• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

True Detective - McConaughey/Harrelson crime series - S2 starts June 21st

Status
Not open for further replies.
You and I have already discussed this, and I don't believe you're being a contrarian for its own sake, but I do disagree. I actually enjoy the moments when it lingers on Rust as he speaks, if only because he is acting and speaking the dialogue so well.

I don't think that a lack of "visual craft" for these scenes detracts from them. Some of my favorite philosophical/spiritual monologues or scenes from Bergman or Tchaikovsky linger on the speaker, many times for long takes. FWIW, they also use voiceover over imagery, as well.

I don't necessarily think one is more "cinematic" than the other.

I don't think one is more "cinematic" than the other either. I just think one would integrate better into the show as it is. I enjoy the moments lingered on rust too. Its some incredible acting. I just think as a filmmaker (im not a filmmaker) its more digestible to disconnect those monologues from the explicit narrative.
 
I thought it was rumored to be California. Sounds a bit boring, but it's a pretty big state and I'm sure there are interesting and underused areas in it if it's true.
California could be great as long as they stay away from LA/SD/SF
LA can be an incredible location. You just need to have a director like Michael Mann with an eye to make it pop.
nah, done to death. Use some more interesting areas.
Las Vegas could be interesting but that's just me. A lot of that town has no soul but it has so many pretty lights etc. that it might just work. Northern California might also be good.
Las Vegas seems pretty over used as well to me. But maybe I'm just being pessimistic. The location doesn't really matter in the end I think, it is more about the writing and acting that fills the location.
 
I saw Take Shelter a few weeks a go and I'd like to see Jeff Nichols direct the next season with Michael Shannon and Joaquin Phoenix. Plenty of insanity for everyone..
 
I thought it was rumored to be California. Sounds a bit boring, but it's a pretty big state and I'm sure there are interesting and underused areas in it if it's true.

Ehhh. I was hoping for open country-style Texas, personally, but I don't think it'll happen anymore.

I'd like it to be set in a place you don't readily think about. Detroit, Oklahoma City, a Former Steel Mill Town, etc

That'd be neat, yeah.
 
I don't think one is more "cinematic" than the other either. I just think one would integrate better into the show as it is. I enjoy the moments lingered on rust too. Its some incredible acting. I just think as a filmmaker (im not a filmmaker) its more digestible to disconnect those monologues from the explicit narrative.

I think the monologues are important to the story they want to tell and how they want to tell it though. There is no technique in filmmaking that is better or worse universally, it depends on intent. The intent of the monologues in True Detective is quite clear to me. Allowing the characters in 2012 to just talk it out and go on and on about both their recollection of what happened, as well as their reflection on what they think of life right now, is a way to show the characters themselves digesting what the audience is also seeing. It's cathartic. To disconnect that is to change the narrative itself.

When Cohle talks about that shit in a normal setting, like in the flashbacks, there is always an interruption or reaction from someone else, because that's how characters in the show react to that sort of thing. Allowing him to go on and on about it in the interview shows that the detectives have a keen interest in trying to understand this man, while also being put off by the things he is saying. I'm sure that the intention is also to have the audience be a little put off by how "difficult" some of what he says is. You can either choose to listen to him ramble and find meaning and intellect in what he says, even if you disagree with the conclusions, or you can be turned off and find him a self-absorbed and appalling person who just won't shut the fuck up. Either reaction is a form of connecting with the character, and that plays into exactly what the show is about.

Marty says a lot of terrible hypocritical things too. He goes on and on about stability, the importance of family, whole bunch of crap that we know he doesn't really practice but it's something he likes to say to believe that he's a better person than he is. But I think generally all that is just more relatable to a normal person, and hence there's a more positive connection to how he presents it. He's a dipshit, but at least he's a dipshit we all understand and relate to. Cohle is a less ordinary person, and I think that makes him more misunderstood. I wouldn't say it's a flaw in the presentation though. The show is just being consistent in that regard, and it's fine if people find Marty more natural a person than Cohle because we judge people based on what we ourselves have experienced and understand.
 
Marty's daughter too.

I'm worried for Audrey, although I'm still trying to understand why she went off the rails. I don't think it's just Marty's poor fathering or his relationship problems with Maggie, although that may be part of it. The first worrying incident was the barbie gangbang diorama she made after the trip to Marty's in-laws.

Then we see she's made a spiral drawing similar to the ones found on people connected to the case, which I believe is another reference to 'The King in Yellow's 'Repairer of Reputations' story in which the 'Yellow Sign' is described as giving the Yellow King and his heirs some form of sinister mind-control on anyone who possesses it.

Then we hear Marty talking about how his greatest sin was being inattentive to his family, cut with the transition from Audrey as an innocent child to the hyper sexualised and rebellious girl who is caught having a threesome at 15 yrs old. The thing is, I'm not sure whether Marty is referring to: this specific incident, her loss of innocence in general, what made her become this way or something worse that happens as a result of her behaviour but we don't know about yet (i.e. her running away or something).

As to what made her act this way, molestation is the easiest answer but the list of potential perpetrators is limited. It did all start after she visited her grandfather's house, after all. Perhaps this accounts for the strange resonance of that scene, where Marty's father-in-law ranted about the decadence of young people while his Audrey's crying about the tangled fish hooks went ignored.
 
I'm worried for Audrey, although I'm still trying to understand why she went off the rails. The first worrying incident was the barbie gangbang diorama she made after the trip to Marty's in-laws.

