider.

the "survivors" v. "witness" crystallizes (and to varying degrees resolves) the problems that nussbaum points out. if this is a show about witnesses, it makes some sense that the victims (primarily women and children) aren't heard from. but, were there not female witnesses, too?

this show isn't about witnesses per se, it is about two men and their story. There are very few shots through the entire show that do not include Marty or Rust for that reason.

yeah, i'm less convinced it's not about witnesses. it employs flashback in a really interesting way, such that what one tells v. what one saw (witnessed) becomes crucial, in terms of plot and theme.

RE: Anointing TD as the "best show ever"

The somewhat familiar story aspects is quite on purpose and the reaction to it should be expected. The brain likes what it already knows, even if on a subconscious level. That pathway has already been formed in the past, so it triggers positive feelings in our memories. Is the writer exploiting this? Possibly. The purposefulness of the familiar stories is brought up in the show as Rust is talking about "time is a flat circle..." as we are repeating things that have already happened or will happen over and over again. The entire point of the show is summed up in the final conversation in it being about storytelling. Watching the truth of what happened at the Ledoux's place while the voiceover is telling a completely different story is one of the first hints towards that.

So combine great visuals, with great performances and set those against a story that is somewhat familiar and it just clicks with people and they get caught up in something that they really enjoy. Is that such a bad thing?

Malloy wrote:

Mecca wrote:

Malloy wrote:

Mecca wrote:

Malloy wrote:

Mecca wrote:

Malloy wrote:http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/television/2014/03/03/140303crte_television_nussbaum

A lazy and self-serving writer takes a line that was spoken once and wasn't that integral to the story/characters to bring them down a peg such as:

To state the obvious: while the male detectives of “True Detective” are avenging women and children, and bro-bonding over “crazy pussy,” every live woman they meet is paper-thin.

i think quibbling over the misappropriation of a line from the season misses the article's larger point

that the writer doesn't really like the show and thinks there are better things to watch? That's all well and good, but TD's greatness derives from the way it is shot, the performance of McConaughey and the storytelling in general. The article did nothing to dissuade me of that opinion.

i agree with you that in part nussbaum's argument is that there are "better" shows on television. in a certain way, that point is a criticism of the conversation surrounding True Detective. and i think it's valid, given how quickly viewers have been to anoint it best show ever.

and there's no denying that the shows aesthetics, narrative structure and acting by the two leads are great. in fact, i think nussbaum acknowledges those, but she doesn't belabor them, because everyone else already has. instead she points out structural problems, like rust as a character. and i think she's totally right to do that. it's much more interesting to me to think about why people would go in for a character like that, rather than how mcconaughey portrays him. untangling those two aspects may be impossible, but it's something to consider.

the "survivors" v. "witness" crystallizes (and to varying degrees resolves) the problems that nussbaum points out. if this is a show about witnesses, it makes some sense that the victims (primarily women and children) aren't heard from. but, were there not female witnesses, too?

this show isn't about witnesses per se, it is about two men and their story. There are very few shots through the entire show that do not include Marty or Rust for that reason.

yeah, i'm less convinced it's not about witnesses. it employs flashback in a really interesting way, such that what one tells v. what one saw (witnessed) becomes crucial, in terms of plot and theme.

my point was that the witnesses are Rust and Cohle. Without going through the entire show and making note of all of them (I've watched most episodes a few times, though) I can only count a handful of scenes that don't include them i.e. the two detectives investigating Rust asking Errol for directions, Reggie Ledoux walking out in the gas mask. I was more or less making a point as to why there is a lack of other witnesses.

Mecca wrote:RE: Anointing TD as the "best show ever"

The somewhat familiar story aspects is quite on purpose and the reaction to it should be expected. The brain likes what it already knows, even if on a subconscious level. That pathway has already been formed in the past, so it triggers positive feelings in our memories. Is the writer exploiting this? Possibly. The purposefulness of the familiar stories is brought up in the show as Rust is talking about "time is a flat circle..." as we are repeating things that have already happened or will happen over and over again. The entire point of the show is summed up in the final conversation in it being about storytelling. Watching the truth of what happened at the Ledoux's place while the voiceover is telling a completely different story is one of the first hints towards that.

