True Detective X - Bring Ginger Into Your Heart (Season One spoilers, Season Two speculation / casting)

[Shryke]

If you only listened to the words coming from his mouth, then you are correct. His actions, including the act of speaking those same words alluded to something else entirely though.

Yes, I know. You are completely missing the point of what I'm saying The point is that this isn't nuance. He doesn't have a nuanced view, he has a strictly cynical/nihilistic view. That this view is simply a cover for his pain and so does not reflect itself in his actions is obviously a huge part of his character, but it does not make said character's stances nuanced.

The character is complex, but the character's views as he expresses them are not.

[Relic]

Relic,

I don't see the ending as "black and white". Again we have Cohle's words which he has always used to conceal the conflicted core of his personality. While I think he is being honest with Marty in his description of his experience I have no doubt that he will continue to be a conflicted and complex person when he gets back on his feet.

Perhaps because their story ends there and it is a moment of optimism within Cohle's philosophical pessimism it seems black and white. But consider Cohle's words as compaired to what we are shown. He talks about the Stars and all the light we perceive because of those stars yet, there are no stars visible to the viewer as he expounds upon their victory. The camera pans up and shows a vast darkness to the viewer as Marty takes Cohle from the hospital.

I think that is deliberate. It directly, once again, contradicts Cohle's words with the Universe surrounding him and what we as the viewer see as his actions. The complexity is still there the contradictions are still there. We are simple at the end of this narrative. It is left to the viewer to see the contradictions.

Thats' interesting Scot. Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts. When i rewatch the series, and the ending, ill keep that in mind.

[Relic]

Yes, I know. You are completely missing the point of what I'm saying The point is that this isn't nuance. He doesn't have a nuanced view, he has a strictly cynical/nihilistic view. That this view is simply a cover for his pain and so does not reflect itself in his actions is obviously a huge part of his character, but it does not make said character's stances nuanced.

Of course it does. You are more your actions than you are your words. But im not going to debate semantics with you for the 100000000th time.

[Sci-2]

Relic,

I don't see the ending as "black and white". Again we have Cohle's words which he has always used to conceal the conflicted core of his personality. While I think he is being honest with Marty in his description of his experience I have no doubt that he will continue to be a conflicted and complex person when he gets back on his feet.

Perhaps because their story ends there and it is a moment of optimism within Cohle's philosophical pessimism it seems black and white. But consider Cohle's words as compaired to what we are shown. He talks about the Stars and all the light we perceive because of those stars yet, there are no stars visible to the viewer as he expounds upon their victory. The camera pans up and shows a vast darkness to the viewer as Marty takes Cohle from the hospital.

I think that is deliberate. It directly, once again, contradicts Cohle's words with the Universe surrounding him and what we as the viewer see as his actions. The complexity is still there the contradictions are still there. We are simple at the end of this narrative. It is left to the viewer to see the contradictions.

Nice.

[James Arryn]

I feel very much on the outside looking in about all this Ginger crap. Is it just funny because everyone agrees to keep talking about it like it's funny?

Any who....Farrell, I always have a hard time forgetting how fuckawful he was in Alexander. Orlando Bloom fucks over Kingdom of Heaven by being a zero at the heart of the movie...director's cut is much better, though...but Farrell actually gets in the way, often. Just unwatchable.

In Bruges is pretty perfect though, and I disagree that he was less responsible than Gleeson, Fiennes, etc. They all nailed it. But every time I watch it I tell myself it's done kind of perfect Storm for CF, because I Alexander him in everything else. Recently, though, I've seen him in more films where he was solid, and tbh he was the best part of that Horrible Bisses, though more in a 'just saying fuck it and have fun with it' way than acting. But a couple days ago I rewatched Minority Report and was surprised at how un-bad he was. Couple others. So I'm game.

Vaughn, yeah, Clay Pigeons. He's fine for it; borderline personality disorder doesn't have to be funny.

McAdams...um....she's Canadian.

Agree that season 1 went downhill late, especially with Cohle's horribly predictable Rochester conversion, just ugh. But still great fun overall.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

James,

What was predictable about Cohle's end experience in light of the subtlies and contradictions provided by the cinematographic choices that I point out above?

