True Detective

[Big Ben]

And, yes, it was cute and not entirely unexpected that a (VHS?) copy of Carpenter's The Thing was placed on the media shelf at the remote Alaskan research outpost.

Did you happen to see the conspiculously placed copy of Blood Meridian as well? I'm hoping we get more of that specific kind of supernatural if that's what Lopez decides to go with. Ancient, primal, Gnostic, biblical evil.

[Mr Sausage]

And, yes, it was cute and not entirely unexpected that a (VHS?) copy of Carpenter's The Thing was placed on the media shelf at the remote Alaskan research outpost.

Did you happen to see the conspiculously placed copy of Blood Meridian as well? I'm hoping we get more of that specific kind of supernatural if that's what Lopez decides to go with. Ancient, primal, Gnostic, biblical evil.

I also thought the placement of the book was meant to signal something political, too; that this was to deal with the genocidal effects of colonialism on native american populations. Like the recent Dexter revival, the show is referencing the phenomenon of murdered and missing indigenous women.

[Roger Ryan]

And, yes, it was cute and not entirely unexpected that a (VHS?) copy of Carpenter's The Thing was placed on the media shelf at the remote Alaskan research outpost.

Did you happen to see the conspiculously placed copy of Blood Meridian as well? I'm hoping we get more of that specific kind of supernatural if that's what Lopez decides to go with. Ancient, primal, Gnostic, biblical evil.

I also thought the placement of the book was meant to signal something political, too; that this was to deal with the genocidal effects of colonialism on native american populations. Like the recent Dexter revival, the show is referencing the phenomenon of murdered and missing indigenous women.

No I did not see that one - yeah, definitely more portent than the The Thing in-joke.

[Mr Sausage]

Also, I get the sense the supernatural stuff will be less biblical than out of Inuit folklore.

[therewillbeblus]

Also, I get the sense the supernatural stuff will be less biblical than out of Inuit folklore.

Interesting, I wonder if there are there any key texts or symbols from Inuit folklore (like, say, the most well-known plagues from the Bible) that we might look for this season, if preparing to approach it from that angle

[Mr Sausage]

Also, I get the sense the supernatural stuff will be less biblical than out of Inuit folklore.

Interesting, I wonder if there are there any key texts or symbols from Inuit folklore (like, say, the most well-known plagues from the Bible) that we might look for this season, if preparing to approach it from that angle

Inuit folklore is so outside my bailiwick that I couldn’t say. But there was that moment between the junior detective and his wife, where they discuss their kid’s grotesque picture, which he seem to’ve gotten from his grandmother’s stories, and the mom has some comment about how the kid ought to connect with his own culture. I thought that implied something about the horrors to come, that they would be figures from Inuit folklore like the monstrous figure in the kid’s picture. And there is something kinda mystical about the pilot, isn’t there? Plus the repeated intrusive vocal proclaiming “she’s awake!”, which points to pagan instead of judaic myth.

[terabin]

So glad that there are some True Detective fans here to follow along with week to week. I just finished rewatching Season 1 and although I have no high hopes that Season 4 will ascend to those all-timer heights, I found the first episode to be fun, Jodie Foster is incredible, and the supernatural elements intriguing.

SpoilerShow

One thing I'm wondering about is the connection between Season 1 and 4 that Issa Lopez has hinted at in interviews. Rust is from Alaska. Is there some connection to his father in Season 4, even in the first episode? I've heard some rumblings/conjecturings online.

[bottlesofsmoke]

So far Night Country has reminded me a lot of both series of Top of the Lake - dropping the viewer into a unique location with already deeply established history and personal relationships like series 1, two women investigators and a theme of crimes against women like series 2. I’m a sucker for mysteries that tie back into the past (Ross MacDonald is one of my favorite authors) so I hope we get more of that as the series goes on.

I enjoyed the first episode, though as others have said it is very much a first episode in a mystery series - the hooks are plentiful and intriguing, but how they pay off is what matters. I’m also interested to see just how supernatural this gets, at times it felt very much so. One of the things I enjoyed about the first season is the way it skirted around the edge of the supernatural with leaning in too hard. I’m at least happy that is doesn’t yet feel like the standard snow and ice Lovecraftian At the Mountains of Madness-type horror that would be much too easy.