Then we see she's made a spiral drawing similar to the ones found on people connected to the case, which I believe is another reference to 'The King in Yellow's 'Repairer of Reputations' story in which the 'Yellow Sign' is described as giving the Yellow King and his heirs some form of sinister mind-control on anyone who possesses it.

Then we hear Marty talking about how his greatest sin was being inattentive to his family, cut with the transition from Audrey as an innocent child to the hyper sexualised and rebellious girl who is caught having a threesome at 15 yrs old. The thing is, I'm not sure whether Marty is referring to: this specific incident, her loss of innocence in general, what made her become this way or something worse that happens as a result of her behaviour but we don't know about yet (i.e. her running away or something).

As to what made her act this way, molestation is the easiest answer but the list of potential perpetrators is limited. It did all start after she visited her grandfather's house, after all. Perhaps this accounts for the strange resonance of that scene, where Marty's father-in-law ranted about the decadence of young people while his Audrey's crying about the tangled fish hooks went ignored.

I didn't read it as being a single incident... I mean, he straight up says he was inattentive. he wasn't a good father. what's there to explain?
 
I think the monologues are important to the story they want to tell and how they want to tell it though. There is no technique in filmmaking that is better or worse universally, it depends on intent. The intent of the monologues in True Detective is quite clear to me. Allowing the characters in 2012 to just talk it out and go on and on about both their recollection of what happened, as well as their reflection on what they think of life right now, is a way to show the characters themselves digesting what the audience is also seeing. It's cathartic. To disconnect that is to change the narrative itself.

When Cohle talks about that shit in a normal setting, like in the flashbacks, there is always an interruption or reaction from someone else, because that's how characters in the show react to that sort of thing. Allowing him to go on and on about it in the interview shows that the detectives have a keen interest in trying to understand this man, while also being put off by the things he is saying. I'm sure that the intention is also to have the audience be a little put off by how "difficult" some of what he says is. You can either choose to listen to him ramble and find meaning and intellect in what he says, even if you disagree with the conclusions, or you can be turned off and find him a self-absorbed and appalling person who just won't shut the fuck up. Either reaction is a form of connecting with the character, and that plays into exactly what the show is about.

Marty says a lot of terrible hypocritical things too. He goes on and on about stability, the importance of family, whole bunch of crap that we know he doesn't really practice but it's something he likes to say to believe that he's a better person than he is. But I think generally all that is just more relatable to a normal person, and hence there's a more positive connection to how he presents it. He's a dipshit, but at least he's a dipshit we all understand and relate to. Cohle is a less ordinary person, and I think that makes him more misunderstood. I wouldn't say it's a flaw in the presentation though. The show is just being consistent in that regard, and it's fine if people find Marty more natural a person than Cohle because we judge people based on what we ourselves have experienced and understand.

Very astute, and I totally agree. There is a reason for the monologues and how they're being used. And it's incredibly effective. We're gaining a greater perspective of the characters by looking back on the events and how they now interpret them.

Time is a flat circle, as we know.
 
I think the monologues are important to the story they want to tell and how they want to tell it though. There is no technique in filmmaking that is better or worse universally, it depends on intent. The intent of the monologues in True Detective is quite clear to me. Allowing the characters in 2012 to just talk it out and go on and on about both their recollection of what happened, as well as their reflection on what they think of life right now, is a way to show the characters themselves digesting what the audience is also seeing. It's cathartic. To disconnect that is to change the narrative itself.

When Cohle talks about that shit in a normal setting, like in the flashbacks, there is always an interruption or reaction from someone else, because that's how characters in the show react to that sort of thing. Allowing him to go on and on about it in the interview shows that the detectives have a keen interest in trying to understand this man, while also being put off by the things he is saying. I'm sure that the intention is also to have the audience be a little put off by how "difficult" some of what he says is. You can either choose to listen to him ramble and find meaning and intellect in what he says, even if you disagree with the conclusions, or you can be turned off and find him a self-absorbed and appalling person who just won't shut the fuck up. Either reaction is a form of connecting with the character, and that plays into exactly what the show is about.

Marty says a lot of terrible hypocritical things too. He goes on and on about stability, the importance of family, whole bunch of crap that we know he doesn't really practice but it's something he likes to say to believe that he's a better person than he is. But I think generally all that is just more relatable to a normal person, and hence there's a more positive connection to how he presents it. He's a dipshit, but at least he's a dipshit we all understand and relate to. Cohle is a less ordinary person, and I think that makes him more misunderstood. I wouldn't say it's a flaw in the presentation though. The show is just being consistent in that regard, and it's fine if people find Marty more natural a person than Cohle because we judge people based on what we ourselves have experienced and understand.

Nice post.

Is it sad that I relate to Cohle more than Marty though?
 
I'm worried for Audrey, although I'm still trying to understand why she went off the rails. I don't think it's just Marty's poor fathering or his relationship problems with Maggie, although that may be part of it. The first worrying incident was the barbie gangbang diorama she made after the trip to Marty's in-laws.

That actually happened?

The scene seemed surreal (little girl making a barbie gangbang scene) so I thought Marty was imagining it.
 
If something does happen to Marty's daughter, I don't think it has happened yet. You would think that if one of his daughters were murdered, that would be something the interview brought up. The show doesn't actively hide common information. Most of the highlights in their lives were brought up long before they were actually shown. Unless it wasn't a murder and was seen as a sort of accident, which they wouldn't focus on out of respect. Especially if it happened after he and Cohle broke up. I guess we'll see. I wonder if we'll actually see the daughters again in the present timeline. In 2012 they would be in their mid-20s.
 