[James Arryn]

James,

What was predictable about Cohle's end experience in light of the subtlies and contradictions provided by the cinematographic choices that I point out above?

We're talking about different things. You're looking at the integrity of the character as though it exists in it's own state. I am looking at the centrality of a fictional character within a culture which reacts strongly against disbelief...the whole 'you can be elected black, female, socialist and even gay, but atheists are non-starters.' thing. Ie, not as a being, but as a product for sale in a particular market with particularly established commercial preferences.

Review that comment from the director or writer from that POV, and notice at how he departs from the 'complicated/subjective' theme only insofar as he needs to emphasize the fact that he doesn't want anyone thinking the show or character is nihilistic. Why would that concern him? Why is the standard 'different takes for different viewers' vibe only sidestepped to clarify that one issue? Many possible shades available EXCEPT for one. Why?

So, within that culture, seeing that norm, I was slightly surprised all season that an American show went there, but predicted a Rochester as soon as it did, as my annoyed gf can attest. Very very briefly hoped I was wrong when I thought he died unsanctified by at least the Bible/Darwin briefcase options open deal, but then he survived to wonder, and I yawned.

[Relic]

Very well said James.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

James,

So, regardless of story, regardless of character, you wanted Cohle to be a one note character? How boring is that? That said I think Cohle was a complex character and he remained complex to the end. We do not know anything beyond the fact that he had what he believed was a transendental experience. I fully expect him to question the validity of that experience after he has time and distance from it.

[Relic]

James,

So, regardless of story, regardless of character, you wanted Cohle to be a one note character? How boring is that?

? That's not what he said?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Relic,

I don't understand why he, correct me if I'm missing it, is wedded to Cohle's death as a nihilist or a cynic?

[Shryke]

We're talking about different things. You're looking at the integrity of the character as though it exists in it's own state. I am looking at the centrality of a fictional character within a culture which reacts strongly against disbelief...the whole 'you can be elected black, female, socialist and even gay, but atheists are non-starters.' thing. Ie, not as a being, but as a product for sale in a particular market with particularly established commercial preferences.

Review that comment from the director or writer from that POV, and notice at how he departs from the 'complicated/subjective' theme only insofar as he needs to emphasize the fact that he doesn't want anyone thinking the show or character is nihilistic. Why would that concern him? Why is the standard 'different takes for different viewers' vibe only sidestepped to clarify that one issue? Many possible shades available EXCEPT for one. Why?

So, within that culture, seeing that norm, I was slightly surprised all season that an American show went there, but predicted a Rochester as soon as it did, as my annoyed gf can attest. Very very briefly hoped I was wrong when I thought he died unsanctified by at least the Bible/Darwin briefcase options open deal, but then he survived to wonder, and I yawned.

The show didn't go there though. It was obvious from the start he was full of shit. Both viewers and people within the show itself call him on it.

Alot of this disappointment seems to stem from some people really buying Cohle's bullshit for various non-show-based cultural reasons and then being mad when it turns out the contradictions in his stance were not bad writing but actual plot points.

[James Arryn]

James,

So, regardless of story, regardless of character, you wanted Cohle to be a one note character? How boring is that?

Well, first of all 'wanted' is probably the wrong word except insofar as I wanted to be surprised. I am more agnostic than anything, so there's no brand I feel personal about here, other than wanting certain market priorities to be trumped by artistic considerations. And I mean, someday someone will do it. And sometime later on someone else will do it without paying the price, hopefully. But that's not me saying 'yay, nihilism' but rather 'yay creativity > commercial considerations on no-go territory.'

Secondly, I don't think a character is automatically one note if he has a consistent belief structure. Are all Muslims one-note? Does any belief structure define the entirety of the character? Are nihilists afraid of death? Ambivalent about death? Enthusiastic? Or different reactions for different nihilists, or the same nihilist on a different day? I think there's all kinds of room for character variety irrespective of the immutability of their theism. Or even vary that but don't have the final needle aimed squarely at the comfort zone of Joe Six-pack. Whatever, surprise me someone.

