You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Yeah it's a given. The first thing the guys did in the series was tell the cops to scan the area, check plates and ID bystanders. Wouldn't be caught by accident.
EDIT: Him being seen to get to the investigating detectives is a given. Storage unit's full of evidence, as it stands by the end of ep 5 it isn't time for anyone to see what's in there.
Last edited by paulou (2014-02-21 18:07:36)
Last night's episode was...not great.
Table-setting for the final two, I'll let it slide. Next one looks like it's gonna be crazy given the preview.
I was kind of drunk when I watched it, so I might have been making weird observations, but has anyone else noticed a could-be trend where Marty legitimately dismisses the agency of women in all things and carries on his would-be anger with them to the next available man, whereas Rust does the opposite?
Marty blames the guys his daughter hooked up with instead of the daughter, he only blames Rust for Maggie and Rust, his whole thing with the hookers in the hillbilly bunny ranch, so on.
This episode was necessary, because I think we have now covered everything we needed to know pre-2012. We're still in a bit of a blur concerning Rust's activity between 2002 and 2012, but I think it'll unfold as we go forward with the story in 2012.
I think this episode shows something important about Marty's wife too. She was only a victim of Marty's wrongdoings before, but she's changed, and now she's surrendered to lies just as much as Marty and Rust have. I don't really see why she would lie to the cops about it though, so maybe there's more.
Last edited by Saniss (2014-02-24 22:58:24)
It's cool how Rust is arguably a better person than Marty, and a better cop, but Rust is ever the outsider and Marty is the accepted, company man. When Rust has bent the rules, it's mostly been because he's going rogue trying to catch a bad guy. His intentions are defensible, even as his methods are alarming. But when Marty bends the rules, he's usually busting into his mistress' apartment and beating up some dude who's there, or he's putting on gloves and beating the shit out of those two boys right there in the jailhouse. Those were personal scores he was settling, nothing to do with police work. Later Rust gets suspended for "mis-allocation of department resources" or some such nonsense. All Rust did was speak to someone. Marty beat up prisoners right there in the jail and got away with it. Somewhere in there is a point about how this crazy mixed-up world rewards the bad and ostracizes the virtuous -- or something. Cohle could phrase it better.
+1
This is something I've observed too: the way I see the two characters has changed a lot since the beginning. Marty was the slower-witted, down to earth counterpart to Rust. But he's collapsing. The beginning would have us believe this was a good cop/bad cop partnership, but it's now looking like the both roles have switched.
Last edited by Saniss (2014-02-25 00:19:30)
With all 3 characters lying the deck has become more stacked against Rust.
i think Rusty is just quietly conducting his own investigation into the Yellow King outside of the law. The Yellow King might actually be somebody high up the chain that he has to take down through unorthodox means.
I'm not thrilled with how they wrapped up the 2002 storyline.
Oh well. Here's hoping that the next two episodes are worth it.
I enjoyed that ep a good bit, altho I agree with the assessments that it's a "table setting" ep and Maggie's scene was weakly structured. I like the development of her character and the shifting that has happened to Rust and Marty, as Rob pointed out.
I got linked to a couple of articles today. I was not pleased. I know it's against the grain of the political leanings of the board, but I don't really give a shit, I gotta stand on my soapbox for a minute. Here are the articles:
It's time to talk about "True Detective" and the female body. Or rather, bodies, loads of them, left naked and chained, stacked high in the morgue, murdered, traumatized or simply stripped bare for the audience's (and the president's) titillation. Early on, Vulture's Margaret Lyons noted how many more dead women than live ones the show made room for, but for me the breaking point was last night's episode, "Haunted Houses," where Woody Harrelson's Martin Hart was once again mounted, cowboy style, by a nubile young woman whose naked breasts dangled pendulously over his all but unseen body. It's followed later in the episode by a scene in which the young woman, a former child prostitute whom Hart once tried to rescue from her life of sin, calls him up and tells him she'd like Hart to introduce her to the world of what Sinead O'Connor once called "the difficult brown." Hart licks his lips when he hears this, and who wouldn't? You can bet that nagging wife of his is an exit-only gal, and for a man as preoccupied with female purity as Hart, the idea of breaking in an orifice that a onetime whore has never had defiled must be something close to heaven. (On Twitter, BuzzFeed's Kate Aurthur raised the possibility this may be a line she's used before, or else she's drawing a line between her former professional duties and her private life. But the way it's staged, with her looking coyly over her shoulder at her own ass in a full-length mirror, plays right into Hart's fantasy, and the audience's.)
