Impossible not to compare to Season 1, which appears to have
been knocked down a peg or two by some quarters ever since gaining universal
praise last year. Especially around the finale, which apart from the main set
piece, was fairly slow paced. Even the well known dialogue pieces that prompted
endless discussions have been brought into question over potential plagiarism.
Was that due to Season 2? Were people retrospectively seeing through the fog,
and changing opinion? Possibly, or perhaps we simply over hyped the original
(Personally, I stand by that Season 1 was great television).
The hype for Season 2 was phenomenal after the success of
the first, especially when it showed true Hollywood star power coming to the
smaller screen. So once the casting announcements were made for such
heavyweights as Colin Farrell, Rachel McAdams, and Vince Vaughn the internet
went a little mental with excitement (Sorry Taylor Kitsch, not quite yet).
As the dust began to settle and we started to get a little
more information, it became clear that instead of Season 1’s direction of two
central detectives, this would feature three with a Gangster portrayed by
notorious comedic actor Vaughn. Immediate thoughts were how would he adapt to a
serious role, in a series that is dark in tone with laughs few and far between
(if at all).
In addition, we were told that whilst Nic Pizzolatto would
be writing all the episodes as he did in Season 1 (apart from 2 where he had a
co-writer in Scott Lasser), whilst directing took a very different format.
Season 1 was purely directed by Cory Fukunaga, Season 2 had 7 directors for the
8 episodes.
Given the context, I got back to my initial question of how
was it? My answer: It was ok.
Ok I’ll elaborate. Firstly, I’m trying to keep this separate
from season 1 since it’s meant to be an anthology, but in some aspects it’s
impossible not to compare them.
A big difference that helps establish this as its own series
is the setting. Based in California (LA was purposefully avoided), the main
feature being these vast sprawling highways and open ended landscapes mixed
with an industrial inner city. The locations for the season were fantastic, and
the cinematography which captured that was great. Every director seemed to have
at least one token highway shot which was sort of unnecessary.
The plot itself, starting with the discovery of a body which
turns out to be a corrupt city manager is what brings the main characters
together. And without going into specifics, what exactly ties them together to
this case and the larger series outline.
However early episodes were slow to plod along with fairly
poor character development, a raft of supporting characters and a fairly
convoluted plot. The dialogue was clunky, and whilst trying to clearly hit some
of the highs from Season 1, just appeared to miss repeatedly.
As the episodes went on, things did improve, but for an 8
episode season there isn’t a great deal of time to get things right. The final
2 episodes were the seasons best overall, in my opinion, but that doesn’t mean
we simply ignore the rest. Too many initially developed plot ideas seemed to
just vanish, the high speed rail line being one example. Too many supporting
characters were given next to no screen time, yet we’re meant to care to
certain outcomes by the end. In fact, there is plenty of fun being pointed to
the character ‘Stan’ who is referred to in almost every episode, including a
trip to his family’s home, yet is only in 2 scenes as a standby character. How
are we meant to care?! And that’s without speaking about Caspere’s killer,
which follows a trend set in some murder mystery’s, but only the most absurdly
eagle eyed would be able to work out ahead of the reveal in episodes 7/8, once
more very little screen time and most of the ‘reveal’ was done prior to that
character even having a second scene in the season!
The plotline gets complicated unnecessarily, and whilst it
might be needed to really show how shady various factions and situations can
be, the concept of mob money invested into developments etc, once more it didn’t
really work. In fact, the whole character of Frank, played by Vaughn, really
wasn’t really needed. And served as almost an afterthought vs the 3 detective
leads. He was given some awful dialogue early on in the season, whilst Vaughn
struggled to make us care about his character, and for a while many couldn’t
see him outside of his comedy guise. By the time he started hitting the right
notes and even have us root for him at times, it was a bit too little too late.
Looking at the 3 detective leads, there were some good
points. Farrell played Ray fantastically through a series of situations
bringing about different emotions and issues. His voice going weird in the
final episode, and somehow having a ginger child aside, he was the character
you could really empathise with to some degree. He also had great chemistry
with both Vaughn and McAdams and really helped drag through some parts of the
season. Speaking of McAdams, she was also pretty good selling the tough
character of Ani. And then comes Kitsch’s Paul, who like the others had a dark
incident in the past, though his is left the most ambiguous in terms of
specific details. Whilst he was fine, and did lots of moody staring and not
saying a great deal, he was also not hugely needed or intricate to the plot,
and his big scene in episode 7 towards the end only happened due to a bit of a
far fetched plotline.
