True Detective on HBO

[brekin]

Yes, we all look forward to Brekin's forthcoming book of media criticism, This is All Crap, Ye Thick Wankers: Meditations on the Spectacle.
Season 1 ended with the death of a poor, inbred killer in a state run by his rich, equally perverse cousin, who escaped not only charges but any investigations whatsoever. It's all right there onscreen.
I've known a lot of people who wanted Chinatown to end differently, too.

Yawn. I was disappointed with Season 2 back at Season 1.
Sounds like what I'm gleaning is Season 2 is even more flash than substance so far than Season 1?
No doubt, this is all intentionally in the service to an even more mind blowing conclusion than Season 1.
Maybe we will be rewarded with an advancement and extension of the philosophical insight of there is light and there is dark, perhaps even
that there are shades of grey in between? Wow.

True Detective is just the Big Bang Theory of conspiracy theory tv.
Was that a crow mask or owl mask? Is Sheldon's t-shirt a batman or hawkman one?
If people dig certain shows that is cool. I just watched The Core. It was good escapist, mindless fun.
If I thought I was going to learn any real science or insight into humanity, though, that would be bad expectation management.

We all know how this is going to end Charlie Brown.

[Luther Blissett]

It's interesting to see the continued misreading of what events portrayed, even after its been pointed out what actually occurred.

There was an investigation towards the cousin. It was kiboshed and they went after the one significant actor who wasn't insulated by wealth and privilege.

It wasn't a cop out. It was the time old tale of reality

I agree. And viewers were made well aware that there was a deeper net of perpetrators operating behind-the-scenes. Rust even says so at the end.

I had exactly one conversation with someone who forgot about everything else that had preceded the ending, and I swiftly reminded him that everyone aside from Errol got off scot-free.

[Hunter]

Article about TD and Bohemian Grove:

http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/201 ... uerneville

There’s a strange allure to True Detective Season 2, even for those who aren’t enjoying it very much. Beyond the fleeting thrill of seeing a main character potentially kick the bucket (only to be immediately resuscitated), lies the deeper fascination with why Season 2 is failing to land with many viewers when Season 1 was such a cultural phenomenon. It’s beginning to seem like Season 1’s delicate, winning balance of occult mystery and humanist philosophy may have come from the lightning-in-a-bottle mix of Matthew McConaughey, Woody Harrelson, director Cary Fukunaga, and creator Nic Pizzolatto. With only one of those four puzzle pieces back in place for Season 2, the balance is off.

But if it’s just occult mystery and bread-crumb trails you want, True Detective Season 2 has that in spades. And three episodes into this season, evidence is stacking up that in order to get to the bottom of the death of Ben Caspere and the rotten, interconnected corruption of Vinci, California, we’re going to have to look to Northern California and a real-life secret society that exists there to this day: the Bohemian Grove. Tucked away in the redwoods of Sonoma County, the mysterious summertime retreat boasts a roster of powerful, land-your-private-plane-at-a-tiny-local-airport, elite members and has prompted curious speculation and frustrated investigations ever since it was founded over 130 years ago. Here are five ways Pizzolatto has made a strong connection to the Bohemian Grove and how it could help unlock the mysteries of True Detective Season 2.


Location, Location, Location: Any sharp-eared Northern Californian will have noticed that the tiny town of Guerneville (population 4,534) was mentioned twice in episode 2. Once in connection with Antigone’s father’s cult, The Good People (”Commune around Guerneville in the late 70s, 80s. Hippie shit.“), and again as the last-known location for the missing girl she’s trying to track down (”The call came from a Guerneville address,” her partner said). Sorry, Paul, I don’t think it’s Guerneville’s gay-friendly reputation we should be looking out for. But guess what’s just 12 minutes from Guerneville? That’s right, the Bohemian Grove. The missing girl’s co-workers told Ani in Episode 1 that she left to work the “club circuit” somewhere in Sonoma County. The Bohemian Grove hires young men and women to staff their summer gatherings every year so this could be where the missing woman with obvious ties to Ani’s father has disappeared to.


