Over the past two months, like many people, I was watching True Detective unfold on HBO. It was a fairly polarizing piece of television so if you are debating whether or not you need to binge watch this show on HBO Go, here are some reasons for and against it.
Reason to watch: Style. This show is a visual masterpiece. Set in the sprawling Southern wilds of Louisiana, the settings are eerie and beautiful. The entire series was directed by Cary Joji Fukunaga, whose two feature films, Sin Nombre and Jane Eyre, were similarly effective in capturing both the grisly and the gorgeous. There are moments of languorous beauty and chaotic frenzy, sweeping grandeur and creeping claustrophobia.
Reason not to watch: Story. Much was made about how innovative and clever this show was in terms of its narrative. The story goes back and forth between the investigation of some ritualistic killings in 1995 and a similar murder in 2012, which suggests the real murderer was never caught. While the mystery should have made for riveting television, it instead turned into the B story, because the show's creator, Nick Pizzolatto was far more interested in his leading men than the murdered women. Over eight episodes, Twitter went wild with theories and over analyzed every frame, costume, and prop. In the end, it turned out there wasn't any grand plan to this mystery at all and it was wrapped up in fairly humdrum fashion.
Reason to watch: The Men. Woody Harrelson and Matthew McConaughey are at the height of their acting powers and they effortlessly switch between gravitas and levity as the occasion demands. McConaughey is playing against type as Rustin Cohle, the more serious detective of the two. He is a man given to prosy philosophical rambling who bears the weight of the world on his shoulders. Harrelson plays Martin Hart, the unfaithful family man, who is annoyed by Rust's weirdness but still impressed by his tenacity. They're a classic odd couple, and as the story moves from 1995 to 2012, it's interesting to see the twists and turns their relationship takes as they investigate a spate of gruesome murders.
Reason not to watch: Story. Much was made about how innovative and clever this show was in terms of its narrative. The story goes back and forth between the investigation of some ritualistic killings in 1995 and a similar murder in 2012, which suggests the real murderer was never caught. While the mystery should have made for riveting television, it instead turned into the B story, because the show's creator, Nick Pizzolatto was far more interested in his leading men than the murdered women. Over eight episodes, Twitter went wild with theories and over analyzed every frame, costume, and prop. In the end, it turned out there wasn't any grand plan to this mystery at all and it was wrapped up in fairly humdrum fashion.
Reason to watch: The Men. Woody Harrelson and Matthew McConaughey are at the height of their acting powers and they effortlessly switch between gravitas and levity as the occasion demands. McConaughey is playing against type as Rustin Cohle, the more serious detective of the two. He is a man given to prosy philosophical rambling who bears the weight of the world on his shoulders. Harrelson plays Martin Hart, the unfaithful family man, who is annoyed by Rust's weirdness but still impressed by his tenacity. They're a classic odd couple, and as the story moves from 1995 to 2012, it's interesting to see the twists and turns their relationship takes as they investigate a spate of gruesome murders.
Reason not to watch: The Women. This was a story all about men. The women were at the fringes, serving stereotypical roles without any of the complexity offered to the leading men. Michelle Monaghan was fine as Hart's wife, Maggie, but she didn't have much to do. Most of the other actresses just got screen time as naked dead bodies. It's a shame, because Pizzolatto is clearly obsessed with character development. If he had spent less time giving Rust nonsensical monologues and instead fleshed out some other characters, the weakness of the story might not have been such a letdown.
In summary, your enjoyment of True Detective will come down to what you value more in your TV viewing: style or substance. True Detective has plenty of the former, not much of the latter. Bear in mind, it's only an eight-hour commitment, so if you want to be a part of the conversation, this is an easy show to polish off in a weekend. But if you want to watch a genuinely compelling and satisfying mystery story, you're much better off watching Broadchurch, which developed both the characters and the mystery to thrilling perfection. True Detective did many things right, but it often felt like Pizzolatto was just making stuff up to fill eight hours of television. Those eight hours contained some gorgeous scenes and superb acting, but ultimately, it didn't leave much of an impression. As far as I'm concerned, story always beats substance, and True Detective didn't deliver.
No comments:
Post a Comment