So combine great visuals, with great performances and set those against a story that is somewhat familiar and it just clicks with people and they get caught up in something that they really enjoy. Is that such a bad thing?

i couldn't agree more about the familiarity, and a better example is the season's final scene. rust says it was about an old story, darkness and light, good and evil (forgive the paraphrasing, i only saw the episode once). it's charmingly modest, to end on such a simple note when notions of good and evil have been problematized all season.

i don't think that it's a bad thing that people like the show. there's plenty i've enjoyed. but i do care about great art, and think nussbaum has some good points on why this show may not be as brilliant as we might think. and yet there's no denying the use of flashback in the interrogation scenes is excellent. i am interested in thinking about why we like the stuff we like, and about putting lots of pressure on our defenses of those arguments, especially when the defense ("the show was about two guys, that's why there were no interesting girls,") are familiar. i think her article (and our discussion) enriches the conversation.

Mecca wrote:

Malloy wrote:

Mecca wrote:

Malloy wrote:

Mecca wrote:

Malloy wrote:

Mecca wrote:

Malloy wrote:http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/television/2014/03/03/140303crte_television_nussbaum

A lazy and self-serving writer takes a line that was spoken once and wasn't that integral to the story/characters to bring them down a peg such as:

To state the obvious: while the male detectives of “True Detective” are avenging women and children, and bro-bonding over “crazy pussy,” every live woman they meet is paper-thin.

i think quibbling over the misappropriation of a line from the season misses the article's larger point

that the writer doesn't really like the show and thinks there are better things to watch? That's all well and good, but TD's greatness derives from the way it is shot, the performance of McConaughey and the storytelling in general. The article did nothing to dissuade me of that opinion.

i agree with you that in part nussbaum's argument is that there are "better" shows on television. in a certain way, that point is a criticism of the conversation surrounding True Detective. and i think it's valid, given how quickly viewers have been to anoint it best show ever.

and there's no denying that the shows aesthetics, narrative structure and acting by the two leads are great. in fact, i think nussbaum acknowledges those, but she doesn't belabor them, because everyone else already has. instead she points out structural problems, like rust as a character. and i think she's totally right to do that. it's much more interesting to me to think about why people would go in for a character like that, rather than how mcconaughey portrays him. untangling those two aspects may be impossible, but it's something to consider.

the "survivors" v. "witness" crystallizes (and to varying degrees resolves) the problems that nussbaum points out. if this is a show about witnesses, it makes some sense that the victims (primarily women and children) aren't heard from. but, were there not female witnesses, too?

this show isn't about witnesses per se, it is about two men and their story. There are very few shots through the entire show that do not include Marty or Rust for that reason.

yeah, i'm less convinced it's not about witnesses. it employs flashback in a really interesting way, such that what one tells v. what one saw (witnessed) becomes crucial, in terms of plot and theme.

my point was that the witnesses are Rust and Cohle. Without going through the entire show and making note of all of them (I've watched most episodes a few times, though) I can only count a handful of scenes that don't include them i.e. the two detectives investigating Rust asking Errol for directions, Reggie Ledoux walking out in the gas mask. I was more or less making a point as to why there is a lack of other witnesses.

i take your point. but it is another version of a claim you made earlier: True Detective is a show about rust and marty's relationship. and yeah, it is that. and that's exactly the problem. because the show seemed interested in violence against women and children, and yet their accounts are fairly thin, to the point where it sort of perpetuates that silencing. it's a contradiction worth pointing out.

Malloy wrote:

Mecca wrote:

Malloy wrote:

Mecca wrote:

Malloy wrote:

Mecca wrote:

Malloy wrote:

Mecca wrote:

Malloy wrote:http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/television/2014/03/03/140303crte_television_nussbaum

A lazy and self-serving writer takes a line that was spoken once and wasn't that integral to the story/characters to bring them down a peg such as:

To state the obvious: while the male detectives of “True Detective” are avenging women and children, and bro-bonding over “crazy pussy,” every live woman they meet is paper-thin.

i think quibbling over the misappropriation of a line from the season misses the article's larger point

that the writer doesn't really like the show and thinks there are better things to watch? That's all well and good, but TD's greatness derives from the way it is shot, the performance of McConaughey and the storytelling in general. The article did nothing to dissuade me of that opinion.

i agree with you that in part nussbaum's argument is that there are "better" shows on television. in a certain way, that point is a criticism of the conversation surrounding True Detective. and i think it's valid, given how quickly viewers have been to anoint it best show ever.