Nice post.

Is it sad that I relate to Cohle more than Marty though?

I don't think so. I think Rust is a far more sympathetic character than Marty. They've gone to great lengths to show just how much of a hypocrite Marty is.
 
If something does happen to Marty's daughter, I don't think it has happened yet. You would think that if one of his daughters were murdered, that would be something the interview brought up. The show doesn't actively hide common information. Most of the highlights in their lives were brought up long before they were actually shown. Unless it wasn't a murder and was seen as a sort of accident, which they wouldn't focus on out of respect. Especially if it happened after he and Cohle broke up. I guess we'll see. I wonder if we'll actually see the daughters again in the present timeline. In 2012 they would be in their mid-20s.

in the promo for episode 6 :
there is a girl in her underwear looking in the mirror and talking on the phone. Is this the daughter or Daddario?
 
I didn't read it as being a single incident... I mean, he straight up says he was inattentive. he wasn't a good father. what's there to explain?

It's just the fact that he stresses it was a worse mistake than his infidelity, yet, despite the ominous behaviour Audrey has displayed so far, nothing that bad has happened to her so far.
 
It's just the fact that he stresses it was a worse mistake than his infidelity, yet, despite the ominous behaviour Audrey has displayed so far, nothing that bad has happened to her so far.

to me, I read that as—his infidelity was a one-off mistake. something that could be reduced to a single night, a single person. (even if was ongoing, but you know what I mean) but to neglect your children, your family over the course of their entire lives... I can see how that would have a much larger emotional resonance. plus, I think it's fair to say that a parent usually has a far more unconditional love for their children than their spouse, so Marty would have far more regret about being a bad parent than a bad husband
 
I don't think one is more "cinematic" than the other either. I just think one would integrate better into the show as it is. I enjoy the moments lingered on rust too. Its some incredible acting. I just think as a filmmaker (im not a filmmaker) its more digestible to disconnect those monologues from the explicit narrative.

Fair enough. Considering how well they've done the kind of sequences you described (Marty voiceover the children/crown scene), I can see why you'd feel this way, even if I don't completely agree.
If something does happen to Marty's daughter, I don't think it has happened yet. You would think that if one of his daughters were murdered, that would be something the interview brought up. The show doesn't actively hide common information. Most of the highlights in their lives were brought up long before they were actually shown. Unless it wasn't a murder and was seen as a sort of accident, which they wouldn't focus on out of respect. Especially if it happened after he and Cohle broke up. I guess we'll see. I wonder if we'll actually see the daughters again in the present timeline. In 2012 they would be in their mid-20s.

Yeah, I'm not seeing anything bad happening to Marty's family prior to 2012 unless it was an accident that Marty just doesn't want brought up.
 
If something does happen to Marty's daughter, I don't think it has happened yet. You would think that if one of his daughters were murdered, that would be something the interview brought up. The show doesn't actively hide common information. Most of the highlights in their lives were brought up long before they were actually shown. Unless it wasn't a murder and was seen as a sort of accident, which they wouldn't focus on out of respect. Especially if it happened after he and Cohle broke up. I guess we'll see. I wonder if we'll actually see the daughters again in the present timeline. In 2012 they would be in their mid-20s.

I think she's ran away. The fact they explicitly showed her as unable to find solace in her mother after Marty slapped her, despite her begging, is evidence for this.
 
personally, I would be very disappointed if they reduced Marty's relationship with his daughter to a single flashpoint. that would feel mechanical and plotty in a way that I don't think this show has really shown itself to be so far, so I'd be surprised if they went that route
 
It's just the fact that he stresses it was a worse mistake than his infidelity, yet, despite the ominous behaviour Audrey has displayed so far, nothing that bad has happened to her so far.

It's worth noting that we don't know the state of Marty's family life in 2012 though. That could be a big factor to how he assesses his own quality of life, and the mistakes he made in the past. He is a very self-centered individual too, so when he said that the solution to his whole life was right under his nose, I took that to mean that he was lamenting that if he paid more attention to what was happening at home, things would not have turned out this way for him.

Now, it could still mean that someone terrible happened to one of his daughters, because that would still be awful for him, since he views his family as possessions of sort. Happy and obedient wife and daughters is what makes Marty a happy father figure and husband. On the other hand, nothing terrible might have happened to her other than a breakdown between father and daughter, leading her to run away from home and creating more tension which eventually broke up his "perfect" family unit. That would be awful for Marty too, because he's always thinking in terms of how things relate to him.

I think she's ran away. The fact they explicitly showed her as unable to find solace in her mother after Marty slapped her, despite her begging, is evidence for this.

Yeah, I agree that's one of the possibilities. I type too much sometimes. Lol. :)
 
personally, I would be very disappointed if they reduced Marty's relationship with his daughter to a single flashpoint. that would feel mechanical and plotty in a way that I don't think this show has really shown itself to be so far, so I'd be surprised if they went that route

I don't think it would be a flashpoint, I think they've been building up to something major happening with his daughter since his flippant reaction to her assembling that barbie diorama in the first episode.
 
When Cohle talks about that shit in a normal setting, like in the flashbacks, there is always an interruption or reaction from someone else, because that's how characters in the show react to that sort of thing. Allowing him to go on and on about it in the interview shows that the detectives have a keen interest in trying to understand this man, while also being put off by the things he is saying. I'm sure that the intention is also to have the audience be a little put off by how "difficult" some of what he says is. You can either choose to listen to him ramble and find meaning and intellect in what he says, even if you disagree with the conclusions, or you can be turned off and find him a self-absorbed and appalling person who just won't shut the fuck up. Either reaction is a form of connecting with the character, and that plays into exactly what the show is about.

