Skip to main content

You’re on Carcosa now with me. He sees you.

True Detective
1.5: The Secret Fate of All Life

This is the first episode I’ve watched all on its lonesome, and I have to agree with those suggesting it’s a series that pays to watch in weekly instalments rather than as a big chunk. Having said that, the last series that I was addicted to in such a manner was Lost (for not dissimilar metaphysically and philosophically speculative reasons). And look how that investment paid off. True Detective at least will reveal itself as a true success or a true failure in a mere few weeks, but the journey (as with 90% of Lost) will have been enormously enjoyable no matter what. It’s clear I’m in the minority for seeing the razzle-dazzle of the last episode, while enthralling, as an unnecessary veer off target. Thankfully, The Secret Fate of All Life rights that, and then some.


There’s a wealth of forward momentum here, even though little of it has the virtuosity of Fukunaga’s climax to Who Goes There. Indeed, in a sly undercutting of the build-up to meeting Ledoux he is disposed of with remarkable ease. It’s the crescendo of bullshit versus what actually happened that really informs the episode, as we discover the tale of grand heroics from Marty and Rust is a grand illusion designed to cover up some less than by-the-book police work.


And these layers push forward into the present. Is Rust’s demeanour and appearance all a veneer, designed to invite misreadings from his interrogators and anyone else who may care to look too closely into what he has in fact been up to? Detectives Gilbough and Papania may think they’ve been getting the lowdown on him, but as Marty says “If you two talked to Rust, you two weren’t getting a read on him, he was getting a read on you”. The “evidence” of photos of Rust at the 2012 crime scene has convinced the detectives he may be implicated in the murders, pushing the earlier case where he wanted it to go. But to us it suggests Rust may never have dropped the case. Maybe he had to take his work underground, to prevent himself from falling into the wrong hands. Did he dispose of Tuttle (who died soon after Rust returned to Louisiana)? Is he deep undercover? Is Marty still in contact with him? Perhaps not, as he scoffs at the suggestion Rust has fallen into disarray (it would be a bit of a leading by the nose to tell them he was up to more than he appeared to be if Marty was in consort with Rust).


And Rust’s exit, (“Thanks for the beer, company men”) opens up the series for a present narrative that I had quite expected not to come to pass. Who knows what will happen outside of the safety of the past? We’ve already jumped seven years in the flashbacks (to 2002), but if Rust’s contributions have ceased there’s still Marty to give the lowdown on just how his relationship with his partner went south (if indeed it did).


And so much uncomfortable energy is pervading Rust’s psyche now, it might be more comforting if he was just a drunk. If he isn’t the bad guy, or a bad guy, most of the actual bad guys seem to be identifying something very untoward about his person. The biker contact (who, predictably, wants none of his business) reveals “I can see your soul at the edges of your eyes. It’s corrosive, like acid. You’ve got a demon, little man” adding that’s there’s a shadow on him, and if he sees him again he’ll be putting him down (well, that didn’t happen).


Then there’s crazy Ledoux’s return to the theme of Carcosa and The Yellow King. This aspect is so resonant of the half-myths Lost built up around itself, I can quite see how the Internet is abuzz with possible theories, and why Entertainment Weekly has gone crazy for it. Ledoux, before his decisive demise, references “the black star”, and ultra-creepily tells Rust he knows what happens next, he saw him in his dream, tying into Rust’s determinedly morose theory of existence in which we repeat the same lives again and again and again. “You’re on Carcosa now with me. He sees you”. This is a world where nothing is solved, opines Rust to his interrogators. Or is that all a spin? The pronounced anti-religious statements of the first few episodes have given way to an entire cosmology of Lovecraftian proportions, in which fourth dimensional beings can see that space-time does not exist; to them it’s a circle. We’re reborn into the same life we’ve always been born into. Bleak yes, but it all sounds a bit too high falutin’ for the former nihilist.