and there's no denying that the shows aesthetics, narrative structure and acting by the two leads are great. in fact, i think nussbaum acknowledges those, but she doesn't belabor them, because everyone else already has. instead she points out structural problems, like rust as a character. and i think she's totally right to do that. it's much more interesting to me to think about why people would go in for a character like that, rather than how mcconaughey portrays him. untangling those two aspects may be impossible, but it's something to consider.

the "survivors" v. "witness" crystallizes (and to varying degrees resolves) the problems that nussbaum points out. if this is a show about witnesses, it makes some sense that the victims (primarily women and children) aren't heard from. but, were there not female witnesses, too?

this show isn't about witnesses per se, it is about two men and their story. There are very few shots through the entire show that do not include Marty or Rust for that reason.

yeah, i'm less convinced it's not about witnesses. it employs flashback in a really interesting way, such that what one tells v. what one saw (witnessed) becomes crucial, in terms of plot and theme.

my point was that the witnesses are Rust and Cohle. Without going through the entire show and making note of all of them (I've watched most episodes a few times, though) I can only count a handful of scenes that don't include them i.e. the two detectives investigating Rust asking Errol for directions, Reggie Ledoux walking out in the gas mask. I was more or less making a point as to why there is a lack of other witnesses.

i take your point. but it is another version of a claim you made earlier: True Detective is a show about rust and marty's relationship. and yeah, it is that. and that's exactly the problem. because the show seemed interested in violence against women and children, and yet their accounts are fairly thin, to the point where it sort of perpetuates that silencing. it's a contradiction worth pointing out.

and to quickly tack this on: i think there are varying degrees in the term "witness." marty and rust witnessed the most, and that's why they are the main characters. totally fine. but i'd claim that there are other witnesses, and the show could gesture toward the complexity of their witnesses.

Malloy wrote:

Mecca wrote:

Malloy wrote:

Mecca wrote:

Malloy wrote:

Mecca wrote:

Malloy wrote:

Mecca wrote:

Malloy wrote:http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/television/2014/03/03/140303crte_television_nussbaum

A lazy and self-serving writer takes a line that was spoken once and wasn't that integral to the story/characters to bring them down a peg such as:

To state the obvious: while the male detectives of “True Detective” are avenging women and children, and bro-bonding over “crazy pussy,” every live woman they meet is paper-thin.

i think quibbling over the misappropriation of a line from the season misses the article's larger point

that the writer doesn't really like the show and thinks there are better things to watch? That's all well and good, but TD's greatness derives from the way it is shot, the performance of McConaughey and the storytelling in general. The article did nothing to dissuade me of that opinion.

i agree with you that in part nussbaum's argument is that there are "better" shows on television. in a certain way, that point is a criticism of the conversation surrounding True Detective. and i think it's valid, given how quickly viewers have been to anoint it best show ever.

and there's no denying that the shows aesthetics, narrative structure and acting by the two leads are great. in fact, i think nussbaum acknowledges those, but she doesn't belabor them, because everyone else already has. instead she points out structural problems, like rust as a character. and i think she's totally right to do that. it's much more interesting to me to think about why people would go in for a character like that, rather than how mcconaughey portrays him. untangling those two aspects may be impossible, but it's something to consider.

the "survivors" v. "witness" crystallizes (and to varying degrees resolves) the problems that nussbaum points out. if this is a show about witnesses, it makes some sense that the victims (primarily women and children) aren't heard from. but, were there not female witnesses, too?

this show isn't about witnesses per se, it is about two men and their story. There are very few shots through the entire show that do not include Marty or Rust for that reason.

yeah, i'm less convinced it's not about witnesses. it employs flashback in a really interesting way, such that what one tells v. what one saw (witnessed) becomes crucial, in terms of plot and theme.

my point was that the witnesses are Rust and Cohle. Without going through the entire show and making note of all of them (I've watched most episodes a few times, though) I can only count a handful of scenes that don't include them i.e. the two detectives investigating Rust asking Errol for directions, Reggie Ledoux walking out in the gas mask. I was more or less making a point as to why there is a lack of other witnesses.

i take your point. but it is another version of a claim you made earlier: True Detective is a show about rust and marty's relationship. and yeah, it is that. and that's exactly the problem. because the show seemed interested in violence against women and children, and yet their accounts are fairly thin, to the point where it sort of perpetuates that silencing. it's a contradiction worth pointing out.

