Intentions / Purpose
How do I begin? I guess from the beginning is always a good start…It might, but, on the other hand, is it as interesting? “As interesting as what?” you may ask. As beginning from a different part of the timeline and building up my narrative non-linearly… Maybe I could start by stating some facts that you know, may know, or potentially would like to know and leave the non-linear storytelling for True Detective.
This article aims to inform and, hopefully, entertain the reader on how and why the narrative works in the series True Detective but also how, the unique character development pushes these three stories forward. At this point, I would like to note that I will make an exception in this instance, and, based on facts, I will walk you through it as I have interpreted over the years, defending or opposing certain praises and accusations. It is a wishful thinking that mypersonal reflection, if you have watched it, will shed some more orjust different light to the way you have interpreted so far, and ifyou haven’t, it will urge you to sit down and watch it with an openmind. Thus, I will not touch at all on plot points or spoil the endings chosen respectfully for any of the three seasons.
Narrative: An Introduction
If someone walks up to you and asks, “Have you watched…”, chances are that if you haven’t, you will ask them back, “What’s the story about?” You wouldn’t ask, “What’s the plot about?” In Russian Formalism, one encounters two major elements: the “fabula” and the “syuzhet”. Fabula is the events presented in the story, and syuzhet is the plot, the arrangement of those events in the narrative text.
To put it plainly, a film’s logline is a story summarised in a couple of lines. How this story develops and unfolds is the plot. You may have noticed, after watching an intricate plot of a film or series, after everything is said, done, and revealed, that there is this natural tendency to piece everything back together in the right chronological order in your mind so it makes sense or is more comprehended.
The intricacy of this kind of storytelling aims to create an indirect causality pattern. A masterfully told non-linear story constantly raises ambiguity regarding ” what the audience knows and the heroes don’t,” “what the heroes know, and the audience doesn’t,” and finally, “what do all of us think we know and what we actually do?” I think the ultimate convolution presents itself the moment you ask “what is happening” while you are unaware of “when it is happening.”
True Detective Season 1
Story
In 1995, Detectives Rust Cohle and Marty Hard are called in to investigate a young woman’s murder. Evidence points out that she was a victim of a Satanic ritual, and finally, their investigation leads to disturbing and inconvenient truths. Years later, in 2012, they are called in again, separately, for an interview, being scrutinised about the same case and their findings. Unbeknownst to us, the two of them have fallen out and haven’t spoken since 2002. Towards the end of the season, and after their interviews are over, the two men meet again as new…
Narrative & Character Development
Cohle: “If the only thing keeping a person decent is the expectation of divine reward, then, brother, that person is a piece of shit – and I’d like to get as many of them out in the open as possible”.
With themes spanning from “Masculinity and Depiction of Women” to religion, to philosophical pessimism, and more, the first season of True Detective debuted and averaged over 2 million views per episode, becoming one of the most complimented series of all time (as of 2014). Success that raised the disappointment regarding season 2. It makes one wonder why or how a story such as the above can generate such hype. Well, I guess it is not the story. It is its development and the characters within it.
Cohle (Matthew McConaughey), insightful, charismatic, tough as nails, self-destructive, atheist, pessimist, misanthropist – nihilist even – is obsessed with humanity and, as a consequence, morality’s decay. From the beginning till the end, regardless of the technological advancements, modernity, and comforts throughout the decades, the decay still infects the rotten core of human nature, valuing us less than dogs*it. According to Cohle, anyway…
Cohle: “I think human consciousness is a tragic misstep in evolution… We are things that labour under the illusion of having a self, that accretion of sensory experience and feelings, programmed with total assurance that we are each somebody, when in fact, everybody’s nobody… I think the honourable thing for our species to do is to deny our programming. Stop reproducing, walk hand in handinto extinction; one last midnight, brothers and sisters opting outof a raw deal.”Hard (Woody Harrelson), devoted detective, caring (but not so devoted) family man, quite religious, mows his own loan, pushes for the American dream, and works hard for his daughters to see a better world. Interestingly enough, he doesn’t know who he is. What is he to Cohle? The only one who can be his partner. And that’s due to more than one reason.