Friends in High Places: The Bohemian Grove’s mystique is due, in large part, to the caliber of its famous members who are usually rich, white, and Republican and always male. Some notable Bohos (as they’re called) include William F. Buckley, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Calvin Coolidge, Walter Cronkite, Bing Crosby, Clint Eastwood, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Gerald Ford, Barry Goldwater, Charlton Heston, Herbert Hoover, Henry Kissinger, Jack London, Steve Miller, Robert Mondavi, John Muir, Colin Powell, Ronald Reagan, Nelson Rockefeller, Theodore Roosevelt, Karl Rove, Donald Rumsfeld, and Mark Twain. To join the Bohemian Club, you must either be invited by several members, or wait for decades. Once you’re in, there’s the $25,000 initiation fee and the hefty yearly dues.

In the realm of the fictional True Detective universe, we have now seen photos of Mayor Austin Chessani posing with George W. Bush in both his office and his home. Depending on who you ask, the Bohemian Grove is either a hotbed of depraved, occult bacchanalia (more on that later) or the ultimate private location for back-room deals. (The Manhattan Project was allegedly conceived there in 1942.) The truth is probably somewhere in the middle, but suffice it to say that the Grove is definitely known for its parties. In Episode 3, Chessani’s son told Detective Bezzerides he plans all kinds of parties, and his current wife tells Officer Woodrugh she met her husband at a party. So here we have a party-loving mayor with powerful, white, Republican friends, a history with mind-altering drugs, and ties to Vince Vaughn, Colin Farrell, and now (because he’s got a vendetta against her) Rachel McAdams. No better candidate to be at the center of a Bohemian Grove–esque mystery.


Animal Imagery: One of the more startling physical features of the Bohemian Grove is a 40-foot owl statue that looms over the lake. The Owl Shrine serves as the backdrop of the yearly Cremation of Care ceremony. At one point in the Grove’s history, Walter Cronkite reportedly recorded the voice of the owl for the annual ceremony. According to famed conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, who infiltrated the Bohemian Grove in 2000 with a camera crew, the Cremation of Care ceremony is an occult event honoring the ancient god Moloch. However while documenting Jones’s investigation for his The Secret Rulers of the World series, journalist Jon Ronson interviewed comedian and former Grove attendee Harry Shearer, who said the ceremony was just harmless theatrics. But either way, a replica of the footage Jones captured of attendees dressed in robes and burning an effigy at the foot of the giant stone owl would make for striking television that might even rival the Yellow King in Carcosa.

Whatever the truth about the Grove may be, a reference to the owl statue could be the reason why we keep seeing bird imagery pop up everywhere this season. It’s not just that raven-head shooter from last week, there were birds in Rick Springfield’s office, in Chessani’s office, on the totem pole outside the Panticapaeum Institute, and in the Ben Caspere sound-proof sex bungalow. If we’re counting ducks, even Ray Velcoro’s dad had a bird figurine in his house and his bitter line of, “No country for white men,” in Episode 3 could easily be mistaken for the Bohemian Grove motto.


It’s All Connected: There are a couple ways the connection aspect applies here. First of all, there are some critics who believe that the Season 2 mystery of True Detective might tie back to Season 1. (This kind of surprise connection worked really well for Fargo last year.) If that’s the case, I could easily see Reverend Tuttle from Season 1 folding into a Bohemian Grove conspiracy.

But more literally, this season of True Detective is all about a transportation project that will connect Southern and Northern California. (That’s why Ben Caspere’s G.P.S. reveals he was scouting out locations up north near Monterey, Fresno, and Gilroy.) Pizzolatto hinted to Vanity Fair that he based Vinci, the southern anchor of the story, on the real-life location of Vernon, California. Some speculate he also based the mystery of Season 1 on a real-life case out of Louisiana. Doesn’t it make sense, then, that the northern anchor of Season 2 would have a real-life counterpart as well? And doesn’t the Bohemian Grove just outside of Guerneville perfectly fit the bill?