[Mr Sausage]

I can't say I'm feeling a masterpiece here, but it continues to be an exciting potboiler. Jodie Foster gets one of her meatiest roles in a long time. A couple things, mildly spoilerish:

-is the older woman who found the bodies an anthropologist? In her cabin there was a copy of Mary Douglas' Purity and Danger, a classic work of anthropology about the cultural concepts of pollution and taboo. I wonder if those concepts are playing into the folklore of the story.

-the spiral, was that mark also in the first season? I remember Rust in the finale looking into a spiral hallucination while in carcosa. Certainly the inside of the trailer reminded me of Rust finding the empty school midway through season 1. Could this mark be the link between the two seasons?

-the guy waking up in the snow was horrific, especially because it followed a moment of grim humour. I did enjoy the grotesque black humour woven through the episode.

-the polar bear Kali Reis' character encounters in ep. 1, was it missing an eye? The stuffed animal Foster finds in her house, which evidently was her (dead?) son's, it was missing an eye.

-Christopher Eccleston was also in season 1 of Fortitude, and there is some thematic overlap regarding extinct organisms frozen in the ancient strata of the permafrost.

[Big Ben]

-the spiral, was that mark also in the first season? I remember Rust in the finale looking into a spiral hallucination while in carcosa. Certainly the inside of the trailer reminded me of Rust finding the empty school midway through season 1. Could this mark be the link between the two seasons?

-the guy waking up in the snow was horrific, especially because it followed a moment of grim humour. I did enjoy the grotesque black humour woven through the episode.

I wouldn't say I enjoyed the grim humour near the excavation but the man still being alive was a legitimately good shock moment. I absolutely wasn't expecting that. The sign you mention is the sign of the Yellow King, and was littered all over the First Season.

Worth noting that the gentleman who was running about on the ice is named

SpoilerShow

Travis Cohle.

Make of that what you will.

[therewillbeblus]

The sign you mention is the sign of the Yellow King, and was littered all over the First Season.

Worth noting that the gentleman who was running about on the ice is named

SpoilerShow

Travis Cohle.

Make of that what you will.

SpoilerShow

It's basically confirmed that it's Rust's father - McConaughey mentioned him by name as Travis, moving the family to Alaska and having "some pretty fucking strange ideas," etc. in S1. Some fan theories are saying that this season is looking to finally solve the bigger mystery of the Yellow King, the meaning of the sign, etc. McConaughey could even make an appearance.

Also, these were the spirals Tuttle used on victims in Louisiana in S1, and the funding at the scientist station was funded by Tuttle corp..

[Murdoch]

I'm enjoying this season primarily because of Jodie Foster and the setting. I'd watch Foster sell car insurance and probably still be engaged. The show is nowhere near as good as season one, but that's true of every season since the first. I get the feeling the showrunners have given up on reaching those heights again and have settled with nabbing an A-lister or two to stoke the ratings.

Some stray thoughts:

SpoilerShow

Episode Four went heavy on the screaming ghosts in the final part. It was like watching any number of mediocre horror movies from the past 20 years.

I think the writers are trying to cram too much into the episodes for me. Between Navarro's sister, her boyfriend, Danvers' stepdaughter, Prior's marriage, and all the other interpersonal conflict going on, there's just too many working pieces that detract from the central case going on, which would be interesting if the writers spent more time fleshing it out.

But that's probably a me problem. I love the Thing and if a show is going to bring me in by teasing at being a rip on Carpenter, then all I want to see is some cops out in the cold fighting off a severed head crawling around on spider legs.

Based on Episode Four, it appears to be headed more toward the supernatural/possession route. If that's going to mean heavily make-upped ghouls with high-pitched screams then I'll probably get out of this one early.

[therewillbeblus]

It’s not a You problem. It’s an interesting season that’s spinning a lot of character arc strands exhaustively, that’ll ultimately either go nowhere or somewhere too quick without enough investment. They’re just coming across as superfluous or vapid right now - I’m sure stuff will tie into the plot but I can conceive of any number of reveals that’ll all be shrugfests because I’m not really invested in the characters, their apparent rich histories, and the dynamics that will trigger the narrative payoffs. I agree, six episodes was not enough. If you’re not going to flesh out the story or world for us properly, I’d rather just watch 30 Days of Night

[tenia]

I wonder if it's a matter of number of episodes or if giving the season 2 more episodes would get the same results, but for 2 more episodes (ie it might not a matter of having the correct pace regarding the given number of episodes but rather an issue of writing overall).