The monochromatic concern I have is with regards to the directive market factor I mentioned earlier. I am disappointed that it's so consistent that I absolutely knew Coehle would recant based on something completely outside the narrative. Think about that for a moment. Or maybe I'm wrong and just got lucky-as-always-on-this-issue. But if not, THAT's boring. It betrays the mis-en-scene. It convolutes the verisimilitude. It breaks the suspension of disbelief. It makes me yawn dollar signs.

[Shryke]

Well, first of all 'wanted' is probably the wrong word except insofar as I wanted to be surprised. I am more agnostic than anything, so there's no brand I feel personal about here, other than wanting certain market priorities to be trumped by artistic considerations. And I mean, someday someone will do it. And sometime later on someone else will do it without paying the price, hopefully. But that's not me saying 'yay, nihilism' but rather 'yay creativity > commercial considerations on no-go territory.'

Secondly, I don't think a character is automatically one note if he has a consistent belief structure. Are all Muslims one-note? Does any belief structure define the entirety of the character? Are nihilists afraid of death? Ambivalent about death? Enthusiastic? Or different reactions for different nihilists, or the same nihilist on a different day? I think there's all kinds of room for character variety irrespective of the immutability of their theism. Or even vary that but don't have the final needle aimed squarely at the comfort zone of Joe Six-pack. Whatever, surprise me someone.

The monochromatic concern I have is with regards to the directive market factor I mentioned earlier. I am disappointed that it's so consistent that I absolutely knew Coehle would recant based on something completely outside the narrative. Think about that for a moment. Or maybe I'm wrong and just got lucky-as-always-on-this-issue. But if not, THAT's boring. It betrays the mis-en-scene. It convolutes the verisimilitude. It breaks the suspension of disbelief. It makes me yawn dollar signs.

But it doesn't break the mis-en-scene. That's not even how you yourself are explaining your complaints

Rather, you say you were excited to see a character that was nihilistic on TV and were disappointed when that's not what the show wanted to do. That's not breaking the verisimilitude, that's just just the show not wanting to do the kind of character you want to see.

Cohle's characterization is perfectly coherent across the series' arc.

[James Arryn]

The show didn't go there though. It was obvious from the start he was full of shit. Both viewers and people within the show itself call him on it.

Alot of this disappointment seems to stem from some people really buying Cohle's bullshit for various non-show-based cultural reasons and then being mad when it turns out the contradictions in his stance were not bad writing but actual plot points.

I don't think I've argued one way or the other about how/whether the dots lined up for the final conclusion. I soecifically stated my point had nothing to do with character integrity. I am not concerned with HOW Coehle arrived at the Rochester moment, I annoyed with the WHY. That why would, one assumes, be understood by the writers from Day One, so it wouldn't require an internal narrative forgery. I'll restate:

1) given clear prevailing commercial concerns, I was surprised that a US targeted show introduced the possibility of a nihilistic lead.

2) as soon as that happened...long before his shitfullness or not was made manifest, I concluded that the only way this gets rubber stamped is if he ends up recanting.

3) I was then completely unsurprised when, lo and behold, he ends up recanting to close the show.

I don't need his recantation to be narrative contrivance for my annoyance. And I frankly never 'bought' the BS...a few years of Phil. will make anyone's postulations seem stale, really. I was just mildly impressed that someone might go there, but then quickly concluded it ultimately wouldn't. It didn't. That's pretty much it, for me.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

JamesA,

I think Cohle is a complex character with or without the "Rochester conversion". Personally, I found him more interesting with it.

[Shryke]

I don't think I've argued one way or the other about how/whether the dots lined up for the final conclusion. I soecifically stated my point had nothing to do with character integrity. I am not concerned with HOW Coehle arrived at the Rochester moment, I annoyed with the WHY. That why would, one assumes, be understood by the writers from Day One, so it wouldn't require an internal narrative forgery. I'll restate:

1) given clear prevailing commercial concerns, I was surprised that a US targeted show introduced the possibility of a nihilistic lead.

2) as soon as that happened...long before his shitfullness or not was made manifest, I concluded that the only way this gets rubber stamped is if he ends up recanting.