I don't disagree, but I guess my posts/critiques are just coming from a different place. Every interpretation thats been offered up to me as a counterpoint is completely true. There are a million ways to interpret the monologues. They bug me. But thats just me

As has already been echoed, I appreciate your insight but maaaan it would just work better as a singular object if these monologues were further removed from the explicit narrative. We'd gain everything we already have from them, but we'd lose nothing.
Fair enough. Considering how well they've done the kind of sequences you described (Marty voiceover the children/crown scene), I can see why you'd feel this way, even if I don't completely agree.

Thank you! I know you don't endorse my posts, but at least I'm not crazy.
 
I don't disagree, but I guess my posts/critiques are just coming from a different place. Every interpretation thats been offered up to me as a counterpoint is completely true. There are a million ways to interpret the monologues. They bug me. But thats just me

As has already been echoed, I appreciate your insight but maaaan it would just work better as a singular object if these monologues were further removed from the explicit narrative. We'd gain everything we already have from them, but we'd lose nothing.


Thank you! I know you don't endorse my posts, but at least I'm not crazy.

I'm not calling you out but I'm curious if you have any ideas how you would approach them? I think disconnecting them from the narrative would be detrimental to what is trying to be done.
 
I don't suspect the father in law at all, and I think people have been conditioned by "twists" in television that they're trying to make it fit the narrative. There's really nothing that has been hinted at there imo.
 
I'm not calling you out but I'm curious if you have any ideas how you would approach them? I think disconnecting them from the narrative would be detrimental to what is trying to be done.

As I've said about five times I would present them as nonsequitorial interstitials between key scenes used to convey the tone and overall feel of the show. Rather than the show lingering on what are narratively unimportant scenes that afford MM time to deliver these monologues. I just think it would work better if all the pretext was dropped and the show just cut to imagery unrelated but thematically relevant to the plot while these monologues play over them.

I've been saying it for like 5 weeks now. I like the show.


At this point I feel my stance has been pursued to the point where when I say "would work better" its being interpreted as "this show is shit because of.."
 
personally, I would be very disappointed if they reduced Marty's relationship with his daughter to a single flashpoint. that would feel mechanical and plotty in a way that I don't think this show has really shown itself to be so far, so I'd be surprised if they went that route

Let's not forget the drawings in her notebook as well.

That revelation was my first real red flag. Marty's wife was quite clear that his response to it was less than satisfying.
 
As I've said about five times I would present them as nonsequitorial interstitials between key scenes used to convey the tone and overall feel of the show. Rather than the show lingering on what are narratively unimportant scenes that afford MM time to deliver these monologues. I just think it would work better if all the pretext was dropped and the show just cut to imagery unrelated but thematically relevant to the plot while these monologues play over them.

I've been saying it for like 5 weeks now. I like the show.


At this point I feel my stance has been pursued to the point where when I say "would work better" its being interpreted as "this show is shit because of.."

Not at all, I was just curious - I didn't realize you had already mentioned it a few times as I don't follow the thread regularly, so my apologies. Thanks for clarifying though.
 
Finally caught the last episode. Yeah. There's too much to say without much new to add, though I will say I love the monologues. Rust did finally go past the point where I agreed with him, but it's a wonderfully nightmarish philosophy he and the yellow king have.

Trying to figure out how to describe what I love most about the show, and it's just the fact that it's dark and clever and so painfully morose. As if the universe it exists in is submerged in a bubble of viscous despair.
 
I don't disagree, but I guess my posts/critiques are just coming from a different place. Every interpretation thats been offered up to me as a counterpoint is completely true. There are a million ways to interpret the monologues. They bug me. But thats just me

As has already been echoed, I appreciate your insight but maaaan it would just work better as a singular object if these monologues were further removed from the explicit narrative. We'd gain everything we already have from them, but we'd lose nothing.


Thank you! I know you don't endorse my posts, but at least I'm not crazy.

Well, obviously you're not crazy, but let me try and give an example of what we actually do lose from the narrative if some of Cohle's monologues are disconnected in the way the Marty contemplation was.

Marty's rationalizations come from how he views society and what it means to him. The visual narrative constructed in the show often shows us that his thoughts come from raw emotions even the dishonest ones. We hear him talking about stability and family, while seeing him commit adultery and rage about it. We hear him talking about how fragile life is and how he let it all slip away, while seeing children grow up and change while the adults don't notice. That portrays him as a creature of society. He wants to be part of it, his thoughts and contradictions come from his feelings. Things which aren't scientific but an instinct of being a human.

Cohle on the other hand is a very different beast. The show deliberately takes the time to portray the two characters differently, and the visual narrative also carries a different style. This is important because it helps further separate two characters not just in the story and the development of their characters, but also in the visual presentation of their psychology. By presenting most of Cohle's monologues straight as it is, with the camera focused on his face as he just talks and talks in the interview room, I think the show is also telling us something. It tells us that Cohle's conclusions and philosophy do not have a basis in actual emotional attachment, and the rationalization is entirely intellectual in nature. These are things he has thought about, read about, studied about, and considered, and decided they made sense and there is logic to them. What does this mean for the character? I think it means that we're not being allowed into his mind.