Frustrated Masculinity: So if Pizzolatto is trying to evoke the Bohemian Grove in Season 2, what’s it all about? Well, if we were to pinpoint one theme the series seems to be hitting pretty hard this year it would be frustrated masculinity: from Frank Semyon’s impotence and possible infertility, to Paul Woodrugh’s self-hatred surrounding his homosexuality, to Ray Velcoro’s utter failure as a father and husband, to the penis envy on Ani Bezzerides (what, you missed the part where she said she armed herself with knives to be more like one of the guys?). And if you want to look at bastions or frustrated masculinity, look no further than the Bohemian Grove.

Though there have been four honorary female members in the group’s history (including the club’s librarian!), no woman has ever been given full membership to the Bohemian Club. Women are allowed as daytime guests of the Grove, but they’re not allowed to the upper floors of the City Club nor are they allowed to attend the main summer encampment at the Grove. The Bohos were sued in 1979 for not hiring women and the case went all the way to the California Supreme Court who ruled, in 1986, that they would have to start hiring women at the Grove. In short, the Bohemian Grove is the very definition of the old boys’ club. How clever, then, if Nic Pizzolatto were to use this location to address the male-driven sins he was accused of indulging last year. It’s clear from a few rocky lines of dialogue that Pizzolatto is trying to directly address the gender criticisms from Season 1. Could striking at the heart of a fictional Bohemian Grove be the ultimate way to show his critics, once and for all, which side of the gender war he fights for? Maybe, maybe not. But one thing is for certain: this isn’t the last we’ve heard from the mysterious goings-on in Northern California. As for the Grove itself? I hope you have your bird figures ready because the 2015 session starts on July 10.

[BrandonD]

It's interesting to see the continued misreading of what events portrayed, even after its been pointed out what actually occurred.

There was an investigation towards the cousin. It was kiboshed and they went after the one significant actor who wasn't insulated by wealth and privilege.

It wasn't a cop out. It was the time old tale of reality

I agree. And viewers were made well aware that there was a deeper net of perpetrators operating behind-the-scenes. Rust even says so at the end.

I had exactly one conversation with someone who forgot about everything else that had preceded the ending, and I swiftly reminded him that everyone aside from Errol got off scot-free.

I might be mis-remembering, but as I recall it was only a few corrupt people that got off scot free. Such stories are commonplace because it's more than ok to portray "evil authority" as an exception to the rule. To portray the concept of a "grand and organized evil" that has thoroughly pervaded all the nooks and crannies of power is the taboo subject that they alluded to, and that I think many were hoping to see. And IMO they definitely fell short of that.

[Laodicean]

True Detective is just the Big Bang Theory of conspiracy theory tv. We all know how this is going to end Charlie Brown.

[Project Willow]

Grrrrr. I have no access to this show. One must have an IPhone or IPad just to sign up for the HBO internet service. But I am enjoying the commentary.

[divideandconquer]

.

I might be mis-remembering, but as I recall it was only a few corrupt people that got off scot free. Such stories are commonplace because it's more than ok to portray "evil authority" as an exception to the rule. To portray the concept of a "grand and organized evil" that has thoroughly pervaded all the nooks and crannies of power is the taboo subject that they alluded to, and that I think many were hoping to see. And IMO they definitely fell short of that.

I might be mis-remembering as well, but that's what I remember. Granted, this "grand and organized evil" was implied throughout season 1, but I thought it was thoroughly dismissed at its conclusion. If that's not the case, because my memory is not always reliable, please remind me where they allude to this systemic or institutional evil at the end of season 1.

As far as I know, Rubicon is the only tv series that came close to targeting the dark underbelly of Western imperialism and global capitalism and then it was cancelled.

[Wombaticus Rex]

If that's not the case, because my memory is not always reliable, please remind me where they allude to this systemic or institutional evil at the end of season 1.

Why is it on us? Just watch it again and pay attention. We're not talking about interpreting "allusions" here, this is onscreen conversation.

Anyways, Ep 3 was superb. Pizzolatto gives old Mulholland Drive -- the film this time -- a second huge nod with that opening dream sequence, which also seemed to be heavily inspired by the recent Winding Refn film Only God Forgives.

[IanEye]

*





Conway Twitty had the best fucking hair, hands down.

*

[Forgetting2]

That's Jake La Botz, man! He used to play fairly regular at a club I used to hang out at, then he moved to N.O. ... not sure after that. Sweetheart of a guy.