Scenes like this make it awfully hard to accept "True Detective" as the sobersided philosophical inquiry it presents itself as: Phil-bro-sophical is more like it. Sure, there are the windy monologues delivered by Matthew McConaughey's Rust Cohle about fourth-dimensional perspectives and the recurring nature of evil, but don't worry: It's also got tits.
Source: http://blogs.indiewire.com/criticwire/t … uses-women
Like many critics, I was initially charmed by the show's anthology structure (eight episodes and out; next season a fresh story) and its witty chronology, which chops and dices a serial-killer investigation, using two time lines.... On the other hand, you might take a close look at the show's opening credits, which suggest a simpler tale: one about heroic male outlines and closeups of female asses. The more episodes that go by, the more I'm starting to suspect that those asses tell the real story.
This aspect of "True Detective" (which is written by Nic Pizzolatto and directed by Cary Fukunaga) will be gratingly familiar to anyone who has ever watched a new cable drama get acclaimed as "a dark masterpiece"... After years of watching "Boardwalk Empire," "Ray Donovan," "House of Lies," and so on, I've turned prickly, and tired of trying to be, in the novelist Gillian Flynn's useful phrase, the Cool Girl: a good sport when something smells like macho nonsense. And, frankly, "True Detective" reeks of the stuff. The series, for all its good looks and its movie-star charisma, isn't just using dorm-room deep talk as a come-on: it has fallen for its own sales pitch.
Source: http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/t … n_nussbaum
Complaining about the lack of positive women on the show, while ignoring that every man on the show is a piece of trash, and complaining about the lack of focus on women, while ignoring the purposefully male centric nature of the show, is so ideologically selfish I can't even begin to comprehend it. This would be like me complaining about the lack of positive men and male focus in Sex and The City. This show paints a negative portrait of everyone in society and is very much a dissection of masculinity and old American values. "Critiques" like this are missing the point so much that they might as well be writing about an entirely different series. The fact that trash like this is considered criticism, rather the delusional ramblings of a self-centered and self-righteous lunatic, is an insult to the work film critics and theorists dedicated their lives to refining over the past century.
"Phil-bro-sophical"? How can any self-respecting publication allow utter nonsense like that to remain unedited before posting? There's a reason the reputation for journalism gets worse every single year. This is not journalism, this is a disgrace.
I mostly agree with your point, but you're tilting a little /mensrights. "BETER WIMIN CHARKTIRS" is an easy critique of, well, almost anything, and in a given case the eloquence and validity of that sentiment will vary from sad-accurate to eye-roll-click-bait.
I'll argue that, until last night, the agency of any of the show's female characters was handled only in the periphery. Like, consider a narrative-influence-Bechdel-Test. Marty's paramour will date, the proprietor of the bunny ranch will drop some agency knowledge, Audrey will sleep around. These actions color the story, but don't drop stage center and function par-level with the decisions of our "heroes" until Maggie acts in face of Marty's bullshit apparent.
+1
I mostly agree with your point, but you're tilting a little /mensrights. "BETER WIMIN CHARKTIRS" is an easy critique of, well, almost anything, and in a given case the eloquence and validity of that sentiment will vary from sad-accurate to eye-roll-click-bait.
I'll argue that, until last night, the agency of any of the show's female characters was handled only in the periphery. Like, consider a narrative-influence-Bechdel-Test. Marty's paramour will date, the proprietor of the bunny ranch will drop some agency knowledge, Audrey will sleep around. These actions color the story, but don't drop stage center and function par-level with the decisions of our "heroes" until Maggie acts in face of Marty's bullshit apparent.
I understand criticizing a film or show through structural analysis, aesthetic criticism, genre criticism, auteur theory, and so on, because those have to do with the actual filmmaking and storytelling. I may not agree with it, but at least there is a degree of objectivity and it's trying to better understand how films and shows work. I can't take social criticism of media seriously. All of it boils down to the author projecting their own political and social ideologies onto the work. There is no objectivity or true criticism of the piece, it's just a soapbox for the critic to explain why something sucks because it doesn't cater to their desires and values. It's film criticism for people who don't understand the nuances of filmmaking or storytelling. It is the absolute laziest way to critique any work.
As for your argument, how are those female characters any different from the male characters on the show besides Marty or Rust? I agree that the women in the show don't have the same depth as the leads, but neither does anyone else for that matter. There is no one on the show as fleshed out as Marty and Rust. They are the focus of the show, and their witnessing and retelling of the events of the investigation is what drives the show. That's something those articles doesn't really understand, and that misunderstanding leads them to the obviously wrong interpretation of the show's intention.