There is a deliberate attempt not to associate his words with emotional concepts disconnected from what he says because that in itself is the point. Could Cohle just be sprouting all this stuff to throw people off? To make them think he's a wacko? Maybe, probably not, but maybe. Does Cohle really believe the actual conclusions he makes while sprouting these theories, or are they intellectual rationalizations he made to hide into a shell so he can look himself in the mirror every morning knowing that he failed as a father and as a husband? We don't know. He is private enough with his emotions that we only know what he says, and being an undercover cop for so long, what he says and what he feels might not be the same thing. Even Cohle himself might not have the answer to this question.

I feel all that makes the character more interesting as a person, and most interesting to watch because that encourages us to pay more attention to how he acts and what he says trying to find loopholes or clues to his inner psychology. He's not meant to be an easy character to understand, and on the surface he's just a nihilist who talks way too much, but there's definitely a lot more if you think about it. What he does in his life also contradicts some of what he talks about philosophically, just like with Marty, but the difference between him and Marty is that the show obviously wants to make Marty's psychology easy to understand, and the visuals support that. Cohle is a more frustrating character because he's meant to be.

If Cohle's monologues are presented in a visually disconnected way indentically to Marty's that would mean the show has to actually justify Cohle's words with visuals metaphors things we relate to which vindicates some of what he says. That to me seems like the exact opposite of what the show is trying to do. It's meant to be illusive and not something we can compare easily to in daily life, because the philosophy he subscribes to is one where life has no meaning and purpose. It's meant to be a sort of horror which logically makes sense in a vacuum, but goes against everything that makes us human beings. The most frightening horror is the sort which you don't show, but you simply let people think about.

So it works two-fold - by not disconnecting his monologues into visual metaphors and allusions, it presents Cohle as a character who is harder to understand and get a read on, and it also presents his philosophy as something more frightening in an abstract sense if you care to think and dwell upon the logic in it. Both these elements would be lost by doing it in a different way.

Could it be done differently and better? Possibly. But I don't think we can really answer that question until the show is over and the themes have all run their actual course. For what it's going for though, it is incredibly effective.
 
I really enjoy reading this thread since there's such great conversation, but it moves too quickly for me. In the end I read even less than I would otherwise.

Not exactly a complaint. I think it's awesome that the show generates so much discussion. Even regarding the motivation behind the borrowing of a lawnmower....
 
Indeed. However, you have to keep in mind that the narrator in the Repairer of Reputations is extremely unreliable and it's unclear what if any of the events actually happened as he describes, and whether or not Mr. Wilde was real. If he was real did hehave resources like claimed, or if he was a con man taking advantage of the narrator's predicament or just a harmless old man swallowed up by the narrator's madness.

Back then, the visions... most of the time I was convinced that I'd lost it... but there were other times, I thought I was main-lining the secret truth of the universe."

Who's a better example of an unreliable narrator than Rustin Spencer Cohle? The show has already deftly eschewed the traditional conventions of a 'whodunit' detective story in favour of narrative ambiguity and conspiracy. I'm not expecting a leap into the metaphysical, but I don't expect everything to be neatly wrapped up at the end either.

In a way this reflects the historical reality of the hysteria surrounding satanic ritual abuse. Entire school staff were accused and sometimes convicted of crimes based on false memory syndrome and fanciful children's stories. Some cases are still being overturned to this day (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oak_Hill_satanic_ritual_abuse_trial)
 
Now, it could still mean that someone terrible happened to one of his daughters, because that would still be awful for him, since he views his family as possessions of sort.


I could see that happening based on what we saw in the preview, his anger could be from losing a child. I could also see his reaction to that being the catalyst for him arguably causing his wife to leave him and Rust officially "ending" their partnership.
 
Some stuff from the episode 6 preview which people who are avoiding it won't want to know about:
Rev Tuttle in Ep1 and Rev Tuttle in Ep6. Looks like Cohle paid him a visit back in 2002. Might explain why he crashed out and went off the grid.

Could be reading into this a bit too much but...
yellow tie.
 
whooooa!

I think you got it dude.

That means Marty's mistress is definitely at risk. Possibly Marty's daughter too.

Clearly Reggie was linked to the conspiracy some how. I still wonder why his spiral was burned off.

It's times like this that I wish Damon Lindelof was still on Twitter. I wanna know what he thinks of this show.

Doras ex and Reggies cellmate called it a brand when he described it, it may have always been a burn rather than a removed tattoo.
 
I think what's happening with Marty's kid has little to do with the cult. It just seems too tight and neat after Pizzolatto said that TD was also a critique of modern TV audiences. What's a better way of telling story that's a reflection on modern TV audiences than trolling the audience into thinking that everything shown is connected?
 
Is it sad that I relate to Cohle more than Marty though?
Not at all, I feel the same way. Chole is really the most interesting character, from his mannerisms to his interactions with people. McConaughey’s fantastic portrayal adds layers to the character. Marty is harder to root for, because he is even more flawed than Chole while he looks like the more grounded person from the outside. Still, Woody really has done a excellent job being the counterpart and not trying to mimic other characters.
 
https://twitter.com/AADaddario/status/435672641966313472

Untitled.png


I found this amusing....
 
Marty's rationalizations come from how he views society and what it means to him. The visual narrative constructed in the show often shows us that his thoughts come from raw emotions even the dishonest ones. We hear him talking about stability and family, while seeing him commit adultery and rage about it. We hear him talking about how fragile life is and how he let it all slip away, while seeing children grow up and change while the adults don't notice. That portrays him as a creature of society. He wants to be part of it, his thoughts and contradictions come from his feelings. Things which aren't scientific but an instinct of being a human.