Is that really a contradiction? You're just arguing against the perspective of the piece. Going into the accounts of women and children shifts the perspective of the story, which is the choice of the writer. Perhaps all he had to say about violence specific to women and children is its wrong because that shows where Rust and Marty align on the spectrum of Light vs. Darkness. It could also be playing into the part of a "white male savior" that we've seen many times before, which going back to a previous argument makes us like it because we've seen it before and it gives the white male audience something to identify with or aspire to (good or bad as that is).

Mecca wrote:

Malloy wrote:

Mecca wrote:

Malloy wrote:

Mecca wrote:

Malloy wrote:

Mecca wrote:

Malloy wrote:

Mecca wrote:

Malloy wrote:http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/television/2014/03/03/140303crte_television_nussbaum

A lazy and self-serving writer takes a line that was spoken once and wasn't that integral to the story/characters to bring them down a peg such as:

To state the obvious: while the male detectives of “True Detective” are avenging women and children, and bro-bonding over “crazy pussy,” every live woman they meet is paper-thin.

i think quibbling over the misappropriation of a line from the season misses the article's larger point

that the writer doesn't really like the show and thinks there are better things to watch? That's all well and good, but TD's greatness derives from the way it is shot, the performance of McConaughey and the storytelling in general. The article did nothing to dissuade me of that opinion.

i agree with you that in part nussbaum's argument is that there are "better" shows on television. in a certain way, that point is a criticism of the conversation surrounding True Detective. and i think it's valid, given how quickly viewers have been to anoint it best show ever.

and there's no denying that the shows aesthetics, narrative structure and acting by the two leads are great. in fact, i think nussbaum acknowledges those, but she doesn't belabor them, because everyone else already has. instead she points out structural problems, like rust as a character. and i think she's totally right to do that. it's much more interesting to me to think about why people would go in for a character like that, rather than how mcconaughey portrays him. untangling those two aspects may be impossible, but it's something to consider.

the "survivors" v. "witness" crystallizes (and to varying degrees resolves) the problems that nussbaum points out. if this is a show about witnesses, it makes some sense that the victims (primarily women and children) aren't heard from. but, were there not female witnesses, too?

this show isn't about witnesses per se, it is about two men and their story. There are very few shots through the entire show that do not include Marty or Rust for that reason.

yeah, i'm less convinced it's not about witnesses. it employs flashback in a really interesting way, such that what one tells v. what one saw (witnessed) becomes crucial, in terms of plot and theme.

my point was that the witnesses are Rust and Cohle. Without going through the entire show and making note of all of them (I've watched most episodes a few times, though) I can only count a handful of scenes that don't include them i.e. the two detectives investigating Rust asking Errol for directions, Reggie Ledoux walking out in the gas mask. I was more or less making a point as to why there is a lack of other witnesses.

i take your point. but it is another version of a claim you made earlier: True Detective is a show about rust and marty's relationship. and yeah, it is that. and that's exactly the problem. because the show seemed interested in violence against women and children, and yet their accounts are fairly thin, to the point where it sort of perpetuates that silencing. it's a contradiction worth pointing out.

Is that really a contradiction? You're just arguing against the perspective of the piece. Going into the accounts of women and children shifts the perspective of the story, which is the choice of the writer. Perhaps all he had to say about violence specific to women and children is its wrong because that shows where Rust and Marty align on the spectrum of Light vs. Darkness. It could also be playing into the part of a "white male savior" that we've seen many times before, which going back to a previous argument makes us like it because we've seen it before and it gives the white male audience something to identify with or aspire to (good or bad as that is).

sorry if i wasn't clear. that's exactly what i'm doing. i'm questioning the theoretical or structural underpinnings of the show. and if True Detective is about satisfying a particular demographic, then i'm much more disappointed than i was previously.