[aox]

It’s not a You problem. It’s an interesting season that’s spinning a lot of character arc strands exhaustively, that’ll ultimately either go nowhere or somewhere too quick without enough investment. They’re just coming across as superfluous or vapid right now - I’m sure stuff will tie into the plot but I can conceive of any number of reveals that’ll all be shrugfests because I’m not really invested in the characters, their apparent rich histories, and the dynamics that will trigger the narrative payoffs. I agree, six episodes was not enough. If you’re not going to flesh out the story or world for us properly, I’d rather just watch 30 Days of Night

I was going to disagree with some of this because I thought like the prior seasons this had eight episodes. Now I fully agree. I don't see how they can bring all of these threads to a satisfying conclusion in two hours. Overall, I have enjoyed it though.

[therewillbeblus]

It feels backwards for Max to give us all these miniseries with minimal material stretched out across a full season's-worth of time, and then underdeliver on temporal elasticity when the narrative could easily earn it! I'm finding myself invested in the story and the atmosphere but not in the slapdash way it's all being presented - plus a bunch of strong actors are given next to nothing to work with. It's pretty frustrating

[oh yeah]

Yeah, personally this season is not working for me at all. I like the idea of it and I like the setting. Foster is doing her best. But man, the script is such a piece of hackwork. Countless cliches and tropes taken from other, better shows and films (TD S1, Breaking Bad, The Thing, The Exorcist, Wind River, Silence of the Lambs, Twin Peaks, The Terror S1, to name a few). And the dialogue is downright cringe-worthy; the way the characters converse is nearly uncanny-valley in its utter stilted unreality. Far too much focus on uninteresting interpersonal dramas over the case itself -- which seemed intriguing at the beginning, despite the characters' oddly goofy/nonplussed reaction to such a horrific scene, even putting it on display in the ice rink for all to see! I guess all the relationship dramas wouldn't be so much of a problem if the characters weren't so thinly-drawn, but they are all thuddingly one-note, both unlikeable and uninteresting.. this is very weak stuff. Then again, I've re-watched the first 3 seasons recently and the gap in quality between them and this S4 is hard to overstate. After that rewatch I appreciated all 3 seasons so much more (yes, including 2!) and have really come around on Pizzolatto generally after previously being harsh on his writing. I find not only S1 to be superb and easily the best one, but S2 an underrated if flawed piece of pitch-black noir and S3 a really beautifully understated masterpiece touching on memory, ageing, trauma and loss. For whatever their flaws, S2 and especially S3 were thoughtfully written, and beautifully directed. In comparison, this "Night Country" feels amateurish and generic to the core, lacking S1-3's depth of characters, visual inventiveness, and hard-boiled punch of Pizzolatto's dialogue & the philosophical/existential inquiries it entailed. S4 is feeling so much more superficial, like a Netflix crime-soap drama meant to be binged on a lazy Sunday, with even the soundtrack being hopelessly generic compared to the moody ominous drones & exquisite selection of songs T Bone Burnett chose for S1-3. I'll see this season through to the end, but I really am baffled at all the critical praise fawning over S4 as equal or even superior to S1 (!).

[therewillbeblus]

I think Foster seems to be genuinely trying to do her best to find depth in her character too, but a comment of her’s leading up to the shoot gives me pause - solely because it led to a conversation with a friend recently about how some artists become more open-minded, gray-thinking, or demonstrate that kind of ‘open’ wisdom, etc as they age, while others become more close-minded, less teachable, more ingrained (because they’re.. people, and people do that). Anyways, my thought was: if an actor, who perhaps used to approach roles with a more humanistic ‘fresh start’ attitude but has now been weathered by American politics, life experience, etc., no matter how seasoned they are, approaches a role as a reductive trait, are they doing their job well compared to the green actor approaching every human as someone who inherent has depth? Foster said something like ‘I’m playing a character who’s the worst kind of person, a Karen’. Now, I fully expect Foster to end the public interview, turn around and reach for that depth. But I do wonder if some actors - just like people (looks around at his progressive party with regressive anti-humanist attitudes and gulps) - lose some of what makes us human, that open-ness to life’s infinite facets (or God, if you will), as life makes us jaded. Of course other artists become more open over time - and for this reason I’ll forever cherish my relationship with Woody Allen’s anxieties and spiritual processing.