This is one of the most masterfully executed shows or films I've ever seen. Everything has a purpose, every shot matters, every piece of writing means something to the rest of it; it is arguably the most elegant and intricate tapestry I've seen in a piece of a fiction. Perhaps the minimization of women in the show enhances the story its trying to tell. Shoehorning in more women characters could very easily fuck up the thematic goals and effectiveness of the show. The thought never occurred to those authors that maybe the show doesn't need strong female characters to effectively tell its story or explore its themes to the fullest.
Re, your first paragraph, and "laziest way."
Lemme ask you this. (I'm not disagreeing - I don't even know if I disagree right now - I just want to hear you work it out.) Imagine if the singular "they" in your paragraph - the "they" who write a piece espousing the apparent relationship between a given piece of media and the culture at the time - imagine that this "they" is not contemporary. Perhaps this "they" is a hundred years in our future.
Like, does what you're saying hold up, right now, if "they're" reviewing this brand-new book about a guy named Huckleberry Finn?
["Aw, fuck these critics with their 'personal worldview' shit." - someone in the 1880s]
Sure, you can control for the difference in society. "At the time, this was how it was, so adapt to that... Got it? K, now enjoy the story." But is it not worthwhile for a modern writer to kind of ignore the storytelling and use Huckleberry Finn as an entry-point to the culture of the time? ... If so, what exactly does [the year the writer wrote their review] matter, really? Why does it have to be a modern writer? Right now we'll all say there's some pretty outrageous inequalities inherent in the story itself. If someone had said that then, would their argument have been less meaningful?
At the risk of belaboring the point: if someone had written a piece going "well, you know, there's all sorts of subtle fucked-up going on in all of the relationships in this book" in 1884, the contemporary 1884 audience might have said "shut up with the social inferences already, jesus," ...but you or I - now - would go "yeah, that's pretty much the lasting thing I take away from this piece."
(Obvious differences to be drawn between Huck Finn and, well, anything. Focus on the distinction I'm making, not the example.)
Your value, and a lot of the value this podcast and the attending forum agree upon, is a set of rules by which a piece of media can be exciting and not-untrue-to-itself. But how is our "value set" any different from the "value set" in 1884, where someone could ("rightfully") say that, shit, this book is really obsessed with making out black people to look like human beings.
Marty and Rust are two dudes telling a dude story. Again Ewing, I meet your point and largely agree with it, but with a huge asterisk. *
* In order to help sympathize with these "ideologically selfish" readings of the show, please remember that nearly all of the film and TV media you interact with is stories of men as told by men. And being a smart, cognizant female subjected to that for an entire lifetime may result in a different set of priorities, demands, and representative expectation than your own.
Last edited by paulou (2014-02-25 08:42:08)
Re, your first paragraph, and "laziest way."
Lemme ask you this. (I'm not disagreeing - I don't even know if I disagree right now - I just want to hear you work it out.) Imagine if the singular "they" in your paragraph - the "they" who write a piece espousing the apparent relationship between a given piece of media and the culture at the time - imagine that this "they" is not contemporary. Perhaps this "they" is a hundred years in the future.
That's not the "they" I'm talking about. I understand the idea that every work is a product of its time. The "they" I'm talking about are the ones who inject their own ideology into everything, with total disregard if it's even relevant. They're not looking at it from "society does this, the show is reflecting/critiquing that"; they're looking at it from "I have these ideas about society, why doesn't this show?", that's the lazy criticism I'm referencing. Hypothetically, and this is a strawman but it perhaps better illustrates my point, could you imagine a scenario where someone ripped apart Breaking Bad because it didn't cater towards their identity or beliefs like this?
"Why weren't there any characters with a fursona? This show is oppressive, disparaging, and most of all, shit."
It doesn't get any lazier than that. All you're doing is bitching that a piece of fiction wasn't written with your values in mind. It means nothing in regards to the actual quality.
Marty and Rust are two dudes telling a dude story. Again Ewing, I meet your point and largely agree with it, but with a huge asterisk. *
* In order to help sympathize with these "ideologically selfish" readings of the show, please remember that nearly all of the film and TV media you interact with is stories of men as told by men. And being a smart, cognizant female subjected to that for an entire lifetime may result in a different set of priorities, demands, and representative expectation than your own.