Anyhoo, so the story goes. Still digging the show, but that's not to say it's without problems, for me anyway. Still feel like I'm watching some kind of mash-up, like when (and this comparison is far too harsh) Roland Emmerich made Independence Day. Like a DJ spinning cult classics. The 'Lynchian' open of ep. 3 was cool, but cynical me I couldn't help wondering how he'd earned that, or how it went beyond a nod. Did love the dialogue at the table. It's still interesting stuff, and I'm curious where, in fact, he's going with all this.

End of Ep. 2 still feels like a bit of a cheap shot, so to speak, and I'm certainly curious what the reason is, things went the way they did... I've only two explanations I can think of, only one of which makes any sense to me (and seems supported by some dialogue.)

Are we not doing spoilers here?

Dialogue is terse and the characters seem to be coming to life more (again, so to speak). And the themes and 'roles' he's spinning are real interesting.

But dramatically, I'm not sure I'm all in. It's fun picking out all the references, but as a whole... well, only three eps. in...

[Forgetting2]

It's also going to be interesting to watch how the press and fans handle this if he does, really, 'go there.' I mentioned to a couple of friends, with whom I can no longer have discussions of this sort, after episode one, 'it looks like we're going to Bohemian Grove.' They both gave me slightly skeptical, slightly angry looks, or so I thought.

[Zombie Glenn Beck]

Holy shit.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0600657/?ref_=tt_cl_t8
The director peed on the Dudes rug.

What if the carpet pissers DID do this?

[brekin]

I think the dividing line for many with TD is the old puzzle vs. mystery crux. Since TD strokes so many long hairs of the conspiracy/occult/corruption/deep state/mysticism/supernatural beast many assume the "true detectives" will ultimately fulfill the police procedural format and find some grand solution to the puzzle it is creating with all its symbolic "clues" while others may see TD's imagery and allusions as just ambient noise to forces that are ultimately unknowable and hence unsolvable, with "true detectives" perpetually being jerked around and finally tossed into the abyss, no more wiser after getting closer because it was all just a trail of mysteries to a greater mystery. The puzzle format sums toward a final solution while the mystery format subtracts to nothing.

I'm in the first camp and so will be perpetually disappointed because what I learned from Season 1 is TD tackles subject matter and looks through so many diverse key holes at it that it can't successfully resolve it completely with out taking a clear stance and drawing sharp lines. Or basically turning a mystery into a puzzle instead of turning a puzzle into a mystery. This demands a certain maturity that TD's pulp detective ethos can't fulfill without losing some (most?) of its cool arty posturing.

I'm not a Malcolm Galdwell fan but his essay on puzzle vs. mystery thinking regarding Enron is very apt and to me sums up TD's erratic quality and unability to ultimately deliver the goods:

In the case of puzzles, we put the offending target, the C.E.O., in jail for twenty-four years and assume that our work is done. Mysteries require that we revisit our list of culprits and be willing to spread the blame a little more broadly. Because if you can’t find the truth in a mystery—even a mystery shrouded in propaganda—it’s not just the fault of the propagandist. It’s your fault as well.

I don't ultimately agree with Galdwell, he believes Enron was a mystery not a puzzle, while my guess is it was a puzzle that begat a mystery to hide the puzzle. Which coincidentally is my dissatisfaction with TD, I feel it mystifies deep or under reported puzzles while holding out the bait that it will solve the puzzle to only turn on the fog machine full blast when it is time to unmask those responsible. This mystifying, intentionally or unintentionally, can only end up shielding culprits who make the key decisions. See how Galdwell frames the toppling of Saddam Hussein and 9/11:

The national-security expert Gregory Treverton has famously made a distinction between puzzles and mysteries. Osama bin Laden’s whereabouts are a puzzle. We can’t find him because we don’t have enough information. The key to the puzzle will probably come from someone close to bin Laden, and until we can find that source bin Laden will remain at large.