Tangent aside, reading interviews with the creator clearly indicate someone open, passionate, and clever - I love the dark, cold landscape and how the show runner hinted at its relationship to femininity. I really hope she’s able to execute the final two well and connect these themes in a satisfying manner

[tenia]

I'm wondering though : the screenwriters certainly knew how the season would last and were able to write and edit accordingly, wouldn't they ? I mean, it's very likely not as if they planned everything for 8 episodes only to be told at the very last moment "yeah, it's going to be 6 episodes actually" and having to rush-cram the content of 8 episodes in only 6.

There is the possibility that it's just poorly-paced because it's just this : poorly-paced. And that in the end, the persons in charge thought it'd be cool and interesting to have such a result on the screen but it's not, it's just way too many arcs for such a duration, and someone should have realised that and streamline this. At some point, they have to pick and choose.

Anyways, my thought was: if an actor, who perhaps used to approach roles with a more humanistic ‘fresh start’ attitude but has now been weathered by American politics, life experience, etc., no matter how seasoned they are, approaches a role as a reductive trait, are they doing their job well compared to the green actor approaching every human as someone who inherent has depth? Foster said something like ‘I’m playing a character who’s the worst kind of person, a Karen’.

I'd say yes, except if one think that people, in particular professionnal actors, are always going to think that "good" people are deep and "bad" people aren't. Which I don't think they do, even if they might discuss about them in interviews through a reductive way of explaining briefly what their characters might look like.

[Mr Sausage]

Just got around to the latest episode, and I don't wonder if we're getting so much interpersonal stuff because there isn't much to the mystery. Like, there's enough mystery here to fit a two-hour movie, stretched to six hours by a heavy emphasis on interpersonal drama. Seasons 2 and 3 could pull off something similar because they were happening across a much greater expanse of time. But this season has to be very sparing with the reveals. So we learn almost nothing from episode to episode.

I think I'm enjoying the interpersonal stuff more than most, especially when it involves Foster (her last scene with Eccleston was terrifically written and acted).

SpoilerShow

I take it the polar bear is Foster's guardian angel, linked to her son. Also, dumb joke naming the German ice caves guy Otis Heiss, ie. Otis Hot.

[therewillbeblus]

I don't wonder if we're getting so much interpersonal stuff because there isn't much to the mystery. Like, there's enough mystery here to fit a two-hour movie, stretched to six hours by a heavy emphasis on interpersonal drama.

I think you're right, as this week's episode (airing already on Max, so as not to compete with the superbowl, FYI) ties a few narrative strands together very succinctly in a manner that does work, even if I still need to refer to a manual to get a handle on each character's connection to the others. Episode Five is quite effective on a number of fronts - I still think some of the writing is poor, and the narrative propulsion isn't earning points for its economy because of a thin and at times elastic sense of characterization. This is a case where some things feel way too fast as some can feel too slow, though not as much of the latter anymore.

And for reasons I don't know if I can properly express, the whole 'femininity-cold/dark' thematic ambiance the creator had discussed implementing in atmosphere seems to be shining through.. Cruel systemically-patriarchal injustice has been a part of this show all along, but the sensitivity that bookends the crackerjack finish, not just from women towards women, but from women towards men, carries a stoicism and gentleness coming from women and towards the world - even a cold, dark, mysterious world. They will be the ones showing up, fierce and independent, no matter what the conditions before them, because that is their nature. It's a more calculated, intelligent, caring, yet in many ways oddly more reserved nature to the men in past seasons, who may be "reserved" in the classic Boy's Club fashion, but were emoting and reacting messily all over the jungly and rusty terrain. I dunno, that's not fully-formed, but I'm sure someone more invested in this could connect the dots more thoroughly!