Fair enough, but I would expect any smart, cognizant female to understand that doesn't mean stories of men as told by men are inherently bad. I would also expect them to realize that a show written by men about men many not necessarily follow their priorities, demands and representative expectations. Most importantly, I currently expect any alleged journalist or critic to articulate their problems with any given media without using words like "phil-bro-sophical".
This kind of criticism isn't one I'd ever instinctively argue with, because in almost all cases it's a valid point, but it's really off-base here and it misses a lot of the show's narrative subtlety. I saw someone bring up on Twitter that it's the same argument that people made against The Wolf of Wall Street, and it's just as wrong. Depicting something isn't the same thing as endorsing it. True Detective has always - to some extent - been about subverting traditional masculinity and male values in society. I think if you look past the lack of meaningful female characters, you find that the show is doing that on purpose.
The think pieces along these lines really are getting out of control. (I had to shut down my Google Alert.) There's definitely a fair bit of redundancy and point-missing going on. "Lazy" is the right word for many of these pieces.
What drives it, in part, is that articles about TD are timely. Most of these people are on short deadlines. They need to produce so many pieces per-week, and those pieces need to get clicks, and it's always going to be easier to tear into a show like TD by taking this tack than it is to grab a ladder and go after more higher-hanging fruit. Episode postmortems start getting posted minutes after the end credits roll. They literally don't have the time, nor the ability in some cases, to engage the show along the more non-ideological, aesthetic lines Ewing describes. Ideology is always easier because they know the "correct" answers and, at this point, you don't even have to watch the show very carefully to note its male-centrism. Even a cookie-cutter, poorly reasoned piece taking the show to task for sexism will get tons of retweets. The show is trending, and the websites know it. It's their bread and butter.
What's particularly irksome is that, in this case, I actually believe in the ideology. I believe that women on TV and film are too often depicted in these ways, that there aren't enough meaty roles for women, and I recognize that the show is profoundly male-centric (but I tend to disagree about why the show is that and what it means). The "depiction is not necessarily endorsement" idea is something many of these pieces will in the first paragraph claim to accept as true, but then the next 1100 words will make clear that the writer actually doesn't believe that. That's annoying. Especially given that TD does seem to be doing it on purpose (which is to say, for a purpose) as Doc suggests.
I consider myself to be a smart, cognizant female, and as I mentioned in my earlier post, I do have problems with the way women are represented on True Detective.
But my biggest problem is that I just don't think I like it.
That's why I have such a hard time buying the argument that a subversive message is hidden within the subtle narrative. I don't find True Detective to be very subtle. It's definitely very cleanly written, for sure. But subtle? Not really. I've found most of it's major plot points, character arcs and story developments to be fairly obvious from very early on. The only times it's managed to catch me by surprise have been the few action pieces.
Sure, every story out there has already been told, and there's no denying that True Detective is a gorgeous incarnation of this particular story. But I'm not finding it all that interesting an incarnation.
So basically, if you're not already enjoying the show, it's hard to credit the idea that it's smart enough to be "subverting traditional masculinity and male values in society."
So while I agree with Rob that some of these articles (maybe even most) are by lazy authors desperate for a few easy clicks, others are written by people who don't like the show and/or don't think its messaging is effective.
I don't think what we're talking about is hidden within the subtle narrative of the show. The reason so many people are focusing on it is because it's all happening right there on the surface of the action. Twisted men who harm women and children (in a variety of ways) is, in a sense, what the story has been about so far. This isn't an embedded narrative that springs to the fore upon deep analysis of signs and symbols. It's the main narrative. It's what been happening on screen this whole time.
It reminds me of how "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo"'s original Swedish title was "Men who Hate Women." I heard that for the first time and I went, "Oh yeah, that IS kind of what it's about, isn't it?" You realize that's not something buried deep within the complex layers of the text -- it's the text.
I'd like to see an HBO remake of Cagney & Lacey. It could explore the difficulties of balancing a stressful work life and family and the peculiar demands and expectations society puts on women, particularly professional women.
Plus, double the opportunity for titty scenes.
Now we're getting somewhere.
I'm thinking Claire Danes and Laura Prepon. Tyne Daly can have a cameo as the lieutenant who asks for Lacey's badge & gun when she gets too close to a case. I think we got a pilot. *Opens Final Draft*
+1
Yes! If we're lucky, we can get the same all-male team who wrote and directed The Hours. They understand women!
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
Currently installed 9 official extensions. Copyright © 2003–2009 PunBB.