The problem of what would happen in Iraq after the toppling of Saddam Hussein was, by contrast, a mystery. It wasn’t a question that had a simple, factual answer. Mysteries require judgments and the assessment of uncertainty, and the hard part is not that we have too little information but that we have too much. The C.I.A. had a position on what a post-invasion Iraq would look like, and so did the Pentagon and the State Department and Colin Powell and Dick Cheney and any number of political scientists and journalists and think-tank fellows. For that matter, so did every cabdriver in Baghdad.

The distinction is not trivial. If you consider the motivation and methods behind the attacks of September 11th to be mainly a puzzle, for instance, then the logical response is to increase the collection of intelligence, recruit more spies, add to the volume of information we have about Al Qaeda. If you consider September 11th a mystery, though, you’d have to wonder whether adding to the volume of information will only make things worse. You’d want to improve the analysis within the intelligence community; you’d want more thoughtful and skeptical people with the skills to look more closely at what we already know about Al Qaeda. You’d want to send the counterterrorism team from the C.I.A. on a golfing trip twice a month with the counterterrorism teams from the F.B.I. and the N.S.A. and the Defense Department, so they could get to know one another and compare notes.

If things go wrong with a puzzle, identifying the culprit is easy: it’s the person who withheld information. Mysteries, though, are a lot murkier: sometimes the information we’ve been given is inadequate, and sometimes we aren’t very smart about making sense of what we’ve been given, and sometimes the question itself cannot be answered. Puzzles come to satisfying conclusions. Mysteries often don’t.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/ ... -secrets-3

This "too big to comprehend" thinking can end up diluting responsibility creating a mystery out of a clear puzzle. There were key culprits involved in toppling Saddam and 9/11 who had clear goals, agendas and expectations. The orchestration and aftermath no doubt produced mysteries and enough details to fill warehouses but both originating puzzles could have been hatched at a poker table. It is against those culprits plans who initiated both that we have to reconcile whether their actions created a mystery or puzzle. If they got what they wanted then it is a puzzle, even if they didn't, it still probably is a puzzle. It becomes less of a mystery just by the fact of knowing who was sitting at the poker table regardless of the outcome. Wouldn't you like to know who was sitting at the table?

If you end up taking on the complexity and magnitude of a big mystery, though, by working backwards, but deliver a cheap puzzle solution you're going to not honor the source or the process of the material. Isn't this what TD does? While it tackles real puzzles and mystifies them by not going after the real culprits (even by fictional proxies) it then tries to neatly wrap up deep mysteries (time, the nature of good and evil, destructive masculinity, institutional occultism, life and death, etc) with surfer philosophy puzzle solutions. I guess I was expecting Sherlock Holmes doing R.I. themes and instead got Sherlock Holmes doing acid. Which is a Johnny Depp film, no?

[BrandonD]

Very thought-provoking Brekin, thanks for that commentary. Will comment more thoroughly at another time

[divideandconquer]

I think the dividing line for many with TD is the old puzzle vs. mystery crux. Since TD strokes so many long hairs of the conspiracy/occult/corruption/deep state/mysticism/supernatural beast many assume the "true detectives" will ultimately fulfill the police procedural format and find some grand solution to the puzzle it is creating with all its symbolic "clues" while others may see TD's imagery and allusions as just ambient noise to forces that are ultimately unknowable and hence unsolvable, with "true detectives" perpetually being jerked around and finally tossed into the abyss, no more wiser after getting closer because it was all just a trail of mysteries to a greater mystery. The puzzle format sums toward a final solution while the mystery format subtracts to nothing.

I'm in the first camp and so will be perpetually disappointed because what I learned from Season 1 is TD tackles subject matter and looks through so many diverse key holes at it that it can't successfully resolve it completely with out taking a clear stance and drawing sharp lines. Or basically turning a mystery into a puzzle instead of turning a puzzle into a mystery. This demands a certain maturity that TD's pulp detective ethos can't fulfill without losing some (most?) of its cool arty posturing.

I'm not a Malcolm Galdwell fan but his essay on puzzle vs. mystery thinking regarding Enron is very apt and to me sums up TD's erratic quality and unability to ultimately deliver the goods:

In the case of puzzles, we put the offending target, the C.E.O., in jail for twenty-four years and assume that our work is done. Mysteries require that we revisit our list of culprits and be willing to spread the blame a little more broadly. Because if you can’t find the truth in a mystery—even a mystery shrouded in propaganda—it’s not just the fault of the propagandist. It’s your fault as well.

