Matt Smith reviews the third episode of True Detective…
It was always evident that True Detective was not going to be a ‘nice’ show. From the way it was advertised to the facts laid out (Matthew McConaughey turning into a ‘serious’ actor, combined with Woody Harrelson’s part in Rampart, rather set a precedent for me). That and the news from spoilers (the UK so far behind that as we start the US are looking towards the finale) meant it was difficult not finding out the facts before the detectives themselves.
But nice is the complete opposite of the scale this week. Cohle (McConaughey) and Hart (Harrelson) are still on the hunt for the elusive killer of a woman we, as an audience, barely know anything about (and it seems the detectives don’t seem to care). This is not a place for that stock character in police dramas that are pushed to find the killer due to some feeling of attachment to the victim. These detectives move along the line, questioning and dragging people they hope are the right ones in, while simultaneously their private lives look worse and worse. Hart’s family life is desperately clinging on for a decent life and Cohle seems to move further away from genuine human interaction. One clue of that is when he makes a suspect have an embarrassing accident and leaves no comment, whether guilty or mocking or anything, about the man in question apart from the bare facts.
It’s also a clue as to how good the performances are that the two main characters are so horrible, so selfish and morally corrupt and are yet still watchable. The word to best describe this week’s episode would be ‘nasty’. While it’s still entertaining to let the US drama’s frankly irritating obsession with antlers lie, to have the case take a back seat and listen to philosophical debates between Cohle and Hart, this week made me realise just how tiresome the characters would be in real life. Hart, just because he’s a liar who doesn’t know himself enough to realise his wife is actually very close to leaving him. And Cohle, because he speaks very convincingly about the truth of man but doesn’t realise that having the correct answer in an illogical world doesn’t mean you’re living the right way.
To go back to performances, the two leads provide a master class in acting through subtext. It’s not about confrontations, high in basic emotional response and melodrama, but about the little movements, the lack of that one thing said that tells the tale. To make their portrayal both convincingly nasty and antagonistic, and yet still keep audiences enthralled, speaks to the quality on show here (and, perhaps, a little about the audience).
I’m not sure what it says about its audience that I can say this about a frankly detestable bunch of characters and still find it entertaining. But with the small reveal of the best chance they have of solving a horrible crime, I’m still hooked to True Detective. Maybe Cohle is right. Maybe we as an audience need this narrative and at the same time need these bad characters to keep the monsters from the door. What is says about TV audience nowadays is the subject for a whole other article entirely but for some reason, somehow, True Detective is still maintaining the high quality of their opening episode while showing us the horrible darkness behind its main characters.
Matt Smith – follow me on Twitter.
Originally published March 11, 2014. Updated April 11, 2018.