Malloy wrote:

Mecca wrote:

Malloy wrote:

Mecca wrote:

Malloy wrote:

Mecca wrote:

Malloy wrote:

Mecca wrote:

Malloy wrote:

Mecca wrote:

Malloy wrote:http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/television/2014/03/03/140303crte_television_nussbaum

A lazy and self-serving writer takes a line that was spoken once and wasn't that integral to the story/characters to bring them down a peg such as:

To state the obvious: while the male detectives of “True Detective” are avenging women and children, and bro-bonding over “crazy pussy,” every live woman they meet is paper-thin.

i think quibbling over the misappropriation of a line from the season misses the article's larger point

that the writer doesn't really like the show and thinks there are better things to watch? That's all well and good, but TD's greatness derives from the way it is shot, the performance of McConaughey and the storytelling in general. The article did nothing to dissuade me of that opinion.

i agree with you that in part nussbaum's argument is that there are "better" shows on television. in a certain way, that point is a criticism of the conversation surrounding True Detective. and i think it's valid, given how quickly viewers have been to anoint it best show ever.

and there's no denying that the shows aesthetics, narrative structure and acting by the two leads are great. in fact, i think nussbaum acknowledges those, but she doesn't belabor them, because everyone else already has. instead she points out structural problems, like rust as a character. and i think she's totally right to do that. it's much more interesting to me to think about why people would go in for a character like that, rather than how mcconaughey portrays him. untangling those two aspects may be impossible, but it's something to consider.

the "survivors" v. "witness" crystallizes (and to varying degrees resolves) the problems that nussbaum points out. if this is a show about witnesses, it makes some sense that the victims (primarily women and children) aren't heard from. but, were there not female witnesses, too?

this show isn't about witnesses per se, it is about two men and their story. There are very few shots through the entire show that do not include Marty or Rust for that reason.

yeah, i'm less convinced it's not about witnesses. it employs flashback in a really interesting way, such that what one tells v. what one saw (witnessed) becomes crucial, in terms of plot and theme.

my point was that the witnesses are Rust and Cohle. Without going through the entire show and making note of all of them (I've watched most episodes a few times, though) I can only count a handful of scenes that don't include them i.e. the two detectives investigating Rust asking Errol for directions, Reggie Ledoux walking out in the gas mask. I was more or less making a point as to why there is a lack of other witnesses.

i take your point. but it is another version of a claim you made earlier: True Detective is a show about rust and marty's relationship. and yeah, it is that. and that's exactly the problem. because the show seemed interested in violence against women and children, and yet their accounts are fairly thin, to the point where it sort of perpetuates that silencing. it's a contradiction worth pointing out.

Is that really a contradiction? You're just arguing against the perspective of the piece. Going into the accounts of women and children shifts the perspective of the story, which is the choice of the writer. Perhaps all he had to say about violence specific to women and children is its wrong because that shows where Rust and Marty align on the spectrum of Light vs. Darkness. It could also be playing into the part of a "white male savior" that we've seen many times before, which going back to a previous argument makes us like it because we've seen it before and it gives the white male audience something to identify with or aspire to (good or bad as that is).

sorry if i wasn't clear. that's exactly what i'm doing. i'm questioning the theoretical or structural underpinnings of the show. and if True Detective is about satisfying a particular demographic, then i'm much more disappointed than i was previously.

I don't think it was meant to pander to a demographic, only saying that it does. I think you're critiquing it for not answering questions it never intended to answer.

I think it was written to satisfy (and at times critique) a particular genre that may lean towards a certain demographic.

I think the character of Maggie has been sorely under-valued by critics of the show. I don't see her has being thinly-written at all. She's by far the most developed character besides the two leads. There's really no one else on the show that comes close to those three. Which makes sense; it's a two-character play as opposed to an ensemble piece in the vein of The Wire, or even Breaking Bad. The anthology aspect of it makes this even more pronounced; it's advantage is that it can tell a complete story without having to extend it beyond it's shelf life into multiple seasons. The downside is that you can't really make a full ensemble of fully developed characters with eight episodes. Vice versa for the advantages and disadvantages of a long-running series with an ensemble cast; yeah, you have the ability to fully flesh out a large number of characters but you run the risk of letting the seams show in the plotting if the show runs for too long.

Malloy wrote:

Mecca wrote:

Malloy wrote:

Mecca wrote:

Malloy wrote:

Mecca wrote:

Malloy wrote:

Mecca wrote:

Malloy wrote:http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/television/2014/03/03/140303crte_television_nussbaum

A lazy and self-serving writer takes a line that was spoken once and wasn't that integral to the story/characters to bring them down a peg such as:

To state the obvious: while the male detectives of “True Detective” are avenging women and children, and bro-bonding over “crazy pussy,” every live woman they meet is paper-thin.

i think quibbling over the misappropriation of a line from the season misses the article's larger point

that the writer doesn't really like the show and thinks there are better things to watch? That's all well and good, but TD's greatness derives from the way it is shot, the performance of McConaughey and the storytelling in general. The article did nothing to dissuade me of that opinion.

