Skip to main content

Life’s barely long enough to be good at one thing.

True Detective
1.7: After You’ve Gone

Even though we appeared to be up-to-date, Nic Pizzolatto can’t resist sprinkling a few flashbacks into the penultimate episode. After You’ve Gone is full of great moments, but perhaps a slight step down on the quality of the past couple of weeks. While it’s exciting to see present day Rust and Marty team up, there’s an occasional awkwardness to the character work (how many times do they have to ask what each has been doing for the past ten years?) and it has to be said straight up that the final scene is hopelessly Scooby Doo. Just as long as that’snot a harbinger of the finale.


What’s most interesting is that, and it would be a rather unnecessary gambit for him to lie, Rust really has spent much of his time since 2002 as a (not so old) soak, before snapping back into purposefulness in 2010.  A man remembers his debts”, he tells Marty, echoing Maggie’s remarks about Cohle’s responsible nature in the previous episode. And, for all Marty’s recalcitrance, he recognises the truth of Rust’s urging amid the occasional barb (“You must have really pissed him off” in response to Cohle noting that Time has his way with us all).


Rust’s whistle-stop summary of the investigation to date recaps what we already know, but also adds a few events from two years previously. First, his encounter with abuse survivor Toby Boulez, whose attestation to the goings-on at Tuttle schools confirms Rust’s worst fears. Toby imagined it must be a bad dream, partly due to being drugged and partly due to the animal masks worn by his assailants. And there’s the man with the scars round his mouth again. While the emphasis on long-standing evils perpetrated is effective, less so is the referencing of Hurricane Katrina; it’s a lazy fall-back device designed to invest dramatic resonance (“I think he had a really good year” suggests Rust).


Rust’s conviction isn’t the be-all-and-end-all in persuading Marty. He warily brings his gun along to Rust’s lock-up, and notes of his one-time colleague “It’s like you’ve been alone too long”. Rust’s honesty  at least is reassuring; he too wondered if it was all in his head but, “That time passed”. It’s the other flashback that seals the deal for Marty, who goes from concern over whether Rust offed Tuttle to grim determination to see this thing out (Cohle latter professes not to know the details of Tuttle’s demise, conjecturing that his associates took him out behind the woodshed and put him down when they assumed he would be blackmailed; this isn’t wholly convincing, and we’ve seen before how well Rust is able to lie to Marty).


Harrelson is outstanding in the scene where Marty watches the videotape evidence of abuse Rust took from Tuttle’s safe, any lack of resolve evaporating. Most of the sequence plays out on the actor’s face, and it’s quite sufficient to tell the story. Marty suggests Rust he shouldn’t have the tape (for his own safety, presumably) and Rust replies “Nobody should have this”. If Rust’s sharpness may have been somewhat blunted over the years, or at least his energy, Marty has also changed. Perhaps he hasn’t become a better man, but he’s more conscious of his failings on all levels. No longer a young buck, his evenings are spent alone with a beer and TV dinners. And his visit with Maggie is curious, to say the least. She asks him if he came to say goodbye, as if she has been expecting him to make a final (as in mortal) exit for some time. Unless she just puts two and two together as the likely outcome of reconnecting with Rust. But it’s still a strangely low-key scene. As if Marty is an old cowboy off to his last stand, one that has been heralded before anyone even realised that’s what it was.  And Marty too gets his flashback, a particularly unsavoury reminiscence involving a microwave oven to explain his decision to exit the Force.


It’s actually Marty who does the lion’s share of the gumshoeing. He sets Rust up in his office (business clearly ain’t good) and scours old police files, goes golfing with Sheriff Geraci (Michael J Harney), while Rust (a persona non grata) tends bar. Rust is only called in when its time to break out the car battery and two jumper cables. The interplay between Geraci and Marty, both studying the other’s lies, is almost as strong as between Rust and Tuttle in the previous episode. The overt “True Crime” referencing by Marty was unnecessarily meta when he persuades Lutz to let him look around old police files, but it just about travels.