Both Cohle and Hard belong to the highest humanly possible detective level, with the first ranking at the top and the latter at the bottom. But one cannot be without the other. Their intricate personalities, their idiosyncrasies, and their antitheses only reveal how broken in so many different ways both of them are, and, despite their-congeniality, their kindred hatred of the world’s status quo unfolds fluently in an unmistakable, “whodunit-style” narrative.
From 1995 to 2012 and back, the viewer is constantly glued to their seats, craving to find out how things came to be, what “Carcosa” is (look into it if you are unaware) and how it is related to the narrative, what happened in 2002, what is it that they know and we don’t, and what is it that they don’t know about each other. Ultimately, the subtexts of corrupted politicians, crooked religious institutions, poverty, crime, prostitution, violence, paedophilia, and the notion that everyone is getting away with everything in this world can justify our villainous nature and expand the terror beyond a monster offering human sacrifices.
Favourite Sequences
Introducing Cohle.
“There is a videotape…”
The Infiltration Tracking Shot.
Entering Carcosa.
True Detective Season 3
Story
In 1980, Detectives Wayne Hays and Roland West are called in to investigate the disappearance of two children. After their findings are proven to be inconclusive, the case closes, and Hays gets demoted. In 1990, West reopens the case and brings him back, and even though more disturbing and inconvenient truths are revealed, the case closes again. In 2015, towards the end of the season, “Old Man Hays” and his estranged old partner West meet again as new…
Narrative & Character Development
Hays: “One thing I learned, the war? Life happens now. Then later’s now, y’know? It’s never behind you”.
West: See, I always wondered, all these butt-faced pieces of garbage walkin’ the earth, who’s makin’ ’em? I mean, what kind of Frankenstein monsters are out there copulatin’ to create all these hunk of shit people in the world? Then I walk in this bar, and there’s you two givin’ me the answer I’ve been lookin’ for my wholefuckin’ life.
Past, present, and future, where the future is the present and the present is the past, the story’s unfolding starts on November 7, 1980, the day Steve McQueen died…
Following the success of season 1, and avoiding the disappointment of season 2, True Detective season 3 takes place not in one but two different full decades and, as with season 1, only glimpses of yet another. This time, despite their differences, the contrast between the two detectives does not revolve so much around their intellectual, political, religious, and skill level but around the interracial mentality of the ‘80s and ‘90s in the US and how that partnership/friendship/relationship brings results in, occasionally, following unorthodox ways.
Right off the bat, the two missing children in 1980 instigate their search that will throw Hays and West into action. The non-linear narrative then travels us to and fro, never giving us the full picture regarding the crime but also the state of the heroes themselves. From 1980 to 1990, to 2015 and back, the mystery heightens, involving different people and different elements, making the viewer constantly doubt what they know and what they think they do, how on Earth the situation escalated to that level, and what may have caused it. Furthermore, since we live in the present and go through this journey through the “Old Man Hays” eyes, what’s better to experience it if not through his caused by dementia, fragmented mind?
With no extended, “gratifying” existential monologues, the narrative here focuses on the system’s failure, society’s misconceptions, the voluntary and involuntary perceptual omission of what is in front of us, and last but not least, the reflections of two young and energetic detectives turned old and fragile, inundated with dedication and utmost remorse.
Favourite Sequences
The Brett Woodard Shootout.
Finding Hoyt.
Tom Purcell’s Breakdown.
West “Complimenting” Strangers.
True Detective Season 2
StoryVinci’s city manager is found murdered. Detective Ray Velcoro (Colin Farrell), Detective Ani Bezzerides (Rachel McAdams), and Officer Paul Woodrugh (Taylor Kitsch), the first law enforcement on scene, take charge of the case, all of them with different personal and political agendas in mind. The case then spirals out of control when. Frank Semyon (Vince Vaughn), an ex-mafioso turned legit casino owner, Russians, prostitutes, and corrupt police and politicians are found to be involved.
Narrative & Character Development
Velcoro pays a visit to the kid’s house who bullied his kid. Father and son stand by the door, bullies the son in front of the father, beat the life out of the father in front of the son, grab the son by the collar, and look him straight in the eyes: “If you ever bully or hurt anybody again, I’ll come back and butt-fuck your father with your mom’s headless corpse on this goddamn lawn”.
So, what led to people’s disappointment that made season 3 almost a replica of season 1? What was it that season 2 didn’t achieve but people expected it to do so? What is the nature of people’s letdown? Some went as far as getting insulted by it.
The first instalment of True Detective is a police drama, taking a new approach to the franchise. In terms of character development, the differences and similarities with seasons 1 and 3 hide behind blurry lines. According to the vast majority, there is more than one elephant in the room here, both in narrative and character development: It is set in one timeline, and the protagonist is not as philosophical.
Did it generate as many quotes as season 1? It certainly did not. But neither did season 3, which followed the same recipe. Is it as metaphysical? No, but why should it be as? Does it focus on two detectives and contrasts the differences between them? No, but it focuses on four main characters and the dysfunctional partnership/relationship amongst them surrounding their professional duties, society’s misconceptions, common and separate unforeseen enemies, and their personal shenanigans, dubious backgrounds, and fears that drive and determine their life decisions.
Velcoro is an insightful, dishevelled drunkard who raises and wholeheartedly loves a kid whose father is his ex’s rapist. Bezzerides is a lonely, damaged core feminist who takes on the world. Woodrugh is an ex-marine not to be messed with, whose closeted homosexuality makes him hate himself more than his foes. And all three of them are top-shelf in what they do! Throw in a conspiracy, high-level corruption, and pure decadence, and there is nothing to doubt about this season’s quality.
Favourite Sequences
Visiting the Bully.
Bezzerides in and out of Mansion.
Midday Shootout.
Woodrugh’s Solo Mission.
Conclusion
The subtexts are not far off from one another. Look closer, and you will identify the patterns. I can understand the need for the first season’s events’ deeper exploration and elaboration, but expecting a different story to be told the same way and yield “better” results than the original is utopic. Narratives and characters are meant to be explored and developed in different ways. Trial and error is part of the process, beats stagnation, and leads to the evolution of storytelling as we know it. It is my humble belief that we shouldn’t be casting stones. What if we took a step back and tried to understand why a story is chosen to be told in a certain way? Maybe accept the creator’s vision of the story’s setup and confrontation, and the way chosen to convey meaning is meant to be understood rather than condemned. And finally, stop expecting, start accepting, make it to the resolution and wonder: “What if the ending isn’t really the ending at all…”
Thank you for reading!
Suggested Bibliography
- Bordwell, D. (1989) Making Meaning: Inference and Rhetoric in the Interpretation of Cinema. Harvard University Press.
- Bordwell, D. (1985). Narration in the Fiction Film. Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press.
- Chambers, R. W. (2004). The Yellow Sign and Other Stories. Call of Cthulhu Fiction.
Cobley, Paul. “Narratology.” The Johns Hopkins Guide to Literary Theory and Criticism. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. - Kisak, P. F. Narratology: “The Study of The Narrative” Vol. 1 & 2. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. Steiner, P. (2016). Russian Formalism: A Metapoetics. Cornell University Press.
Thanks for reading!
Please, don’t forget to share and subscribe. If you enjoy my work and dedication to films, please feel free to support me on https://www.patreon.com/kaygazpro. Any contribution is much appreciated and valued.
Solidarity for all the innocent lives who suffer the atrocities of war!
Stay safe!