i agree with you that in part nussbaum's argument is that there are "better" shows on television. in a certain way, that point is a criticism of the conversation surrounding True Detective. and i think it's valid, given how quickly viewers have been to anoint it best show ever.

and there's no denying that the shows aesthetics, narrative structure and acting by the two leads are great. in fact, i think nussbaum acknowledges those, but she doesn't belabor them, because everyone else already has. instead she points out structural problems, like rust as a character. and i think she's totally right to do that. it's much more interesting to me to think about why people would go in for a character like that, rather than how mcconaughey portrays him. untangling those two aspects may be impossible, but it's something to consider.

the "survivors" v. "witness" crystallizes (and to varying degrees resolves) the problems that nussbaum points out. if this is a show about witnesses, it makes some sense that the victims (primarily women and children) aren't heard from. but, were there not female witnesses, too?

this show isn't about witnesses per se, it is about two men and their story. There are very few shots through the entire show that do not include Marty or Rust for that reason.

yeah, i'm less convinced it's not about witnesses. it employs flashback in a really interesting way, such that what one tells v. what one saw (witnessed) becomes crucial, in terms of plot and theme.

my point was that the witnesses are Rust and Cohle. Without going through the entire show and making note of all of them (I've watched most episodes a few times, though) I can only count a handful of scenes that don't include them i.e. the two detectives investigating Rust asking Errol for directions, Reggie Ledoux walking out in the gas mask. I was more or less making a point as to why there is a lack of other witnesses.

i take your point. but it is another version of a claim you made earlier: True Detective is a show about rust and marty's relationship. and yeah, it is that. and that's exactly the problem. because the show seemed interested in violence against women and children, and yet their accounts are fairly thin, to the point where it sort of perpetuates that silencing. it's a contradiction worth pointing out.

The show is not just about Rust & Marty's relationship, but also their relationship with others and the repercussions of those "contradictions". The show is very aware of those contradictions, especially Marty's, one minute a prideful hero taking down murdering rapists, the next minute a misogynistic pig. It's not silencing the discussion, but makes it known (or should make it known) to the viewer that they should loosen the grip when embracing these men. They are heroes, but very flawed heroes who affect the people in their personal lives. And they do it "over & over & over again". I wish Nussbaum would finish the show, because it took a near death experience for both men to step out of that 'flat circle' (that Cohle said he wanted to do, even to the point of carrying out his own "crucifixion" to do it).

This show is so layered. And Nussbaum took a wrongful knee-jerk reaction the the material.

True Detective was a character driven show.. with 2 central characters. 85% of the show focused on them at work, and things directly related to work. I imagine the Louisiana State Police Detective Bureau is not over flowing with female detectives, especially in 1995. The other 15% of the show is focused still on those two characters, but developing their flaws. I'm not sure how a strong female character would have helped developed that part of their personality. The women on the show were "paper thin" as has been stated, but I think they were that way as a development piece. Marty would not have seemed as "damaged" if he was having an affair with a smart, strong business woman. It cemented his character, despite appearing as the "family man," as a scum bag.

In reality there were what, 3 women on the show with more than 2 lines? His Wife, Daddario and the T-Mobile Girl. Two of them existed essentially to serve as physical representations of Marty's demons. He preyed upon the damaged is what I got out of them. His wife obviously was a different story, and I didn't really see her come off as one dimensional like some of the critiques have stated. While they could have made Maggie more outwardly angry throughout, or gone a different direction for her character. But I found her to be a very believable, grounded character. A normal mother and wife with a life that changed on her, through no fault of her own. What strength should she have had? Not taking him back? Giving up on him entirely?

And I think digster made some very good points. This was 8 episodes, and a very ambitious story for so few episodes. The decision was made, intentionally, to isolate these 2 main characters from essentially the rest of the world. Especially the world we know. In so few episodes you don't get the opportunity to properly flesh out other characters. The other characters on a show with such a short run exist purely to provide the conflict to further explain the leads motivations and character. I think spending any more time developing Maggie, or making Martys mistresses more "deep" would have ultimately taken away from the time needed to properly let us understand Marty and Rust. If this show had any desire to make Marty and Rust last multiple seasons, then yes, they would have had to further explain the peripheral characters, but in this case, I didn't want anything to distract from the business at hand.