Cohle on the other hand is a very different beast. The show deliberately takes the time to portray the two characters differently, and the visual narrative also carries a different style. This is important because it helps further separate two characters not just in the story and the development of their characters, but also in the visual presentation of their psychology. By presenting most of Cohle's monologues straight as it is, with the camera focused on his face as he just talks and talks in the interview room, I think the show is also telling us something. It tells us that Cohle's conclusions and philosophy do not have a basis in actual emotional attachment, and the rationalization is entirely intellectual in nature. These are things he has thought about, read about, studied about, and considered, and decided they made sense and there is logic to them. What does this mean for the character? I think it means that we're not being allowed into his mind.

There is a deliberate attempt not to associate his words with emotional concepts disconnected from what he says because that in itself is the point. Could Cohle just be sprouting all this stuff to throw people off? To make them think he's a wacko? Maybe, probably not, but maybe. Does Cohle really believe the actual conclusions he makes while sprouting these theories, or are they intellectual rationalizations he made to hide into a shell so he can look himself in the mirror every morning knowing that he failed as a father and as a husband? We don't know. He is private enough with his emotions that we only know what he says, and being an undercover cop for so long, what he says and what he feels might not be the same thing. Even Cohle himself might not have the answer to this question.

I feel all that makes the character more interesting as a person, and most interesting to watch because that encourages us to pay more attention to how he acts and what he says trying to find loopholes or clues to his inner psychology. He's not meant to be an easy character to understand, and on the surface he's just a nihilist who talks way too much, but there's definitely a lot more if you think about it. What he does in his life also contradicts some of what he talks about philosophically, just like with Marty, but the difference between him and Marty is that the show obviously wants to make Marty's psychology easy to understand, and the visuals support that. Cohle is a more frustrating character because he's meant to be.

If Cohle's monologues are presented in a visually disconnected way indentically to Marty's that would mean the show has to actually justify Cohle's words with visuals metaphors things we relate to which vindicates some of what he says. That to me seems like the exact opposite of what the show is trying to do. It's meant to be illusive and not something we can compare easily to in daily life, because the philosophy he subscribes to is one where life has no meaning and purpose. It's meant to be a sort of horror which logically makes sense in a vacuum, but goes against everything that makes us human beings. The most frightening horror is the sort which you don't show, but you simply let people think about.

So it works two-fold - by not disconnecting his monologues into visual metaphors and allusions, it presents Cohle as a character who is harder to understand and get a read on, and it also presents his philosophy as something more frightening in an abstract sense if you care to think and dwell upon the logic in it. Both these elements would be lost by doing it in a different way.

Could it be done differently and better? Possibly. But I don't think we can really answer that question until the show is over and the themes have all run their actual course. For what it's going for though, it is incredibly effective.

Well said. A lot of the kickback the show has received has generally come from people taking issue with Cohle's nihilistic monologues because they are conflating the character saying such things as an endorsement of them by the author. It's understandable to a degree, after all we're supposed to be rooting for these guys so surely we're supposed to nod our heads at the sage pearls of wisdom that they drop yes? By presenting us with a character like Cohle Pizzolatto is riffing with the idea of what a protagonist needs to be/represent without necessarily turning him into the traditional amoral antihero (a base that Marty has nicely covered). If the big bad were saying some of the dark stuff that Cohle has been espousing nobody would bat an eyelid, because bad people say bad things and they're easily dismissed, but of course the irony is that Cohle's monologue to the detectives in 2012 is coming right off of the last words Reggie Ledoux says before Marty vacated his brains back in 1995.

to me, I read that as—his infidelity was a one-off mistake. something that could be reduced to a single night, a single person. (even if was ongoing, but you know what I mean) but to neglect your children, your family over the course of their entire lives... I can see how that would have a much larger emotional resonance. plus, I think it's fair to say that a parent usually has a far more unconditional love for their children than their spouse, so Marty would have far more regret about being a bad parent than a bad husband

Given the lack of wedding ring in 2012 it's fair to say that both he and Maggie have split (reasoning as yet unknown) but it could well be that he's also become estranged from his twenty something daughters in the process.

I don't suspect the father in law at all, and I think people have been conditioned by "twists" in television that they're trying to make it fit the narrative. There's really nothing that has been hinted at there imo.

Definitely. Everyone's trying to Scooby Doo this show like its a small town murder mystery and that old man Smithers who runs the sweet shop was behind it all along. I get the need to speculate and certainly with aspects there's a degree of scope (are the Tuttles somehow involved in it all? Maybe), but looking for exterior forces/rationales as to why Marty's older daughter breaks bad kind of robs her of free will as a person subject to her own capricious nature and desires. There's actually something vaguely off about that line of thinking, especially in regard to girls and an assumption of female passivity.
 
Okay, this is going to be a tldr, but this show's been so engrossing that I just had to research the show, and the stories surrounding it.

I must say that this is way deeper then what I initially thought it was. It’s pretty apparent that this show isn’t your average police procedural, but is a show with very heavy themes that’s encapsulated in strange philosophical allusions and bizarre mythos, which has inspired renowned authors to incorporate it into their own work. Having delved into researching the mythos, the clues and the meanings behind it all, I’ve realised that whatever happens, be prepared, because things will absolutely get stranger and bizarre as we learn more and more as things move along. Before we take a closer look at the show, it’s very important to understand where Nic Pizzolatto’s gotten his influences from.