3) I was then completely unsurprised when, lo and behold, he ends up recanting to close the show.

I don't need his recantation to be narrative contrivance for my annoyance. And I frankly never 'bought' the BS...a few years of Phil. will make anyone's postulations seem stale, really. I was just mildly impressed that someone might go there, but then quickly concluded it ultimately wouldn't. It didn't. That's pretty much it, for me.

But that's my point. If you are not arguing that the dots didn't line up but rather that you were annoyed that he ended up not really being a nihilist, then that's not actually the show breaking it's own verisimilitude.

[James Arryn]

But it doesn't break the mis-en-scene. That's not even how you yourself are explaining your complaints

Rather, you say you were excited to see a character that was nihilistic on TV and were disappointed when that's not what the show wanted to do. That's not breaking the verisimilitude, that's just just the show not wanting to do the kind of character you want to see.

Cohle's characterization is perfectly coherent across the series' arc.

No, you're not getting me. If this was 1954 and we were watching a show whose lead character espoused communism, I would be surprised but conclude that character will ultimately see communism as a flawed ideology. At the end of the season, when that character does just that, I will yawn. The mis-en-scene isn't broken by poor writing or bad acting or ham-fisted direction, but by my certainty that the narrative/character will go a certain direction because of exterior concerns.

To give you another, less apparently loaded for instance, in a murder mystery, when an apparently minor character is played by a major actor, I pretty much know where the narrative is going. The writers, actor and director can all do a fine job, but my experience as a viewer is tempered by external considerations.

You seem really caught up in the idea that I wanted to see a nihilist. I have never in my life longed for such a thing. I was surprised it was introduced, but was able to predict where it would go for external reasons. I was disappointed that what seemed inevitable came to pass. I am not commenting on how effectively it did so, I am reflecting the degree to which my certainty marginalized my entertainment by proving true.

[Shryke]

No, you're not getting me. If this was 1954 and we were watching a show whose lead character espoused communism, I would be surprised but conclude that character will ultimately see communism as a flawed ideology. At the end of the season, when that character does just that, I will yawn. The mis-en-scene isn't broken by poor writing or bad acting or ham-fisted direction, but by my certainty that the narrative/character will go a certain direction because of exterior concerns.

To give you another, less apparently loaded for instance, in a murder mystery, when an apparently minor character is played by a major actor, I pretty much know where the narrative is going. The writers, actor and director can all do a fine job, but my experience as a viewer is tempered by external considerations.

You seem really caught up in the idea that I wanted to see a nihilist. I have never in my life longed for such a thing. I was surprised it was introduced, but was able to predict where it would go for external reasons. I was disappointed that what seemed inevitable came to pass. I am not commenting on how effectively it did so, I am reflecting the degree to which my certainty marginalized my entertainment by proving true.

I think the problem here is that you are not using the term mise-en-scene or verisimilitude properly. It doesn't actually seem to be what you are complaining about.

Rather, you are saying you were disappointed that Cohle's character arc was predictable.

[James Arryn]

I think the problem here is that you are not using the term mise-en-scene or verisimilitude properly. It doesn't actually seem to be what you are complaining about.

Rather, you are saying you were disappointed that Cohle's character arc was predictable.

I would hope I'm using it properly, else all those fil classes on auteurism went for nought. I think that because you can't relate to the 'how' of my suspension of disbelief being broken by the intrusion of commercial concerns, you think that it's not happening. It has nothing to do with arc, it has to do with destination. Arc is a narrative concern re:integrity, and I keep disclaiming that concern.

Experience, in time: Coehle waxes nihilisticly. James thinks 'oh, this can't last in this climate' James DOESN'T think or unthink 'I am on an experiential ride, being taken somewhere.'

Then final scene, Coehle recents/admits/confronts or w/e his disbelief in nothingness. James thinks 'water is wet'. James doesn't think/unthink 'I am on an experiential ride, arriving somewhere.'

It gets in the way, if you get me. The facto that they introduce something with only one possible destination detracts from an experiential realism/ride because I can see the little man behind the curtain with the accounts ledger and frown who is ensuring that one destination. He is in the picture, and he shouldn't be if I am going to suspend my disbelief.