The seven-year gap finds Rust setting up domestic “bliss” with Laurie (Elizabeth Reaser); we’re told he was happy for a while, and we wonder just how things turned sour. But our attention on this period is mainly held by the encounter with Guy Leonard Francis (Christopher Berry; who also played a character in the first episode? What’s with that?) Francis, who doesn’t last long after spilling some beans, picks up on the idea that others know more about Rust than he knows himself (or maybe that’s what we’re supposed to think, but Rust as some kind of Mickey Rourke in Angel Heart figure would be a major let-down). “I know who you are,” he says; he means the famous crime-solving detective, but it reverberates given Ledoux’s comments. Back in the frame are The Yellow King, and the golden nugget that the guy who really did it is still out there killing. “There’s big people who know about him”.  It looks like it will be this that unravels Rust’s calm. He is instantly suspicious of a conspiracy (he theorises that this is why the taskforce was so keen to wrest control of the case from them).


Rust returns to the site of the first murder and finds more wooden lattices, including one in the shape of a cosmic maw. It’s the kind of symbolic queasiness David Lynch might relish. Another stick figure appears in the abandoned school, where there are more murals on the wall. The pull back framing of Rust through a window is particular ominous, as if he has been caught in a web the scope of which he has no concept.


The other big deal in the episode is the kids. Marty’s the one who goes haywire when he finds a couple of kids at Ledoux’s. That one is a boy is perhaps a surprise, as this seemed hitherto a gender based ritual murder. But we don’t know the extent of Ledoux’s connection to The Yellow King (a procurer?) There’s no shortage of queasiness in this area. Rust’s tin can figurines seem to consciously echo the Barbie gangbang daughter Audrey arranged several episodes ago. 


And Audrey 2002 is well and truly on a wayward path, incurring dad’s wrath when she is arrested having a three-way (something her father copped to in the first episode). Where all Marty’s rage and these family tribulations are at is entirely unclear at this point. His 2002 self has patched things up with Maggie, but we know that the relationship is doomed. And his reflective 2012 incarnation in some respects doesn’t seem all that far from Rust’s doom-saying (“It’s like the future’s behind you… it’s always been behind you”). He also observes, ominously (again) that his true failure was inattention, not infidelity, as the camera pans up on his youngest daughter’s tiara in a tree, where Audrey threw it. Having her ensnared in the cult would be rather silly, I think, but there must be dark connections here. I don’t think Marty is really a psycho; that would be as unimaginative as having Rust revealed as one. But Harrelson is doing a bang up job portraying a man who has no ability to deal with his family (hitting his daughter was about as far from a measured response as he could get).


Three episodes to go, and I like having no real idea what to expect next. In some ways, this is all an exercise in atmosphere and portents of doom, much as Lost was, and I’m fine with that as it’s a great ride. The mark of a show like this is how the threads are weaved together though. Its longevity will be based on how it resolves itself, so I hope it really does have a good answer to the mystery up its sleeve. Dale Cooper laughing into a mirror might be better than anything conclusive, if what’s revealed can’t live up to expectations.




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) (SPOILERS) I’m not sure you could really classify Shadow of a Doubt as underrated, as some have. Not when it’s widely reported as Hitchcock’s favourite of his films. Underseen might be a more apt sobriquet, since it rarely trips off the lips in the manner of his best-known pictures. Regardless of the best way to categorise it, it’s very easy to see why the director should have been so quick to recognise Shadow of a Doubt 's qualities, even if some of those qualities are somewhat atypical.

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019) (SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

Sir, I’m the Leonardo of Montana.

The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet (2013) (SPOILERS) The title of Jean-Pierre Jeunet’s second English language film and second adaptation announces a fundamentally quirky beast. It is, therefore, right up its director’s oeuvre. His films – even Alien Resurrection , though not so much A Very Long Engagement – are infused with quirk. He has a style and sensibility that is either far too much – all tics and affectations and asides – or delightfully offbeat and distinctive, depending on one’s inclinations. I tend to the latter, but I wasn’t entirely convinced by the trailers for The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet ; if there’s one thing I would bank on bringing out the worst in Jeunet, it’s a story focussing on an ultra-precocious child. Yet for the most part the film won me over. Spivet is definitely a minor distraction, but one that marries an eccentric bearing with a sense of heart that veers to the affecting rather than the chokingly sentimental. Appreciation for