Focusing for a moment on the finale itself, did it do what was required to bring things back on track? To an extent. But there was a feeling that some of what happened was a formality. It was never going to be a happy ending for all, the tone is bleak, the backgrounds are bleak, there's a huge theme around lack of father figures, so this was no different. You could probably have predicted about 70% of it before watching. It tied things up, sure, but due to a couple of ridiculous 'eureka' moments, and some well timed situations which pushed our belief. However apart from that, there were a couple of very good scenes which played out well, a favourite being Frank in the dessert. Though part of me will always wish Ray didn't just lazily jab at you know what with his knife and actually make an effort, might have changed things and seemed a bit lazy.
Focusing for a moment on the finale itself, did it do what was required to bring things back on track? To an extent. But there was a feeling that some of what happened was a formality. It was never going to be a happy ending for all, the tone is bleak, the backgrounds are bleak, there's a huge theme around lack of father figures, so this was no different. You could probably have predicted about 70% of it before watching. It tied things up, sure, but due to a couple of ridiculous 'eureka' moments, and some well timed situations which pushed our belief. However apart from that, there were a couple of very good scenes which played out well, a favourite being Frank in the dessert. Though part of me will always wish Ray didn't just lazily jab at you know what with his knife and actually make an effort, might have changed things and seemed a bit lazy.
Focusing a bit of that 'eureka' factor, or TV luck (or deus ex mechana to some degree ), some fairly large pieces of Season 2 were based on ‘luck’,
or more accurately risky writing from Pizzolatto. Clearly aiming to expand upon
the True Detective universe (not literally, but in terms of story scale etc),
increasing the character count and the plot lines, just seemed to perhaps be a
touch too much for him to pull off. He was given creative freedom, and who can
blame HBO after what he delivered in 2014. Budgets didn’t seem to be an issue
for one of the biggest TV networks around, and the pulling power from the cast
would ensure solid viewing figures. Yet I still feel it had so much more
potential than it showed.
Overall, Season 2 started off poorly, fixed up midway
through to be a fairly run of the mill police procedural and finished better –
but not greatly – to give the whole season a slightly above average
rating.6.5/10 if you want a number. Some great set pieces, improved character
performances in the latter half with the direction and cinematography keeping
things looking great really helped drag this through but I think Pizzolatto
really needs to think long and hard about Season 3, if he wants to do it, and
perhaps bring another creative force in to help with some of the pieces he
seemed to struggle with this Season. I’m sure HBO will back it for another
season based on initial comments, and I think it can still pull in the star
power it’ll want, as like I said – not a disaster this year, and you do have to
tip your hat at the risks he took and the ambition of the project, however
sadly it just didn’t work for me.
Okay so that's a very middle of the road kind of review I will try to address a few things
ReplyDelete1 : The Show seemed hell bent on adapting the all MEN must die motto and i think that was a reaction to the huge criticism the writer took from S1 regarding the treatment of the women characters. So now we have these strong women characters that are damaged but still have their perspective on the world
Except the finale when Bezaridis resorted to type and become the doting waif like Gf , COME HOME QUICKLY VELCORO
I thought your character assessment was very fair, The two leads Ray and Ani were very strong, But I disagree with ur frank assertion that was irrelevant, I think Frank was a vitol cog in the machinery of the show but he was hamstrung with some truly terrible dialogue which did no one favours.
You take issue with the convenience of the plot in season 2 but if you rewatch S1 then there are just as many plot holes but They are easily forgiven due to the ambiance and the star power in the series.
For example there was a huge hint that Marty's daughter was sexually abused but that thread was just left alone and dont even get me started on how they stumbled onto the final revelation about the bloke in cacosa. Ther plot holes are there if you look for them
At least the writer is constant with plot devices.
2 : your issue about the High speed rail line not being addressed well in the end it was addressed maybe not in giant neon signs but its there when the catalyst group are breaking ground on the rail line and the junior Chesani kid is being sworn in as the new mayor. Itsubtly highlights the sheer sprawling nature of the corruption that it is vast as those overhead shots of highways
This show was by no means as terrible as some of the reviews but at the same time season 1 of this show wasn't as good as the hype at the time. A lot of which was misdirected because believe couldn't believe that an Oscar winner would come down from his ivory tower and slum it on regular tele. The goodwill for Mathew stretched to the tv show
ONE thing this season needed was a regular voice, having directors for hire was never going to be cohesive and tonally the show suffered. The latter half of the season ended so strongly and I know the numbers for the S2 finale were terrible but I do genuinely think it was a better finale than season 1.
I am making all these comparisons but I want to clarify that I am treating the two seasons as two completely different shows its only when majority of the reviews on the internet try comparison I feel like I have to defend in that nature
Is this 6.5/10 show no i think another .5 would have been fair.
HBO has a huge slate of shows coming in 2016 I would wager that even though they are willing to carry on the true detective name, They dont actually need this show
They are back in the market of Marquee television after a few leans years