It all begins with a short story, written by Ambrose Bierce in the late 1800s, called ”An Inhabitant of Carcosa”. It’s basically about a man from Carcosa who’s awakened and finds himself in a bizarre place. He’s looking for the ancient place called Carcosa. (read the synopsis here, and the story here). It’s very eerie stuff, much like Bierce other work, like ”An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge”.

Robert W. Chambers, was inspired by short story, and incorporated it into his own work, called ”The King in Yellow”, released in 1895. The book consists of a collection of different horror stories, some of which that references a forbidden play called "The King in Yellow". The play in question is never revealed in its entirety. Only a few excerpts are directly from the play, which adds to the mystique about the work. Any other information we get besides the excerpts are from the characters when they recount reading it.

The first 4 stories are particularly of interest, because besides mentioning the play in question, they mention two other devices as well to some degree:


  • An unknown entity called ”The King in Yellow”
  • A Yellow sign
What’s interesting to note is that the play is divided into two acts. Why is that important?
”All of the excerpts come from Act I. The stories describe Act I as quite ordinary, but reading Act II drives the reader mad with the "irresistible" revealed truths. "The very banality and innocence of the first act only allowed the blow to fall afterward with more awful effect." Even seeing the first page of the second act is enough to draw the reader in: "If I had not caught a glimpse of the opening words in the second act I should never have finished it [...]" ("The Repairer of Reputations").”
Does this seem familiar? If not, here’s an excerpt form an interview with the creator:
Episode four is the beginning of Act Two. Suddenly, the rhythm of the entire show changes. The slow part is over now. The first three episodes move at a very deliberate, almost funereal cadence, like you’re marching toward something. And what you’re marching toward is that final image in episode three.
What he’s referring to here? Let’s see what Cohle said at the end of act I:

”You, yourself, this whole big drama, it was never anything but a jerry-rig of presumption and dumb will and you could just let go, finally know that you didn't have to hold on so tight. To realize that all your life, you know, all you love, all you hate, all your memory, all your pain: it was all the same thing. It was all the same dream, a dream you had inside a locked room, a dream about being a person. And like a lot of dreams…there's a monster at the end of it.” - Cohle

Much like the characters in the book, Cohle knows the irreversible truth, because he has ”read the play”. He’s telling us how it is, because he’s receptive to the truth. His behavior, his visions, his insomnia, his ramblings, all point to the fact that he is enlightened. The detectives in the opposite side of the room aren’t seeing the whole picture. They’re just trying to find out who the killer is and call it a day. They’re missing the entire point. The videotaping isn’t for them; it’s for us to figure out the real truth, making us the audience, the True Detectives. The show is essentially the play, because this show is about the The Yellow King, and we, the audience are the the ones who are transpiring down into the realm of madness that it encapsulates, in the quest to find out the truth. We’re being awakened from our dreams, and what we may find will make us question everything around us.

The most prominent author to expand on the yellow mythos was H.P Lovecraft, who incorporated many things from into his own work. Lovecraft came up with ”Cosmicism”, which is a philosophical belief that states that humans are utterly insignificant in the grand scheme of things. Concepts like good, evil and feelings are fictitious; the only thing that exists is egotism. We humans are so wrapped up in our own selves that we’re not seeing that we’re not nearly as important or influential as we think we are. We’re absolutely powerless, and hold as much significance as mere insects. There are much greater struggles between much greater forces at play, but since we’re so insignificant and too wrapped up in ourselves, we’re simply unable to see the whole picture.

Pizzolatto have much like Lovecraft, and Chambers before him, masterfully incorporated different fictional works along with philosophies about self, the world around us and what we perceive reality to be. It’s all masterfully scattered throughout the episodes, and it is for us to open our eyes to find the truth.

Dora Lange: Our victim. She seems to be the victim of a bizarre ritual, being stripped naked and having antlers attached to her head. She also appears to be in a praying position, as well as being blindfolded. She has a weird spiral on her back as well. Let’s take a closer look at spirals. What do they mean? Here’s an excerpt from the site Whats Your Sign:
”"In terms of spirituality, the spiral symbol can represent the path leading from outer consciousness (materialism, external awareness, ego, outward perception) to the inner soul (enlightenment, unseen essence, nirvana, cosmic awareness). Movements between the inner (intuitive, intangible) world and the outer (matter, manifested) world are mapped by the spiraling of archetypal rings; marking the evolution of humankind on both an individual and collective scale.
Moreover, in terms of rebirth or growth, the spiral symbol can represent the consciousness of nature beginning from the core or center and thus expanding outwardly. This is the way of all things, as recognized by most mystics

The next big clue is that a girl reports being chased in the woods by a bizarre”spaghetti faced” monster”. Strange, but we have nothing further to go on from here. Later on in the episode, Dora’s ex Charlie talks about of her becoming a nun, and something about meeting a king. So what we can deduce so far is that she’s been involved with a weird sect like group, and that she’s met the supposed leader of said group. The last thing worth mentioning in this episode is that Cohle’s drinking Lone Star beer. Why is that interesting? If we look at Cassilda's Song, which is one of two direct excerpts from the actual play of ”The King in Yellow”, ”Black stars” are mentioned to rise in Carcosa.
”Strange is the night where black stars rise,
And strange moons circle through the skies,
But stranger still is
Lost Carcosa.”
In Episode 2, We meet the victim's friend, who tells the detective that Dora found a church. She also says ”her eyes... there were something wrong with them”. She further mentions that she stopped seeing her much when she moved to a place down south around "a Spanish lake". There’s also a shelter where girls used to stay. This all sounds awfully suspicious, doesn’t it?