If After You’ve Gone’s most unsettling scene is the one in which Marty reviews the tape, the one most beholden to the show’s mythology occurs when the duo visit Miss Delores, who worked for the Tuttles (this after another validation of the man with scars from Jimmy Ledoux). She confirms the general dodginess of the Tuttle family, and granddad Sam Tuttle’s “other family’(the Childresses) before recognising Rust’s drawings of the wicker totems. “You know Carcosa?” she asks. “What is it?” questions Rust. “Him who eats time” responds Miss Delores kind of awesomely (time again). Perhaps this eerie occultism will go unexplained, how disparate people have insight into an unknown realm (albeit those who do seem to be in altered states, be they pharmacologically induced or a consequence of neurological diminishment). That might be appropriate; the glimpse at something that may or may not have more to it is frequently more compelling than a clear answer (see also Lost).


When Rust concludes that “She sure made sense to me” her niece responds, “That should worry you, mister”. And the auguries are not promising for the ex-detectives. But if Marty seems almost resigned to his fate, Rust appears to be looking forward to an exit. One with finality attached. Which is why he’s less than keen to hear the old lady promise “Death is not the end, rejoice!” Of course, since she is referencing Carcosa and we’ve already had it implied that existence is some kind of Sisyphean circle, which we are condemned to repeat throughout eternity (notably, Marty would rather she was incorrect), Rust has good reason not to be optimistic. But his intimation that he wants to finish all this up “before getting on with something else” suggests a project or journey; there’s not much planning in just topping yourself, unless there’s an additional passage through the great beyond.


The other notable Rust moment comes with Maggie’s visit to his bar. After the fireworks she set off last week, Monaghan is relegated very much to an incidental role here. Marty at least has no desire to rock boats any more, but time has not tempered Rust’s contempt. His dismissal of her with “It never sat right with me then, and it doesn’t now, you asking me to lie to you about him” is uttered with steely contempt but it still seems like weak sauce. He’s pissed that she wanted his comfort over Marty’s indiscretions, when his caustic insights into human nature really should have accepted her behaviour as elementary and completely comprehensible? I hope Maggie has more screen time next episode, as she’s been too integral to just ebb away. Of course, if speculation regarding Marty’s daughter and extended family are brought home to roost, rather than left to drift (and since they send some viewers on the most extravagant of theories, perhaps that would be just as well), she will inevitably prove to be a vital component (if any such eventuality should come to pass, I expect Woody will be a ringer for Brad in Seven and I don’t mean he’ll find her head in a box).


Which brings me to another circle. The hitherto absent detectives Gilbough and Papania ask directions from a lawnmower man with a scarred face (Glenn Fleshle, another Boardwalk Empire alumni) who appears to be mowing circles (yes, a bit of overkill there but don’t worry there’s even more of that to come) amid a graveyard. So, as with the third episode, the police are too distracted to investigate the prime suspect under their noses. Which does rather raise the question of the quality of the true detective work throughout. Are they just intentionally not very good? Any of them, even Rust with his penchant for eliciting confessions? They break the law, convict the wrong people, and seem to only make progress by having lucky clues fall in their lap before the trail runs cold again. In the space of 17 years continually haunted by an obsession Rust has done bugger all apart from mull it over and mull it over some more. It’s very lucky he never thought to go and chat to the lawnmower man properly, but then I guess there wouldn’t be much mystery. It ties in with Rust’s earlier, “Life’s barely long enough to be good at one thing” (As usual, there are some great lines, usually drawled matter-of-factly by McConaughey as if they’re just been lying in the dirt waiting to be snuffled up and shipped out).


Finally, then, there’s there moment when Pizzolatto and Fukanaga plunge headfirst into a cauldron of fondue. Mower man Errol all but looks into camera as he utters after the retreating police car, “My family’s been here a long, long time”. Yeah, ditch that restraint and classiness on the last lap guys, you’ve earned it! The sad thing about this is, not only is it a silly line, but it’s staged for maximum undermining of menace. There’s nothing ominous, threatening or scary about Errol on his mower. Especially not dribbling crap like that. Still, just as long as he turns into that much-awaited green-eared spaghetti monster next week all will be forgiven.


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.