Daniel Weinfeld
“I think human consciousness is a tragic misstep in evolution.”
Rustin Cohle, True Detective
HBO’s latest installment in its seemingly dynastic control of the greatest-show-ever conversation has left a huge viewership aching for more following the last of eight episodes last Sunday evening. True Detective’s synthesis of literary genius, an award-winning cast, and a touch of cosmic horror form an unforgettable series begging many questions even after its conclusion. A tremendous narrative of character development and complexly intertwined plot by novelist Nic Pizzolatto brings to life detectives Rustin Cohle (Matthew Mcconaughey) and Martin Hart (Woody Harrelson) as they investigate a series of murders that prove to run deeper in the culture of rural Louisiana than anyone involved could have imagined. Despite all the speculation and conspiracy theories that came as a result of the themes and events portrayed throughout the series, perhaps the greatest lesson learned from True Detective is that honesty and literary integrity, not shock-value and wild twists, are what make for great television.
The network drummed up quite a buzz upon announcing the tandem of renowned leading men Matthew Mcconaughey and Woody Harrelson as co-stars of the series. The two generate tremendous chemistry on screen despite the irreconcilable differences between their characters persistent throughout the season. Mcconaughey, in particular, has rejuvenated his career with a number of moving roles, straying drastically from his failsafe romantic-comedy repertoire, namely his performance in Dallas Buyers Club which earned him an Academy Award for Best Actor. With his critically acclaimed performance in True Detective, Mcconaughey has a good chance to become the first ever to receive the Academy Award and Primetime Emmy for Best Actor in the same year. The two are supported by a tremendous ensemble cast, but it is Mcconaughey and Harrelson who command attention and draw intrigue in every scene, alongside each other as well as individually.
What truly sets the series apart, though, is the work of writer Nic Pizzolatto. The screenplay reads like a novel, touching on the intricacies of each character as well as broader allegorical themes to a degree that few television shows can. The philosophical themes as well as the presence of inextricably bound occult references and psychedelic drugs fueled the internet craze of conspiracy theories and case-solving speculation. References to supernatural and cosmic horror literature such as Robert W. Chambers’ “The King in Yellow” and the work of H.P. Lovecraft only gave speculators further evidence to draw from. Despite the density and complexity of the concepts presented by Pizzolatto, the story translates to the screen seamlessly. Director Cary Fukunaga, winner of the 2009 Sundance Film Festival’s Best Director award, transforms Pizzolatto’s prose into striking cinematography that rivals any major motion picture. In a way, the eight-part series largely resembles a feature film. And, as in many films, the ending is what the audience remembers most.
The anticipation of the finale episode grew as more and more clues were uncovered and greater detail of the characters lives exposed as the show forced its viewers to develop their own ideas of what was coming next. In Pizzolatto’s words, though, an unforeseen plot twist at the show’s conclusion “would be terrible, obvious writing” [1]. Instead, the series stays true to its purpose and concludes in a largely methodical and even predictable fashion. Critics like Ross Douthat from the New York Times were not satisfied with resolution, offering that “there are plenty of stories out there if you want to feel good about how the show finished up” [2]. But the first season of True Detective was much more than a typical crime-drama. It held great truths about life, death, good, and evil; as Detective Cohle mystically preached, “time is a flat circle”. So, from the point of view of an audience member accepting the story for what it is and nothing more, the ending, though it will not be disclosed here, could not have been more appropriate.
HBO has renewed the show for a second season, as expected for programming with such widely touted critical acclaim and successful ratings. The catch, though, is that the cast and plot of the first season will not carry over. HBO did not renew the contracts of Mcconaughey and Harrelson for the second season, and in Pizzolatto’s words, “I need to keep being strange… don’t play the next one straight” [3]. The tale of Detectives Cohle and Hart is over, along with a masterful season that seemed to end as quickly as it began. All those true detectives out there are forced to satisfaction with the eight episodes and cultural reaction they were privileged to be a part of.
[1] http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/news/true-detective-creator-debunks-fan-theories-20140306
[2] http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/10/the-failure-of-true-detective/
[3] http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/news/true-detective-season-2-to-tackle-transit-systems-occult-history-20140310
This essay is kind of spoiler to me because I’m currently watching True Detective. I think you did a good job in analyzing the show’s screenplay and final episode, making this new series very attractive to people who have not seen it. But I think it’s a little unnecessary to spend a long paragraph to introduce the actors for two main characters. Maybe it’s better to focus mainly on the show itself because you don’t want to distract readers. I also agree with Erin that your essay is a little too general. Try to more specific about your point.
I really liked this essay and it definitely made me want to watch the show. Your passion for the subject really shows through, which is really effective at enhancing your argument. I think maybe more examples from the show would be helpful, however. You make a lot of generalized statements about the writing and the show, but don’t offer concrete examples. Other than that great job!
I thought your topic was very interesting since I had never heard of this show or the story behind its creation. Because of that, I probably couldn’t fully appreciate your review on it but I did still understand what you were trying to convey. I am a little confused about your thesis. At first I suspected it might be about how “honesty and literary integrity” make good television but that thought process was quickly abandoned. Then it seemed more like a raving review of the show, jumping from actors to screenplay to the new season. I think if you made your thesis more explicit it would allow your readers to take away exactly what you intend. However, I still really enjoyed reading this and I think there is a lot of great material to work with.
This almost reads like a review to me. I have never watched True Detective, but you have convinced me why it is a great show. When it seems like TV is trying to get crazier and crazier to attract viewers, something simple yet complex can be refreshing. I agree with Sarah, maybe find a way to tie back your thesis to the conclusion.
I could definitely resonate with this essay. Although I have never watched True Detective, I agree 100% that great shows and movies are born from a great story, with a message and a purpose. In that sense, I think your choice of topic was clever. Its one of those “good guy” topics that most people agree with. For this essay, I would work mostly on clearing up the sentences. I felt as though I often had to reread the sentences in order to understand them. I think making shorter sentences is the key here. The other comment I have is on the conclusion. I would suggest keeping everything in the conclusion that you already have, but reminding the reader of what your original thesis was. That way the reader isn’t left hanging; I think just a sentence or two would really tie the whole essay together.