I don't ultimately agree with Galdwell, he believes Enron was a mystery not a puzzle, while my guess is it was a puzzle that begat a mystery to hide the puzzle. Which coincidentally is my dissatisfaction with TD, I feel it mystifies deep or under reported puzzles while holding out the bait that it will solve the puzzle to only turn on the fog machine full blast when it is time to unmask those responsible. This mystifying, intentionally or unintentionally, can only end up shielding culprits who make the key decisions. See how Galdwell frames the toppling of Saddam Hussein and 9/11:

The national-security expert Gregory Treverton has famously made a distinction between puzzles and mysteries. Osama bin Laden’s whereabouts are a puzzle. We can’t find him because we don’t have enough information. The key to the puzzle will probably come from someone close to bin Laden, and until we can find that source bin Laden will remain at large.

The problem of what would happen in Iraq after the toppling of Saddam Hussein was, by contrast, a mystery. It wasn’t a question that had a simple, factual answer. Mysteries require judgments and the assessment of uncertainty, and the hard part is not that we have too little information but that we have too much. The C.I.A. had a position on what a post-invasion Iraq would look like, and so did the Pentagon and the State Department and Colin Powell and Dick Cheney and any number of political scientists and journalists and think-tank fellows. For that matter, so did every cabdriver in Baghdad.

The distinction is not trivial. If you consider the motivation and methods behind the attacks of September 11th to be mainly a puzzle, for instance, then the logical response is to increase the collection of intelligence, recruit more spies, add to the volume of information we have about Al Qaeda. If you consider September 11th a mystery, though, you’d have to wonder whether adding to the volume of information will only make things worse. You’d want to improve the analysis within the intelligence community; you’d want more thoughtful and skeptical people with the skills to look more closely at what we already know about Al Qaeda. You’d want to send the counterterrorism team from the C.I.A. on a golfing trip twice a month with the counterterrorism teams from the F.B.I. and the N.S.A. and the Defense Department, so they could get to know one another and compare notes.

If things go wrong with a puzzle, identifying the culprit is easy: it’s the person who withheld information. Mysteries, though, are a lot murkier: sometimes the information we’ve been given is inadequate, and sometimes we aren’t very smart about making sense of what we’ve been given, and sometimes the question itself cannot be answered. Puzzles come to satisfying conclusions. Mysteries often don’t.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/ ... -secrets-3

This "too big to comprehend" thinking can end up diluting responsibility creating a mystery out of a clear puzzle. There were key culprits involved in toppling Saddam and 9/11 who had clear goals, agendas and expectations. The orchestration and aftermath no doubt produced mysteries and enough details to fill warehouses but both originating puzzles could have been hatched at a poker table. It is against those culprits plans who initiated both that we have to reconcile whether their actions created a mystery or puzzle. If they got what they wanted then it is a puzzle, even if they didn't, it still probably is a puzzle. It becomes less of a mystery just by the fact of knowing who was sitting at the poker table regardless of the outcome. Wouldn't you like to know who was sitting at the table?

If you end up taking on the complexity and magnitude of a big mystery, though, by working backwards, but deliver a cheap puzzle solution you're going to not honor the source or the process of the material. Isn't this what TD does? While it tackles real puzzles and mystifies them by not going after the real culprits (even by fictional proxies) it then tries to neatly wrap up deep mysteries (time, the nature of good and evil, destructive masculinity, institutional occultism, life and death, etc) with surfer philosophy puzzle solutions. I guess I was expecting Sherlock Holmes doing R.I. themes and instead got Sherlock Holmes doing acid. Which is a Johnny Depp film, no?

Very thought provoking, indeed.

When watching TD, I can't help but feel manipulated by, as brekin pointed out, TD's "erratic quality" due in part to layers of excessive stimuli, symbolism, and erotics embedded throughout that are--in my humble opinion--meant to disorient and entangle those of us inclined to analyze and try to find anything meaningful. I wouldn't be surprised if it is also triggering to the psychologically traumatized. .