I think the answer to the whodunit is pretty obvious simply when you consider the cast and how much of their potential has been squeezed yet, but whatever, there's still plenty of possible riches in both the set pieces and extraneous reveals

Speculation for Episode 6Show

Or, hey, maybe Christopher Eccleston won't get his 'moment' by being the sniveling lapdog-to-the-point-of-murder for Kate McKitterick, but by emerging from that state and saving the day! That would be preferable

[therewillbeblus]

Pretty strong finale, and happy to be wrong about a hackneyed showdown amongst other things. There are certainly borrowed and cliched elements, but this one surprised me more than I expected it to, moving in several directions that are often earned by the sense of place and dynamics

SpoilerShow

except for the whole eye-rolling 'explanation of the rationale for the kill, returning to the trite 'One life you know vs. many potential saved' singleminded ethos - that was annoying. The reveal to the audience of Clark not only participating but finishing/mercy killing Annie while baldly lying to the detectives, forcing a split between us and them, was very effective - turning our attention toward Clark and briefly invite us to accompany the guilt and shame that has been his alone to sit with alone.

I still think we were shortchanged on textures for certain characters, and I genuinely wonder why a few well-known actors even bothered to show up here as empty vessels with no screen time, but at least Foster gets a few hefty opportunities to finally let her character exhale and explode and it's excellent

[oh yeah]

I thought it was one of the worst episodes of TV I've ever seen, finale or otherwise. Fitting for this disaster of a season.

The "time is a flat circle" drop? I groaned. Cleaning ladies busting in there like SEAL Team 6? It's like the tone suddenly switched to some sort of girlboss action-comedy, or like Yellowjackets S2 except even sillier. Another breathy, sad cover of Twist and Shout? I've heard enough of that song now to last a lifetime. The dialogue throughout was just atrocious. I'd like to know how this season made it to air, truly. I've never seen HBO release such shoddy work and try to pass it off as "prestige TV." Writing quality-wise, if Season 1 is Faulkner, Season 4 is R.L. Stine at best. Complete with hokey jump-scares, pointing ghosts!, tons of expository flashbacks to remind us of how stupid the director thinks the viewer is, soundtrack selections better fit for the CW network, and a general atmosphere of a cheaply-produced, anonymously-directed horror film that went direct-to-DVD in the 00s. Truly awful.

[therewillbeblus]

There was a lot that didn't work, and the jump from languid pacing and throwaway vapid characters to rally with narrative propulsion in the final act doesn't work as a whole. But I dunno, maybe I just went from being bored to being stimulated by information and action, and that's where I adjusted the bar once I committed to finishing it.

I rarely pop over to reddit these days, but I happened to scan a thread reacting to last night's ep and I think I counted one single post that wasn't a complete evisceration of this episode and season (maybe saying "worst episode/season in TV history" or the like), so you're in good company

[oh yeah]

There was a lot that didn't work, and the jump from languid pacing and throwaway vapid characters to rally with narrative propulsion in the final act doesn't work as a whole. But I dunno, maybe I just went from being bored to being stimulated by information and action, and that's where I adjusted the bar once I committed to finishing it.

I rarely pop over to reddit these days, but I happened to scan a thread reacting to last night's ep and I think I counted one single post that wasn't a complete evisceration of this episode and season (maybe saying "worst episode/season in TV history" or the like), so you're in good company

Different strokes! Always respect your opinion twbb. And I'm probably not the target demographic for this season, admittedly. Having just re-watched the first 3 seasons and come to re-evaluate them very positively after years of being indifferent, this season - being such a dramatic departure from Pizzolatto's very literary style - was probably destined to disappoint me, and many others. It is odd how IMDb and most of Reddit is pretty unified in their dislike of S4, yet the critical reaction is supremely positive. It's definitely not the very worst TV ever made, to be fair -- but I understand that sort of hyperbole, because I honestly don't know if I've seen a more disappointing drama season from HBO at least in the past 10-15 years. I think much of the extreme hate for the season is due to confusion at this disconnect with the critics, where people are wondering how normally reputable folks like Sepinwall who'll call out plot holes, bad dialogue, lazy cliches, etc. are instead calling this finale the best TD has ever offered. I just hope the ratings success of this doesn't mean HBO keeps pumping out increasingly dumbed-down installments of various IPs. Although that's sort of standard in the industry by now I guess.