Skip to main content

There were other times, I thought I was mainlining the secret truth of the universe.

True Detective
1.2: Seeing Things

I should comment on T Bone Burnett’s fantastic music for the series. And, yet again, HBO has come up with a wonderfully evocative of opening title sequence. 
At the end of the previous episode the detectives happened across a totem of twigs (“devil nets”) in a child’s play house, like the one found near the body of Dora Lange. The unsettling signposts pointing towards an occult world are littered through the plot, be it the strange headaches of Mrs Kelly (Tess Harper) that border on the possessed or the “green-eared spaghetti monster” that reportedly chased a child through some woods.


Then there are Rust’s synesthetic hallucinations, borne of his extensive four-year period under-the-influence undercover.  We hear about “The Yellow King” and “Carcosa” from Dora’s diary; this aspect seems like classically oblique obfuscation on Pizzolatto’s part. Although, as Jeff Jensen notes, the roots of these references are easy to find. (Of course, Jensen’s elaborate analyses of Lost were nearly as responsible for it instilling a sense of over-expectation about what its genius minds were up to as Damon Lindelof himself.)


What are the chances of coming across a ream of clues so impenetrable they ferment ideas in the audience’s mind but provide no more headway than a random reference to a spaghetti monster. It couldn’t possibly be a coherent text, or all the dots would be joined. As such, it might be seen sympathetically as a consciously pulpy device from Pizzolato . It’s certainly the stuff of cliché. The argued reason that her narrative is so fractured? A convenient case of dosing on the part of her benefactors.


This episode continues to be preoccupied by the darkness within Rust. As he says to his interviewers, “Of course I’m dangerous. I’m police. I can do terrible things to people, with impunity”. The turns of phrase Pizzolatto gives Rust are particularly appealing, but it’s the evidence that he isn’t just a lot of talk and a badge that is most arresting; he doesn’t merely live the life of the mind. Rust threatens to remove Marty’s hands when the latter reacts badly to a reprimand over his philandering, and you know he could do it. Later he goes ape shit on some reluctant interview suspects in a garage while, amusingly, Marty is sat in the car sniffing his hands for the tell-tale smell of his illicit activities from the previous night.


Marty’s bruised personal life, as it comes under Rust’s withering gaze, is also in the spotlight throughout this instalment. If Rust presence is mostly reconfirming what the opener established (“When you reach a certain age you know who you are”; the job didn’t do this to him, he suited the job), the fragility of Marty’s on-the-face-of-it more wholesome family life is laid bare. He struggles to keep his this aspect as a sacred ideal while he maintains his double existence. Rust is dismissive of Marty’s choices; it is an act of “hubris to force a life into this thresher” of a world. To an extent this sounds like the teenage gloom of a Cure fan, but Pizzolatto is keen to emphasise that nowhere and no one is incorruptible. This is seen most excessively in his elder daughter’s staging of a gang rape with Barbie and (a number of) Kens. Marty has the occasional moment in response to Rust (“Well, you’re a smart ass with your mouth shut”) but he finds himself mostly out of his depth. And Harrelson’s great at wearing that exasperation on his face.


There’s a rising indication that the questioning 2012 tecs want to pin something on Rus. And the suggestion that, with all this talk of danger, and evidence of instability, he may be revealed as a force of unknown depths and darkness. For the time being, though, Marty is backing his ex-partner. Confirming, in 2012, that Cohle didn’t want to give the case to the task force, Marty adds that neither did he. And, as vindication, we are shown the proof of Rust’s insights; a rundown church with a mural of antlered woman on the wall. Rust has just explained his hallucinatory weaknesses, and we have absorbed his vision of a flock of birds CGI-ing its way through the sky, but his final conjecture seems more like a statement of fact than a stretch of the imagination; “There were other times, I thought I was mainlining the secret truth of the universe”.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.