If we take a look at Chambers book, we can see that lake ”Hali” is mentioned in two stories, as well as being referred to in Cassilda's Song in the play.
”Along the shore the cloud waves break,
The twin suns sink behind the lake,
The shadows lengthen
In Carcosa.”
Notice that there’s also a mentioning of ”twin suns” Let’s save that for now, as we’ll touch on this later.
After receiving Dora’s diary, they discover references to ”The King in Yellow”. She wrote:
” The King’s angels were marked; they became his angels.”
”"I closed my eyes… and saw… THE YELLOW KING…moving through the forest"
She has also written down Cassilda’s song, repeating ”IN CARCOSA” several times. She further mentions ”BLACK STARS” and has drawn stars and moons as well. The diary’s however not the only clue that they found. They also find a leaflet advertising a church. Notice that the leaflet’s yellow (that’s no coincidence). Also, take note of the fire behind Jesus, as it’s a clue we’ll also touch on latter.

anZ8I9d.jpg


This is also the first time we see Hart’s daughter project the potential abuse she’s been through.

Later on, we see that both the commander and the governor have sent down a task force to see what and how much Hart and Cohle have gathered. They also seem awfully insistent on taking over the case. This seems odd at first glance. By the looks of things, it seems that they’re not comfortable enough having Hart and Cohle digging around. Very suspicious.

Finally, we arrive at the church that the leaflet originated from. It’s awfully hidden, but unfortunately for them, it’s been burned down and abandoned for a long time (These worshippers seem awfully fond of fires). Right after they step out of the car, Cohle sees crows out in the field forming a spiral (Awfully similar to the one behind Dora’s back). After they step inside, they find a painted naked woman on the wall with antlers on her head. In the last shot, we see the sun being reflected in the water. The shot represents the ”twin suns” from Cassilda's Song, it’s being alluded that the place they’re in is very close to Carcosa.

”This world is a veil, and the face you wear is not your own”
- Preacher Joel Theriot

In preacher Theriot’s sermon (which can be viewed in its entierty here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_y5AcBV0x0), he talks about the things in this world aren’t real, and that we are strangers to ourselves. Our true face is not known to us, because the face we wear is not our own.

With that in mind, let’s look at the second and last direct excerpt from the play ”The King in Yellow” Act 1, Scene 2d (known as ”The Mask” in the book) to see if we can find a connection:
Camilla: You, sir, should unmask.
Stranger: Indeed?
Cassilda: Indeed it's time. We have all laid aside disguise but you.
Stranger: I wear no mask.
Camilla: (Terrified, aside to Cassilda.) No mask? No mask!
It is unknown who the stranger is, but it is believed to be ”The King in Yellow”, or a servant of his. With all this talk about our faces not being that of our own, perhaps the preacher is not really preaching about Jesus here….

When our detectives talk to the preacher, we learn that he was affiliated with Billy Tuttle, the powerful spiritual leader who’s not only related to the governor of Louisiana, but who also lobbies for the creation of a special task force focusing on "anti-Christian crimes”. As Hart talks with some of the women there, he learns that Dora was accompanied by a tall man with a burned face(!). There seems to be lots of fires, burnings and faces surrounding these guys.

The real question is though, who is this burned man? Whoever he is, he seems to be in the center of it all. Could he be the man without the mask?

As the episode 3 continues, we find out that Hart’s daughter has drawn some pretty obscene pictures of people performing sexual acts on each other. One of the depicted men even has a ski mask on. I don’t know about you, but those are very specific pictures for a little girl to draw, who should be oblivious when it comes to sex. No, what’s happening here is that she’s clearly being groomed. While her parents were too busy arguing with each other, they failed to pick up on the fact that external forces were influencing their daughter in very obscene ways.

So why didn’t she say anything? The answer is not far away. As we previously stated, according to Dora’s diary: ”The kings’ angels were marked. ”They became his angels”. What has that to do with anything, you ask? We’re jumping forward now, but at the end of episode 5, Rust discovers paintings on the walls of the abandoned school ”Light of Way”. The paintings portray angels with blood coming from their ears, mouth and eyes, which symbolises that they shall not see no evil, hear no evil nor speak no evil. Also, fast forward to 2002 when Hart is confronting his daughter about her lewd behavior. Look at her eyes. She is looking at him in a weird way. Remember hearing about this weird behavior before? This is consistent with Dora’s friend in episode two, who stated that ”her eyes... there were something wrong with them”. You can see where this is going, but the sad truth is that Hart and his wife have had no idea about what has been going on with their daughter for so long.

Moving along in episode 3, we learn that many cases have been labeled as being ”made in error”. One of those cases involved a Rianne Olivier, who incidentally also had a spiral(!) on her, very similar to Dora Lange. When Hart and Cohle visits her grandfather, they learn that his granddaughter attended a defunct school called Light of Way, owned by none other than our pal Reverend Tuttle, who needs no further introduction at this point, before running off with Reggie Ledoux. When they go to investigate the school, they meet a man who awfully resembles a certain spaghetti monster. Before Cohle can investigate the school further though, he’s called back by Hart because of RNI (Records and Identification) identifying Ledoux.

Episode 3 (and Act 1) ends in a eerie way with Cohle’s speech and Ledoux creepy appearance, further spiraling us down into the path of madness.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom