“It’s terrible what this work makes you ponder, isn’t it?”
At a 1990 reading from Life And Death And The Harvest Moon, Amelia Hays concludes, “A lost child is a story that’s never allowed to end,” and her rapt audience nods along. New evidence (and fresh publicity) in the Purcell case means renewed interest in her debut book and the possibility of a sequel. The story has changed, and change means opportunity.
The story has changed. The facts haven’t. They’re just coming to light.
For all its doling out of details, daring viewers to put together pieces, True Detective is more interested in the abstract idea of a story than in any character or plot or mere fact. “Hunters In The Dark” demonstrates that clearly, and I don’t mean that as a compliment.
“Hunters In The Dark” manages to work well as a story, better than any episode since the two-part premiere, and to demonstrate the emptiness of a narrative that’s more interested in abstractions than in its characters. Writers Graham Gordy and Nic Pizzolatto keep the tension up, moving the story ahead (and, as decade-jumping stories demand, back) at a good clip. But even here, where the pace works well, the pitfalls of previous episodes recur.
Wayne Hays folding a piece of paper and slipping it into the Purcell house’s “peephole” is presented as a big mystery solved, a possible violation resolving into a loving gesture. But attentive viewers will have seen the notes, seen the peephole, seen Henry and Becca Hays protecting each other as Will and Julie Purcell might have, and put those pieces together.
While some plot points get dragged out, others are introduced and burned off in a single episode, destroying the delicious speculation that fuels both slow-burn mysteries and highly stylized prestige dramas. In “Hunters In The Dark,” former cop and current Hoyt Foods chief security officer Harris James (Scott Shepherd) makes his first appearance, as does his rigidly respectable, oddly predatory office. By episode’s end, he’s a sinister figure indeed, creeping up on Tom Purcell in the pink rooms under the Hoyt mansion.
That mansion, with its forbidding gates, could have cast its sinister pall over both the town and the story in earlier episodes. Even the writers of Scooby Doo know that if you’re going to creep around a daunting estate later, you should show it early and often. (We can call this guideline Chekhov’s castle.) Instead, in a tautly effective scene set up with startling sloppiness, it’s trotted out just in time for Tom Purcell’s drunken break-in.
Other elements and clues are interjected with clumsy brazenness, like the amateurishly blatant cut from Amelia’s runaway interview subject to the landscaper outside her window. (Ardoin Landscaping, the door of the truck reads, and if this is the same Mike Ardoin Julie and Will said they were visiting the day they disappeared, there has to be a more graceful way to reintroduce the character.)
These missteps can be forgiven in exchange for the reveal of the subterranean “pink rooms” under the millionaire’s mansion, and the terrible road that leads Tom Purcell there. Unlike the empty violence of previous episodes, the beating Tom delivers to his late wife’s cousin and former lover is excruciating to watch. As loathsome as he is, Dan O’Brien (Michael Graziadei) is fleshed out in a way Hays and West’s early suspect never was, nor the unnamed mob and unnamed cops who got blown away at “the Woodard altercation.” And we know too much about Tom Purcell—about his grief, his recovery, his striving for peace—to take his sudden swerve into brutality lightly.
When Amelia describes the revival of the case (and therefore the Purcell’s continuing grief) as “an opportunity,” Wayne Hays bridles, but it is exactly that—for both of them. New evidence and new interest means new investigations, both official and informal, because the story—the narrative—of what happened to Julie Purcell has changed.
“It’s all about the kids!” O’Brien (who by 1990 looks like Paul Rudd gamely trying to play Charles Manson) yells at Hays and West, dumbstruck that they haven’t figured that out. That only makes it worse that these children have been lazily written. What happened to Julie, before and after her disappearance, is the key to the season’s mystery. But no one in this show, either character or writer, seems to care who she is, only where and why.
Julie Purcell, the lost child Amelia wrote about, isn’t a story. She’s a person. But in the world of True Detective, she’s a placeholder, a person lost before the audience got to know her, a MacGuffin to be chased through the decades.
Or, as the season’s pervasive images of the hunt suggest, the children are nothing more than prey. Looking at Harris James’ office, adorned with weapons and souvenirs from his hunts, it’s easy to believe Will and Julie mean no more to him, and to the people who pay him so handsomely, than a brace of birds butchered on the factory’s chicken line.
This season keeps demonstrating a failure to distinguish between people, an eagerness to lump folks in together. After storming out of a press conference, Lucy Purcell turns on both the reporter hounding her and Amelia Hays, who’s trying to curb the harassment.“You two bitches!” she screeches, “you talk to each other, make up a story on your own!” It would be easy to judge Lucy for screaming at the woman trying to protect her from the hungry press, but Amelia made her name off Lucy’s misery. Amelia is the hungry press; she just plays the long game.
Chief Warren (Gareth Williams), who shares his name with the author of Tell Me A Story, isn’t worried about facts. He’s worried about the story being told about local law enforcement. “Press is making the county a Hee Haw sideshow!” he reminds Det. Hays, trying to justify hanging the Purcell kids on the late Brett Woodard. “He killed ten people! You were there!”
“Twelve people,” Hays corrects him on his way out the door. “Get your stories straight.”
Early on, True Detective’s third season seemed to be exploring subtle racial dynamics, especially in the way it shows black characters talking around the racism they both experience every day without having to specify what “it” is. As the season goes on, the show keeps invoking racial tension—West and Hays’ confrontation of the crowd in Davis Junction, the attacks on Brett Woodard, and his explosive response, Tom Purcell’s immediately recanted slur (and Lucy’s unrepented, unforgiven slurs), Patty Faber’s perplexity at being asked to describe a black man—=without excavating any larger meaning from it.
Wayne Hays knows his partner’s word carries more weight with their superiors because of his skin color—“they ain’t my tribe, man”—and he knows Roland’s company legitimizes his own presence for some of their community. Roland West knows Hays believes it, even if Roland doesn’t. So when Wayne Hays leaves his partner behind, striding down the road (evoking memories of Julie and Will “pedaling into the sun”) and West yells after him, “People see your black ass skulking around, you’re gonna get yourself shot!,” it’s not just a grim joke or a crude warning. And it’s not a show making a statement about racism so pervasive that even with a suit (real necktie and all), a badge, and a gun, a black man alone is a man in danger. It’s a white man using his partner’s real and reasonable fear—physical and professional—as a cudgel, to hurt him.
These ongoing mentions of race are more than many shows bother with, and there’s value in a drama acknowledging real racism. But merely presenting the reality of racism isn’t commentary.
And in this case, it’s a shocking waste. “Hunters In The Dark” heightens both the compelling mystery and the eerie aesthetic of season three. But a show that follows an enigmatic, charismatic black lead (and even more charismatic actor) from 1980 to 2015 is packed with opportunities to explore the racial dynamics of its times, and to see how they’ve shifted over time—or, tellingly, not shifted. Six episodes into an eight-episode season, this is just one more opportunity True Detective has squandered.
Stray observations
- Season one Easter egg!
- “I’ve been looking at myself a lot,” Wayne Hays tells his son, which is the understatement of the season. This show is haunted by mirrors and reflections, some of them affording glimpses of other times.
- Like Lucy, Wayne accuses Amelia of “telling yourself stories about me, my motives,” adding pointedly, “I could tell stories.”
- “Did I teach you to withhold?”
- “Missing my old clip-ons.” “You’re not in elementary school anymore.” If this season ends without explaining Wayne Hays’ “preoccupation” with being strangled by his own necktie, I will burn this whole place down, right to the pink rooms.
- A girl who knew Mary Julie lists her names for Amelia, including Mary July, “like summertime, she said.” SUMMER is one of the names painted on the walls of the derelict house on Shoepick Lane, in large, carefully legible letters.
175 Comments
I dig that Caprice they’re driving in 1990. It’s been 5 years since I sold my ‘89 Caprice, and the ignition sounded just like that.
That’s really interesting
Kudos to everybody who called the Henry-Elisa affair. I suppose the clues were there.
I called it after the first episode, where she called him “Henry” in the filming room.
Me, too. They seemed closer than “documentarian” and “documentary subject’s son/guardian.”
Anyone think Elisa is Julie’s daughter out to find the truth her mother never revealed to her? Her investment in the case is suspicious especially since she likely slept with Henry for access to his father. Age would seem right assuming Julie had her around 1990.
I thought the show implied something bad happened to Julie?
After the events of 1990? I may have missed that specific information, but considering she isnt being interviewed in 2015 I can only assume she is dead or was never found (or reported found) by the detectives. Still possible she could have had a child by 1990.
This crossed my mind! This is going to sound far fetched, but could Henry be looking for answers too? Henry seems protective of his dad and his dementia but he stands there watching him while Elisa does the interviews almost like he is waiting for something. There is the absent Becca that is mad at Wayne (assuming she is alive). When Wayne asks about her Henry gets upset. Roland and Hays have a secret that sounds bad, could Henry suspect his dad of some crime. He is a cop Do you think it is weird that Henry would let his dad do a documentary about this case? He’s got some for of dementia where he is losing his memory. If that case was a darker chapter in his life and but his son had good memories of him wouldn’t you want him to remember those things. You wouldn’t encourage him to relive his time in the Vietnam War, so why do this? I think Henry has questions about the past. His mom wrote a book about the Purcell case, he basically grew up with it.
I thought their secret was their killing the child molester?
They did everything short of admitting out loud that they killed the cop who works for Hoyt Harris James.
Wayne definitely shot him. In a scene in episode 4 where Old Wayne is “haunted” by all the Vietcong that he presumably killed, there is a guy there in a suit and tie with a bullet hole in his chest that is also “haunting” him. It looked just like the Former Cop/Hoyt Security dude.
On the other side of that shot was also the ghost/hallucination of the longest-haired teenager. I wonder if that’ll be explained.
Interesting! I missed that. I’m very curious to see how it all goes down and then wraps up
I think that was Woodard, actually. Which makes sense if those are all the people Hayes has killed.
Idk how I didn’t put that together.
I got the impression that he thinks going over the case might be therapeutic for his father, that and being involved with interviewer may have clouded his better judgment.
I started thinking this this episode. Though, I don’t know if the timeline supports it.
I could see the interviewer Elisa being in her mid twenties to early thirties. If she was born before 1990 she could be that age by 2015 when the interviews are being done.
Are people liking the 2015 part of the story? I’m always kind of annoyed when it cuts to one of those scenes. Wayne forgetting tons of stuff isn’t particularly interesting. I guess the frustration you feel as a viewer during those is intentional, so you can really feel what he’s going through, but it’s still a low point for me. Would’ve been much tighter to keep it with just the 1980/1990 storylines and mash up the investigative parts into those 2.
Ignoring the grades, the criticism by Stephens (most certainly last week) and this week, ignores to my mind, the tragedy and sympathies this series does a very fine job in creating,. Instead the reviewers cynicism upends any credibility while revealing a lack of empathy for human failings Last week’s gorgeous reunion of two men with so much history, the effects of aging and memory was met with such dismissiveness. This episode, she all but struts that she figured out the peephole was to pass notes and not in fact the means for a prying pedophile. She ignores the humanity and horrific tragedy this discovery reveals, that two children, trapped in a home of such dysfunction of drugs, alcohol, and crushing marital discord that their lifeline to survive was the passing of notes. This isn’t lazy writing, this is further fleshing out of the kids, a momentous and heartbreaking establishment of what pressures these children suffered in the home and their willingness to be seduced by other that offered the hope of attention and kindness; tragically one in death, the other in horrific exploitation. This is then further expanded into so much of the town being exploited by factors of men more powerful (Hoyt Foods, Corrupt Politicians) than a simple citizen can. overcome. And this is as real today as the series is bringing to the fore. Look no further than the horrific and systematic abuse of children and minors in The Southern Baptist cabal now shocking Texas to its core.It is about the children………..
Great post. Emily Stephens has an SJW grudge against the show because Season 1 had two male leads and was therefore sexist.
The note passing was a surprise to me. The first time cousin Dan denied it, I figured he was just lying. And I don’t know how Wayne figured that just because they could fit notes that meant that’s what it was actually used for.
I hadn’t heard of any recent stories about Texas Baptists, have you got a link?
And this is just part one. Watch the video interview, it is beyond the palehttps://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/investigations/article/Southern-Baptist-sexual-abuse-spreads-as-leaders-13588038.php
Aha moment. It happens all the time in real life. After ten years, its possible to come across a scenario that reminds you of some small detail that you’ve been obsessed with over the years and connect the two.
Yeah, I don’t really get the “review the show you wish was happening” because for me the story they are telling is fascinating, and inhabited by plenty of rounded characters.Even last week, the read that the show was redeeming the men while reducing the women felt off for more than just the “going out of the way to get there” nature of the critique, but because what the reviewer seemingly wanted (Lucy to forgive Amelia and be nice to her or whatever) would be so out of character as to be insulting to the audience, and also not deserved. Amelia isn’t set up as a wholly virtuous woman who’s just trying to help, she clearly has her own stakes in it, even if her end goal is still the right one. And that’s good! That’s actually a very fascinating twist on the normal way women are treated in shows like this, where normally Amelia would be the literal good-hearted teacher who acts more as a moral compass for the flawed male detective. Even when she’s confronted at the reading by the man who maybe had something to do with the disappearance, and she puts that together, what he’s saying isn’t entirely without merit. So, yeah, I’m actually fine with the show we’re getting. And I’m not saying there’s a wrong way to be a critic, either, but I’m just personally not sure how someone comes away from these 6 episodes of True Detective thinking that it’d be a better show if it were more overtly focused on race.
as i said last week, it’s as if a) there’s either a mandate to add a social justice stinger out of left field to the end of every review (like wishing this show was more about race and implying nobody cares about ‘who Julie is’ because…patriarchy? who knows or b) this reviewer just sees those angles in absolutely everything she reviews, and writes reviews to be about those angles accordingly. it’s absurd to consistently fixate on certain issues when the show itself isn’t doing so. it definitely reads as ‘reviewing the show you wish this was rather than the show it is’, and it’s annoying as fuck.
and really, let’s be honest – amelia is not a super likable person. she’s giddy at the the opportunity presented by a dark crime involving the death of children because she can make her name as a writer off of it. she doesn’t seem to consider the real impact on peoples’ lives, it’s all seemingly just melodrama to her, not entirely real. even though its a difficult subject for her husband, she keeps it in their lives by fixating on it because she’s hitched her identity and ideas of independence to it. there’s a real craven, self-serving quality to amelia that’s pretty gross (her telling off that reporter is pretty fucking rich, as lucy obviously noticed), and frankly i think wayne is right in a lot of criticism of her. she seems to use people for her own ends, and doesn’t much worry about their feelings. but something tells me you’re not gonna get much criticism of female characters from this reviewer, especially of a black female character. that’s not the agenda. the agenda is men don’t care about women/girls and every television show featuring a black character should be all about race and how every white person around them is clearly racist, as if people of color aren’t entitled to create entertainment that isn’t immediately and fully about their race.
As far as I can tell the AV CLUB has 2 main editorial mandates: add a social justice stinger out of left field to the end of every review and more Tommy Wiseau.
“it’s all seemingly just melodrama to her, not entirely real”To clarify, are you intimating that the author thinks this work of fiction is a melodrama and not entirely real?
Bingo. I think a lot of newer critics have taken the (correct) idea that reviews can’t ever be objective as an excuse for not engaging with the artist’s subjective view and instead focusing solely on the critic’s subjective view. It makes for a banal and utterly predictable critique once you know the critic’s preferred topics.
I should also be clear that it’s still better form than just recapping the plot and calling it a review.
‘This show doesn’t have nearly enough Klingons or Romulans’ is almost as sensible as much of this review.
A lot of critics have had it out for Pizzolato ever since he replied to Nussbaum’s snarky comments with equal snark. Critics don’t get that from creators that much anymore and you can tell it fully shook them up to know someone on the creative side of the wall wasn’t going to completely acquiesce to their bullshit.
Her reviews have been nothing short of ridiculous since episode one and they clearly have an agenda behind them. Its blatant and silly.
Well said, I join the chorus of disliking the editorializing reviews, and the don’t “review the show you wish was happening”. The children not being fleshed out characters to me IS kinda the point. They are dead (or presumed to be). Detectives can’t interview them, and really can’t know that much about them due to school kids being crap witnesses (kids haven’t discovered their own identity let alone be counted on to describe others).Hays, who we believe to be a pretty good detective, is himself frustrated by the fact they haven’t been able to do enough to discover why the kids were going into the woods, what the games were, who they are playing with. While not a detective, I can certainly imagine that investigating murdered children is more about the world around them than who the kids were.Knowing that Julie is alive and who she has become is a mystery I am perfectly content with, and suspect its intentional. Maybe she really was in the pink room at the end of the episode. Her 2015 status, whatever it is is certainly worthwhile of a season of suspense.
Ans ultimately the story is about the “detectives” West & Hays & Hays as a fun ‘twist’. What the two police detectives did is a mystery I can’t wait to discover, what Amelia’a arc will be, that’s all great story telling. It’s not a Hanibal Lecter style investigation into the depravity and motivations of the Hoyts, its about the lives and impacts of the detectives investigating it.
However there are other ways to discover who a child is/was besides asking simple very few questions of people who knew them. It definitely seems like they haven’t delved into their daily lives as much as they should have, or it takes too long for them to get to it. Realizing 10 years later that the notes were passed between the kids, really? All you had to do was see how low the hole was placed to figure it out.And what leads you to believe that Hayes is a great detective?
Really worthless review, and I regret the time spent reading this, and previous ones. The crowing about the peephole was ridiculous, and totally contradictory to her complaint about not showing the mansion enough. Wants less of character X, more of character Y. Such a series of sad sack reviews – her comment about the pink room was telling – she wants more jumpy plot action. And she needs explicit statements that the pervasive racism woven throughout is BAD. She recognizes how good the acting is, but is focused on these other silly complaints. She can easily find a show that has what she wants – crazy plot twists and heavy-handed preaching.Ugh – I think the Ringer has entertaining reviews on TD?
Emily writes terrible reviews, mostly complaining about how the shows aren’t doing what she wants them to do. Anyone who followed along with her through Castle Rock knows what I’m talking about.
This comment is 1000X better than the actual review. Thank you. Some of us watch television for entertainment not to breakdown every little thing, sorry I didn’tput the peephole and notes together guess I’m dense. How smug.
It’s the syndrome TV Club reviews increasingly fall into these days… the reviewer’s not interested in the things the show is trying to explore, but only in its failure to explore the things she *wants* it to explore.
For the most part, the show acknowledges racism as an unavoidable reality of its time and setting. It would be criticized if it acted like racism didn’t exist or play a part. But that’s not enough for TVC; the show has to not only acknowledge the racism, but be ABOUT the racism in some deep way. Otherwise it’s all “a shocking waste.”
Similarly, it’s not enough for the show to use a charismatic black lead to tell a fairly universal story about time, memory, the regrets that follow a person through life, and so on. The show must be fundamentally *about* the lead’s blackness. Otherwise it’s a missed opportunity.The reviewers on this site need a lesson in criticizing a work of art on its own terms, rather than projecting a lot of other (mostly political) considerations onto it and then balking when the creators show little interest in exploring the reviewers’ interests, rather than their own.
I really enjoyed this episode overall. Scoot McNairy still has my vote for MVP. He’s doing some fantastic work. Mahershala Ali is also doing great work, but I don’t expect less of him anymore.My biggest concern going into the last two episodes is that the conclusion will be lackluster. Season 1 kept building and building and building, alluding to a big conspiracy. Then suddenly we got zero payoff for that and the central crime turned out to be a much smaller component.Even Tom breaking into the Hoyt mansion recalled Rustin Cohle breaking into the rich guy’s house to steal videos and such. I’m slightly worried we are building to what will be a let down (but I’ll keep hoping to be surprised.
that’s my one criticism of S1, and what kept it from being a great show, instead turning out to be a merely very good one. the season peaked with the raid on the projects in Beaumont followed by the meth lab assault, and everything after was a fair bit of let down. there was an opportunity to build to something really grand, considering the implied scope of the Crooked Spiral cult, but it just kinda petered out in the end, despite some admittedly great work from Glenn Fleshler. I felt like the capture of Errol in ‘Carcosa’ was pretty rote. The show also chickened out by walking Cohle’s narrative back from his fascinating intellectual nihilism towards something much more sentimental.
While I can partially agree with your first point about the show’s S1 peak the idea that it chickened out on Rust’s nihilism doesn’t stand up imo. Mainly because he’s never actually a believer in his nihilism it’s his shield – Marty 100% nails Rust during the scene at the preacher’s tent when he says he sounds panicked. Rust’s arc was always a realignment back to having belief in the power of good and the end is only a small shift not a total about face anyway.
I have the same concerns only 2 hours left to unravel this huge conspiracy I fear it’s not going to end with many answers
I’m curious if it will turn out to be less of a huge conspiracy. The cousin could have just died. It seems a given the Hoyt security guard is whatever Hays and West did. It may be as simple as Julie’s mom trafficked her daughter for cash and drugs, but I am concerned about the notion of a conspiracy.
Tom kills Harris (the security guy) in a struggle and in a panic calls Hays and West. To protect Tom from prosecution they remove him from the scene and fabricate a police report that has them solving the case and Harris dying in a shootout with them. Some time later, Tom is killed or found dead under mysterious circumstances.
Back when I first got into the show, the focus for me was on how the Lovecraftian elements played into it, and I was looking forward to this show having a cool conceit of various stories of people solving mysteries related to this central, malevolent force that was acting throughout time and space. I read an interpretation that said that Rus was the ultimate enemy to whatever that force would be (the King in Yellow, maybe), and that his walking back to a sentimental view as actually his defeat and a victory for the King who had effectively removed an incredible opponent. I wish that was what the show had been, but I’ve come to accept that it’s not.
I’m amused by all the people saying things like, “Who knew Scoot McNairy was this great!?” Not enough people watched Halt and Catch Fire, alas.
right? everyone missing out on his last few scenes in s4, some of the most beautiful TV i’ve seen in my life
that sound effect though during the credits and the dude that looked like Fritz from lethal weapon 2 coming from behind
Poor Tom Purcell.Falsely suspected in the 90s by over ambitious police and politicians, and forcing even Hayes and West to reconsider his undoubtable innocence if to just save him from the wolves at his door.I have a feeling that whatever Wayne and Hayes do to Harris James — given the final scene — well be well deserved. I hope they can work through Wayne’s mental incapacities and bring Hoyt and his “pink rooms” to justice in 2015, as it looks like that family is the villain, if not at least complicit in the Purcell tragedy.
Brett Cullen’s probably know’s he’s innocent and is just looking to frame someone else since his framing of Woodard is now coming back on him.
EDIT: That should read “Wayne and Roland” above.
The end of that “What happens to girls.” scene is maybe the most ominous fucking thing I’ve seen in any season of this show yet, and that’s telling considering all the other evil shit this show is surrounded by.I’m curious for those of you from the Deep South:What does she mean?I mean, I take it to obviously mean sex abuse, but I’m wondering is there is something bigger she means that you might all understand that might not register to a big city northerner like myself.Does she mean living in that area is just shitty and fucks up kids, or that there’s just rampant child abuse, or it’s just hard to live?tl; dr that “What happens to girls.” scene made me wonder how many meanings the dialogue there had.
well, you’re always gonna get television and Hollywood playing up the Deep South as some miserable, soul-crushing, culture-void place, but that’s not the actual reality at all. People are comforted by the idea of quarantining ‘The South’ as having some corner on the market of evil and depression and hopelessness because it helps them ignore that that shit is EVERYWHERE.
Truth is, it’s a mysterious area and it’s haunted by the past in a way that’s not like anywhere else in the country, but it IS like everywhere else in the country in most ways that count- there’s poverty, there’s wealth, there’s good, there’s evil. I saw just as much hayseed redneck bullshit in western Mass as a kid as I’ve ever seen since moving to the South at eleven and living here the twenty-four years since. Signed – A resident of Memphis, North Carolina before.
I thought the girl was specifically referring to the horrifying experiences of runaways and abducted young women. That there are 18,000 results when you Google (Scholar) ‘girls runaways sexual abuse’ give us an idea of how rampant this is.
I don’t think she meant in the Deep South in particular, just “what happens to girls” when they come from bad homes, run away, etc.
She was just referring to what happens to girls in shelters not particularly where those shelters happen to be.
ha you’re crazy
I don’t follow the last stray observation at all. Who’s Mary Julie? What’s the significance of summer time?
that would be one of the names the possibly-still-alive & possibly-julie-purcell girl used according to (at this point) multiple people who appear to have known her after she disappeared…
I might be reaching here, but I got a vibe from a few different things in this episode that West and Tom Purcell might’ve…hooked up, at some point, in the interval between ‘80 and ‘90.
I was wondering the same thing. If they didn’t is it possible West knew about Tom’s sexuality? West picked him up rom a bar that one night who knows what he would have said. Also they seemed pretty close. At first I thought West wanted to do the interrogation of Purcell because he wanted to make sure it was done right. I figured his behavior was part show for the guys watching and part anger for trusting him for ten years. His presence hurt Tom Purcell more than anything because at the very least they were friends. If they had ever been more than that West scowling at him might have been a warning to keep that secret.
Agree with this read as well. Even more so is that the Hoyt security guy Harris James, makes the weirdly out of place comment about Hays having a nice body.
Idk why but I read it as Harris James trying to provoke a homophobic reaction or throw Hays off.
It seemed like he wanted them to know he was gay. Is possibly he is the lover of Hoyt the owner.
I just posted about that. Always goes that if I hit on a theory, someone else got there first. lol
For a few episodes I’ve been reading Tom as gay (and I had a wild suspicion that something happened between him and Roland – a similar idea is mentioned in the Rolling Stone recap today). That’s not the point, though – the point is that the reviewer doesn’t even bother to mention interesting stuff that would be really worth discussing. Sorry, but “I wish it was a show about X and not Y” is technically not a review.
As I have noticed after reading a few of these reviews, the real content is in the comments.
As I have noticed after reading a few of these reviews, the real content is in the comments-The AV Club
So according to you all period pieces that have women and race relations have to make sure that all the white characters are secretive devils who are racist to the core. Yes, Race will always play a part when the story takes place in the USA but this is not a story about race (although it is used in a minor way for exposition) it is a story about the murder and abduction of children and also the exploitation of children. You should really attempt to leave your personal politics out of the shows you watch to critique because in the end it just makes your criticism look odd and out of place.
I mean you’re “according to you” bit is not just a stretch is pure conjecture & assumptions from your part [which 2015 hays even points out is a bad thing to do in this episode] but I mean to be honest, most period pieces do completely overlook just how racist the majority of people were, primarily because it’s uncomfortable but it doesn’t help things as it obfuscates the reality of the situation & makes understanding, & learning from history to better inform the present & future that much harder.
So I think really the reviewer is lamenting more than criticising, as whilst it’s clearly presented as in issue this series, [and given how big an impact it was/is having on the main character it very much is part of the story] it could very much be used more effectively.
Given the grade it doesn’t feel like a harsh criticism, more just a fair comment. Also any review expressing opinion is clearly going to focus on issues that pertain to the writer & will be subjective, complaining about it won’t change that as it happens to every review ever. If you want something more objective there are websites that offer such, but it’s very much a straight recap of what occurred, no talking points which is not what the AV club offer [I prefer a more opinionated review personally as I think it gives rise to better discussions & talking points].
Sorry this is a bit of a rant, I guess ultimately I might not always agree with the points a reviewer has, but i appreciate they’re potentially looking at alternative angles & it raises good discussion in the comments, but the people posting ‘you’re wrong, why do you hate the show, don’t review this, don’t say that etc.’ aren’t contributing anything & it’s just boring.
others have disagreed about the representation of female characters or use of racism & made interesting counter-points or said something meanginful, you’re literally attacking the reviewer for having thoughts and opinions which tbh looks really shitty man.
When Hays goes to the bathroom did anyone else think Roland looked worried. His eyes lingered on the gun, then he looks at Amelia’s book with Wayne’s notes. Could they have solved the case off the books in 1990 and they decided to leave it be for whatever reason but Wayne has forgotten that. I also played with the idea that 2015 Wayne plays up his dementia at times. Did he want to see what Watts would do left in the study alone? His confusion and lack of memory as he comes back to the study, could that be a way to convince Roland he isn’t a threat? That is probably crazy.
I thought that scene was intense. For whatever reason, I worried one was going to grab the gun and shoot the other.
I was thinking Watts considered shooting him to keep whatever secrets they had. I also thought he looked at the gun thinking should someone who has dementia have a weapon and why is it on the desk? Maybe he worried Hays was suicidal. Did you think Roland seemed nervous when Hays mentioned the car sitting outside his house?
I kept waiting for Hays to shoot Roland when he asked him to look outside for a dark sedan
Yeah, it was:1. Hays shoots Roland in a fit of confusion and paranoia.2. Roland shoots Hays, betraying him to protect whatever secret they’re hiding from getting out.
“ I also thought he looked at the gun thinking should someone who has dementia have a weapon and why is it on the desk? Maybe he worried Hays was suicidal.”I think that’s likely part of it but I wonder if it’s either more subtle or more literal than that…whether the two of them are literally responsible for any of the deaths “behind this” mystery or not (& I can think of plausible narratives to argue either way on that given the way the Pink Rooms angle has been developed) it’s possible that beyond its indication of the potential paranoia at work the gun itself might hold significance he’s not sure if his partner fully comprehends…basically I think while the viewer is largely put in Wayne’s shoes by virtue of sharing his time-displaced & fractured jigsaw of recollections it’s another reminder that Roland’s a different kind of closed book in that we don’t get as much of his side of the story but he himself remembers just fine & he went from (reasonably) gregarious & personable to reclusive alcoholism at some point…presumably not for nothing…
The gun is Wayne’s police pistol. Along with the extensive note-taking in Amelia’s book, it’s a clear indicator that Hays is obsessing over his past, and the 2015 investigation isn’t some flight of fancy brought on by the interviews. Roland agreed to humor Wayne’s interest in the case after the conversation on his porch, but it wasn’t until he saw those items in Wayne’s study that he realized how deeply consumed he’d become.Roland also distanced himself significantly from all of the reminders of his old life, going so far as to relocate away from the city (much to Wayne’s surprise). When he sees the gun, he’s also realizing the gravity of the situation, and how he’s being pulled back into a life he’d tried to run away from.
That’s good! I think you are right that Watts realizes how much the case took a toll on them both. I kind of thought the notes in the books made him aware Hays was in deep but had forgotten so much. Wayne seems to remember their secret, but is he trying to recall things that are worse or dangerous? Or maybe just painful? In the 1990 timeline Wayne and Amelia are in a strained marriage and seem to be go in different directions. They made a good team in 1980. She was good at talking to people and getting them to open up. Lucy may have felt that Amelia, while she liked the kids, she wasn’t completely genuine. idk
I’ve kinda wondered if Hays played up his dementia at times, too, but I assumed I was just being insensitive to/ignorant of how dementia works.
I hoped it didn’t come of as offensive. With True Detective you never know. In one of the first episodes Hays gets frustrated with the doctor and says something like, ‘you can’t name what I have’ or ‘you don’t know what it is’ -something like that. I don’t know if that is dementia or if it means there is some other cause. I think someone mentioned PTSD can cause memory loss. Maybe someone understands all that?
I thought he may have been referring to how hard it is to get an actual Alzheimers diagnoses. When my grandfather was clearly demonstrating symptoms before his death, every doctor would tiptoe around it and refuse to pin it down.
Oh I didn’t think you were being offensive at all. It’s really hard to say what’s going on with 2015 Hays. Probably some combo of dementia and PTSD?
Could they have solved the case off the books in 1990 and they decided to leave it be for whatever reason but Wayne has forgotten that.I’ve thought this for a couple weeks now, too. This reads to me like a good theory.
I wonder how many of the scenes are of the ‘unreliable narrator’ variety.We have one cop who has PTSD and some form of dementia. We have another cop who probably has PTSD from the raid and, well, from the other stuff we’ve seen. Finally, we have the father of the victims, who is a heavy drinker, like professional level. Just a thought.
Nic Pizzolatto addresses that in this interview: https://ew.com/tv/2019/01/09/true-detective-nic-pizzolatto-interview-season-3/.
Thanks for this. So there goes the unreliable narrator thing…..
I wondered the same thing until I read that interview. But yeah, it would have been exhausting – and it would’ve detracted from the overall plot – if the audience couldn’t trust Hays’ account. Revealing in the final episode that we had only seen his false memories would have felt cheap.
Thanks so much for the link. The question where he was asked about race coming into play (or not so much) was particularly enlightening.
I’m shocked the grade was a B+. After reading that I’d have guessed C, C minus.
I’ve had a wild theory for awhile and last night’s episode cements it: I suspect Detective West is a closeted gay man, and developed a relationship with Tom Purcell during the investigation in 1980. There was something in the way the camera lingered on West watching Tom sleep, and the close connection they seemed to have when West visited Tom in 1995. West also vehemently defended Tom when Hays seemed to be leaning into the (typical of the era) line of thought that Tom’s sexuality put him under greater suspicion of inappropriate behavior with the children. Perhaps I’m wrong and they were just friends. But West also seemed to go out of his way to act like a ladies’ man and pursue the woman at the church, but nothing ever came of the relationship in the long run.
I think Roland West, like Tom, is definitely a closeted homosexual. -Roland looks insanely betrayed by Tom in the interrogation room when they think Tom might actually be the killer. That fucking scowl is menacing as hell. -While interrogating Tom at the beginning of the episode, Wayne asks Tom again about where he was the night of the incident. Tom panics and says something along the lines of “You know where I…” then trails off. He’s looking right at Roland when he says this. -Roland desperately wants to “clear Tom” of any involvement. -When Hays wants to follow up on Tom being gay, he mentions going to gay clubs and that Devil’s Den was a “homo cruisin’ spot”. West replies to this by telling Hays to “fuck off”. -2015 Roland is a bitter old man who lives alone. A far cry from how we see Roland (and his home) in 1980 and 1990.- When Henry drives Wayne out to see him. Roland asks him if Wayne “remembers why I’m still pissed at him.” Wayne may possibly out in him in 1990 inadvertently. – Roland bristles at Wayne’s repeated use of prison rape as a threat in interrogations. He makes sure to voice his displeasure to this each time.
Excellent analysis! I’d be shocked if this wasn’t true.
Compelling take! My only hesitation is that Season 2’s similar plot line was so terribly done, and the producers know how poorly received Season 2 was that they may not have tried a second time. Or maybe they’re trying to do it right.
Okay also the Cop (Harris? who works at Hoyt in 1990) comments on Wayne’s body in a way that seems pretty flirtatious – I feel like the gay angle is going to definitely get deeper as time goes on
Don’t forget Dan O’Brien’s comment when Hays and West first talk to him at the wake for Will Purcell, something about how he thought Lucy should be with a manly-er man.
And what was it that Roland said to the little dog in the previous episode? “If a woman knows you can cook she knows you’re not looking for a chef.” Or something to that effect. It made me question what exactly *was* he looking for in a woman, especially with how one of Amelia’s criticisms of Wayne is that he only wants her to keep house. These two dudes are from the same era and don’t seem any more enlightened than the other when it comes to social issues. Not knowing any better, I’d assume both were looking for a chef.
WOW. You may be onto something here. West also shut Hays down when he suggested they go investigate the “gay underground.” If your theory holds, it’s probably because they would have ran across someone who knew West.
Ooh, that’s interesting! I definitely picked up on Harris James being gay (the way he admired Hays’ “nice body”) but I hadn’t considered West.
The contrast of the racism that Hays deals with and the prejudice of Roland being gay would be appropriate to the theme they have been banging over our head this whole time. Roland also alludes to his dumping of everything he received as a cop-the picture with Clinton, his medals, etc, insinuating that the fall out from when he left lawn enforcement was bad. If Hays outed him by mistake, that would all fit together.
Yes, I think he’s secretly gay as well and that is why they’ve made a point to show Hays refer to the “queers” as a way to set up the BIG REVEAL.
Good theory and summation. Pizzolatto may have had a more compelling plot here rather than the meandering missing girl and dead boy story. If he sold out the crimes against the kids as a full-blown Macguffin, he could really worked this closeted issue as a powerful piece between the two detectives. That, along with the racial injustice suffered by Hays. Turns out the rest of the cops aren’t West’s tribe either..Instead we’re getting a slow drag with this unfocused investigation story (seemingly solved by drunk-Tom in ten minutes without help…) and the chance that all this West intrigue goes nowhere, like has happened in the first two installments.
I am questioning the wisdom of allowing us to see Tom’s perspective. It’s hard to say without knowing how the final two episodes will play out, but I imagine it would have been more satisfying to see West and Hays figure out what happened to Tom, and maybe offer a glimpse of those events as they pieced it together.
I’m no troll. But seriously WHAT THE FUCK AV CLUB PLEASE SWITCH OUT THE REVIEWER FOR SOMEONE WHO DOESNT HATE THIS SHOW FOR NO REASON. Show is brilliant and these reviews are cranky BS.
It would be easy to judge Lucy for screaming at the woman trying to
protect her from the hungry press, but Amelia made her name off Lucy’s
misery. Amelia is the hungry press; she just plays the long game.
Lucy has no idea what will happen in the future, as Amelia hasn’t written a thing.
From Lucy’s perspective, Amelia was trying to get close to her and pretending to be her friend in order to help Detective Hays with the case. While we see the direct parallels between Amelia and the reporter, Lucy just views them both as vultures.
I’m honestly interested in what the author thinks the show could further explore and say about race. Examples would help make this point. True Detective is not shying away from realities about racial relations in the time and place depicted. They’re important to the narrative, but don’t appear to be the foundation of the story. In fact, although 2015 Hays downplayed the effect of racism on his career, I suspect it did play a significant role – an underlying one due to the mistrust of his colleagues – in whatever led to the derailment of his detective job. We just haven’t seen that part of the story yet. True Detective could serve as a polemic about racism in America, but it’s already stuffed with plot and details regarding its central mystery, and the prejudice faced by Hays is certainly an important thread in the overall tapestry.
It also looks like the guy with the milky eye may have used the trailer park’s distrust of Police to extricate himself from any questioning.
Yeah, but it’s clear that he’s not the guy with the milky eye that we’re looking for, since Steven Williams shows up at Amelia’s reading.
I took his outburst as proof that he was involved
The character played by Steven Williams or the guy at the trailer park?
My mistake I thought Steven Williams was the trailer park guy
If the trailer park guy is Mr. Whitehead, he was played by a different actor. I thought this was something so noteworthy that she needed to talk about in the article. But she didn’t.
Yeah I looked it up on IMDB the trailer guy is Sam Whitehead played by John Jelks and Steven Williams is Junius who appears in this episode and the finale so he clearly is important. They also have opposite milky eyes
I hadn’t looked ahead, but it seemed weird that the character had a name, despite five seconds of screen time. Great catch on the eyes!
Good catch about the eyes. Also, Sam Whitehead didn’t look like a younger Steven Williams. lol
I’m not familiar with his work so he didn’t stand out to me I just saw the milky eye
Thank you. I thought the two guys had different milky eyes.
That’s supposed to be a different character, I’m assuming, and not the same character played by different actors.
That was my takeaway, especially since Steven Williams is amazing.
And I think Hays is the type of guy who won’t openly dwell on the fact that systemic racism stalled his career. When he’s frustrated, he’s certainly alluded to the department taking Roland more seriously because he’s white, but he’s not going to just come out and blame racism for his life turning out as it has.
I think you’re correct, and that 2015 Hays dismissing the question was being sincere.
I notice you’ve had a fair bit of interesting stuff to say on these so I figured this might be a good spot to sound off about something that I tend to think is a point lost on those who, like this reviewer, are looking to have the show be about something they feel it isn’t making the most of…“True Detective could serve as a polemic about racism in America, but it’s already stuffed with plot and details regarding its central mystery”& I’d argue that is central to its nature & has almost nothing to do with the exact nature & circumstances of the crime or the victims that the seasons are centered around…in large part (if the first two are any guide) the sordid details undermine to some extent the richer tapestry of malignancy that saturates the events depicted in the quest to arrive at those answers…we’re almost three seasons deep now & to not at least comment on the extent to which the show has always had a common through line of asking the viewer to question who might be the “true” detective in a particular case seems bizarrely indifferent to by far the most fascinating aspect of the whole enterprise for me…certainly more so than merely trying to stay ahead of the reveals in terms of the plot…or complaining that leaning into the narrative possibilities inherent in a man with voids in his memory trying to reassemble the jigsaw of a case he may well have previously solved only to “walk away” has somehow undercut the show’s opportunity to lean instead into an element of the context so ubiquitously acknowledged as to be an arguably less interesting aspect of the characters’ & story than the details of their lives that might be thought of as more unique to their personal circumstances…Wayne’s line to his son that he “used to be a fair to middlin’ detective” for example, seems to deserve a little love the review is light on…given his obstacles he’s proving to be a remarkable detective then & now despite different sorts of odds & influences stacked against him every time…& at least one question we’ve been teased with is surely a combination of how much he might regret discovering where those talents took him in his heyday & who in his orbit might already know some or all of what we’re learning for the first time as he tries to piece it together breadcrumb by breadcrumb…there’s meat a-plenty on that bone & I don’t honestly see why it should be so hard to stomach not insisting that the only choice is between 100% prime fillet or a failed dish…[so…ummm…anyway…that may just be me…in which case apologies for harping on about it…]
The reviewer is an idiot…
‘But merely presenting the reality of racism isn’t commentary.’WTF does this mean? Have we actually reached the point where every filmed program needs to be ‘commentary’?
I’m open to the idea that the writer has a point here and there were missed opportunities for rich analysis. But without elaboration, it sounds like an empty complaint.
it’s very poor writing
So Roland West and Tom Purcell were definitely bumping uglies, yes?
Why does every review seemingly have to do with what they could have/should have done with race and/or female characters? Can we not just focus on what the actual show is, how solid this season has been, and what a good episode this was? The note passing revelation was heart breaking just as watching the dad be interrogated by a man who had helped him pull his life out of the gutter and finally seeing that man step into a place of complete evil.I was hoping for this moment a bit earlier in the season but so far this story has been told very well and I don’t quite understand why there is a focus on themes that aren’t exactly imperative to the story.
Par for the course, at least here. Representation > Storytelling
Best episode so far, IMO. The pace picked up and the time shifting was used quickly and effectively throughout. The plot is still a meandering affair, and probably a million weird red herrings in retrospect like the first two seasons, but apparently that is the nature of True Detectives so I’m trying to roll with that. At least things HAPPENED this week.The acting and casting in this thing is phenomenal pretty much across the board. I think the makeup work is the best I’ve ever seen. When Ali and his son are doing scenes together you TOTALLY forget they are just about the same age, which is a tribute to the acting and the makeup.
The only major “record scratch” moment is the ridiculous device of Tom dropping by the open detective suite (again) at JUST the right moment to gather all the information and basically solve the case. The way he overhears that perfectly timed and way-overly stilted expository dialogue was a SMH moment for my wife and me. We were both going, “Oh come on….” It’s kind of making a Mary Sue out of Tom when they really should have worked a better route to exposing the pink rooms. That’s a MAJOR development and they knock it off with a total contrivance in ten minutes WITHOUT the main detectives involved. Even the staging is really off. It just looks like an abandoned office building, not a police station, which leads to the cheesy nature of the whole development.That’s partly where my gripe about languid pacing and number of episodes comes from with these various HBO productions. If you have all those weeks and hours of TV to use, then make sure you are moving the story forward first, in a sensible and compelling way, and do all the mood-filling secondarily. This Tom-hears-detectives-tracks-down-cousin-ends-up-in-castle pink room is down there with Season 1 ending, Season 2 (many things) but the house raid with reading lips through windows and “signatures and everything”..oy. It just doesn’t work to the point of distraction, like some Criminal Minds hack writer filled in for a day and they forgot to edit out his WTF scenes. They picked up the pace nicely, but just as they are down to only two episodes to tie this thing up. I fear another contrived ending is coming. Hope I’m wrong.
I’m unsure whether True Detective could use another two episodes or so per season. Sometimes I feel like it would allow the plot to flow more naturally. Other times I think that will just create more bloat.
Judging from the three already filmed – more bloat. Now if they were to actually properly develop some of the red herrings they throw around, or develop the more conspiratorial criminal underpinnings he hints at but eventually drops- you could fill 10 hours of TV okay. But when they just drop these hinted plot points and opt for too much dramatic filler, and the shows just drag. Some people get lost in that, but I only have so many available hours for TV watching. Some times when a character asks what time it is, he only needs to know the fucking time. I get it, they smoke. I don’t need to see every cigarette extinguished and another lit when they should just be delivering a line of dialogue to get to the next scene…
It’s amazing to think of all the movies throughout history that told a complete and compelling story in a little less than 2 hours…
I think waiting a week for each episode makes it hard to remember some of the little details that could be important. It would flow better if it was released all at once or if was broadcast two episodes a night, for four or five nights in a row. jmo
Yeah, I had completely forgotten about the chicken people before that became important again.
Same. I remember thinking when I first saw the picture of the mom and daughter that it reminded me of Julie for a quick second and her mom if she was cleaned up. I didn’t give it a thought afterwards.
and i’m sure your wife started telling you everything right when the credits started to not hear Tom get tazed in the sound effects
I was wondering about that too. But that’s a pretty ridiculous scene to have “Security Guy” walk right up behind Tom when Tom is holding a loaded gun. It’s like Pizzolatto started having John McCain fantasies about poor ‘ol Tom’s character, and it’s just falling flat within the context of the rest of the show. And the inference that Security Guy was sitting there watching monitors as if he was just WAITING for all this to unfold like a Master Plan is ridiculous too. He had no idea that Tom found the cousin let alone put all this together. And he wouldn’t have known the intruder was even Tom from a random fuzzy video closed circuit night image in 1990. It also makes the detectives seem less valuable if Tom can crack the case in five minutes. Should have gone back for re-write….
I’m just catching up to this episode. I agree about Ali’s makeup and acting! If I just happened to glance at the screen for the first time and see Wayne as his older self, I would completely believe that the man playing him was a 70-something year old actor. Even his eyes are different when Ali plays the “2015″ character.
In Harris James weird ass office, there’s a picture of him and a man (I’m assuming Hoyt himself) holding up a deer they just killed. The other man is 100% Michael Rooker.
How about writing a review about the actual show instead of what you wish the show would be? The creator is on record saying he deliberately did not want the focus of the show to be on racial dynamics just because the lead actor was black. FFS.
started looking at my phone halfway through this one. boring shit for middlebrow losers
Since the 1st season of True Detective, the staff has changed drastically. These new writers would be giving these episodes A’s if they showed nonstop horrific violence against minorities at the hands of white southerners. They want to see minorities only as victims.
You review this and you don’t even mention Steven Williams (motherfucking character actor par excellence) as the milky-eyed man? C’mon.
Dude, Deep Throat shows up and it doesn’t even register? Seriously!
And Jefferson Burnett from The Equalizer and Rufus from Supernatural and one of the state trooper from the @#$%ing Blues Brothers! That’s TV critic malpractice!
Let us not forget Captain Fuller from 21 Jump Street
Deep Throat shows up and it doesn’t even register? *pushes up glasses, snorts*
Steven Williams was Mr. X, Deep Throat’s successor. Jerry Hardin played Deep Throat.
Deep Throat shows up and it doesn’t even register? *pushes up glasses, snorts*
Steven Williams was Mr. X, Deep Throat’s successor. Jerry Hardin played Deep Throat.
Oh god, I am so embarrassed!
Yeah this is a problem with True Detective. So much of the investigation proves to be mostly inconsequential, or minute details are focussed on far too much.
Also, I’m sure most people have noticed but it really bothers me that this investigation is almost exactly the same as the one from S1. Even down to the fact that a bright colour that we associate with ‘innocence’ is what the victim will associate with the abusers and a pedo-ring protected by wealth (Hoyt in S3 and that huge ‘charity’/religious outreach community or whatever it was in S1). The investigation is also derailed by the higher-ups in the police department in order to push another agenda. Substitute Rust’s nihilism/philosophy for Wayne’s dubious memory, which do work similarly in a narrative sense, and it’s basically the same story.
I like this season of TD. It’s not perfect, there are definitely aspects to criticize, but the aspects this reviewer always zeroes in on are bizarre. “But merely presenting the reality of racism isn’t commentary.” Do you want an on-the-nose sermon? Like, god forbid the show tackles race with a little subtlety, which I think it has done remarkably well.
Also what’s with the insistence that the show makes the children the main characters? (also, we have learned about them as more than mere MacGuffins, probably to a suitable degree. They are simply not the main characters.) That’s not what this show is about. It’s about the fallout from their kidnapping, the affect it had on the detectives’ lives, the family’s lives, and the town’s lives, etc.
Exactly. This show is about the ABSENCE of the children, not the children themselves.And I’m not sure why showing racism as part of everyday life can’t be illuminating in itself. Sure, West and Hays occasionally jab at each other’s sore spots related to race, but at the end of the day they’re partners and friends. Should West be scathingly condemned by the narrative for making an ill-advised and angry comment that plays on Hays’ fears, after the two had an argument?
“But merely presenting the reality of racism isn’t commentary.” Do you want an on-the-nose sermon? Like, god forbid the show tackles race with a little subtlety, which I think it has done remarkably well.
Agree. When I read that in the review I thought of
Totally agree. The Purcell case is simply a catalyst, this show is more about how the recurring investigation and lack of resolution forces Wayne Hays to confront the ghosts of his past. The big picture for the Purcell case is mostly clear, anyway. The show doesn’t need to explain every lead West and Hays received. Technically, we don’t even really need to know what happened to Julie. We just need to see the conclusion of their investigations and the toll they take on those involved.
Emily – I don’t think this season of True Detective was suppose to “explore the racial dynamics of its times, and to see how they’ve shifted over time” as fully as you would have liked them too. I mean, between having an intriguing and good storyline, great directing and cinematography, incredible acting, etc. I think you should stop focusing on the what you deem as acceptable for portraying racism during from 1980 to 2015
I’m not sure if this is the Season 1 Easter Egg you’re referring to, but remember that the villain in Season 1 was first revealed as the landscape maintenance guy for the school system. Very curious as to what the purpose of the extended shot of the Ardoin Landscaping truck is.
I didn’t make the connection to the landscaping, but that shot stood out for sure. It definitely has a purpose.
No comments about the Rust Cohle sighting at the town meeting? It might not have been Matthew McConaughey, but it sure as hell looked like him (and the camera seemed to want us to see him sitting there too).Disappointed the show appears to be going the ‘child pedophile ring run by people in high places’ route: that has become a hackneyed trope done to death since (at least) David Peace’s Red Riding Quartet (1999–2002) and was already played out in Top of the Lake (2013).
Do you mean the guy sitting behind Amelia?The season 1 Easter eggs I caught were the RUST tag and crooked spiral graffiti on the walls of the Purcell house.
I think so.
“Scoot’s character is about to die horribly, so time to throw in the homo angle!” – PizzolattoI loved this episode, by the way.
Poorly done per usual Emily, you did miss out on one big spoiler easter egg when the credits start, was a very distinct sound effect about what’s just happened to Tom
If this season ends without explaining Wayne Hays’ “preoccupation” with being strangled by his own necktie, I will burn this whole place down, right to the pink rooms.IIRC, all uniformed police officers wear clip-ons for that very reason: if they get in a physical fight with someone, that tie can’t become a weapon.
Can we get a review of the actual show instead of a weekly detailing of the show the author wants True Detective to be? Bizarre!
Standout moments that I haven’t seen discussed elsewhere:The scene of Wayne watching Amelia and Becca in the garden was surreal. It simultaneously feels like a flashback, a daydream, and real time. It being right after Wayne’s admission to Henry made that scene even more poignant.the clip-on tie callback: I thought this scene revealed a lot about Wayne, PTSD, and Amelia’s failure or refusal to empathize with him. There could be more backstory to his paranoia, but the violence he experienced in war would be enough backstory for me to understand why someone would have such preoccupations. Although upsetting to watch, I also think this makes Amelia much more of an interesting, flawed character.I’d love to hear any thoughts because no one I know is watching this show.
It’s weird to see the beginnings of their relationship and then jump into their unhappy marriage ten years later. Wayne is able to compartmentalize. Compare his life at the time to Woodard’s when they first meet. He was tracking humans in Vietnam but is able to hold down a job and function with PTSD. Could that ability to separate things or force yourself to repress memories bring on a type of dementia? You wonder what kind of conversation they had when she started writing the book. He had a hard time believing Woodard killed the kids and he was told to close the case. Questioning authority gets him demoted and then Amelia starts writing a book about the case. That can’t help his career. We don’t know if she did research after the case was closed, if she interviewed anyone. I get him not wanting to read about himself but you would think if they agreed on on the book that she would go over it with him and bring up any new facts or things she heard. if they had a chinese wall about it – that’s not a good sign for a marriage. Amelia talked about how she would go to other cities and pretend to be someone else. Did you notice that the girl in the shelter Amelia talked to said Julie/Mary July didn’t seem to know who she was, she was just pretending. Maybe that is a theme with everyone.
Compare his life at the time to Woodard’s when they first meet.That’s a good point. I hadn’t considered the impact repression has on later life, but clearly his memories are resurfacing for him in a way anyone would have trouble coping with. Someone close to me is a war vet so this season has been on my mind a lot.Amelia talked about how she would go to other cities and pretend to be someone else. Did you notice that the girl in the shelter Amelia talked to said Julie/Mary July didn’t seem to know who she was, she was just pretending. Maybe that is a theme with everyone.No one else has mentioned this! I hadn’t picked up on it. The difference might be that Amelia could be read as exploitative, but still, it’s an interesting commonality between them.edit: pls excuse the weird formatting
My wife actually spotted “SUMMER” spray painted on the wall of the old Purcell home. When she pointed that out, it immediately reminded me of “HEISENBERG” spray-painted on the wall of Walter White’s old home in “Breaking Bad.”/They can’t keep getting away with this!
I’m late but just want to say I appreciate the review and perspective on the show. I agree that there’s some missed points/odd plot devices in episodes 4-6. When you wrote that the strongest episodes were 1-2 I recalled the feeling after watching that first night, and I agree.
For other readers, I think AV Club reviewers feel they have to defend even a B or B- because commenters get so caught up in the imperfect grade. Tearing apart writers for a letter grade, or a + or -. It’s an opinion piece!
I kind of get where she’s going with the racial commentary – as she pointed out, it’s more than many shows about the ‘80s and ‘90s are doing – but what is their end game? Did anyone learn or grow from it, or is it just there as a quiet marker of the time period and what he (and they) had to deal with?
Season 4 of True Detective should be about a TV show so tedious, pretentious and meandering that it bores the audience to death.
I think this season has been a vast improvement and a return to form for the show, but the driving scenes are just awful. It just looks so fake and it’s incredibly distracting. For a show that’s trying to be gritty and real, those driving sequences are the opposite.
King, princess, yellow, pink…