Jimmy... Dead.
contemplative curmudgeon
Now that we have our own thread let's get really serious. Let's talk about McAdams describing a big dick 
True Detective
- Thread starter unknown
- Start date
rms
Active Member
I enjoyed Frank's dialogue on the "class war", but I think his wife is a worse actress/character.
edit;
She's banging Woodrugh in the real life now
edit;
She's banging Woodrugh in the real life now
Jimmy... Dead.
contemplative curmudgeon
When he was giving that speech I let out an awwww fuck you lol I hate excuses for being an evil piece of shit, just own it. But yea I like him too
wow that'd make a helluva porn. I bet gay boy is packing a hog too
wow that'd make a helluva porn. I bet gay boy is packing a hog too
Einherjar86
Active Member
I barely recall any of Frank's lines.
This season hasn't captured me for its one-liners, although there are some occasional goods. Actually, I thought Velcoro had a pretty good line at the end of his scene with Bezzerides in the bar: "I didn't realize you had been on my mind."
Smooth bro.
Whereas the first season seemed more like a very good narrative driven by two complex leads, this season seems more like potentially but incomplete characters swept up in a very complex narrative. I'm sure it will all come into focus, and the feelings of disorganization and confusion all seem intentional to me; but it does detract from character development. Both Woodrugh and Jordan (Frank's wife) suffer for it.
This season hasn't captured me for its one-liners, although there are some occasional goods. Actually, I thought Velcoro had a pretty good line at the end of his scene with Bezzerides in the bar: "I didn't realize you had been on my mind."
Smooth bro.
Whereas the first season seemed more like a very good narrative driven by two complex leads, this season seems more like potentially but incomplete characters swept up in a very complex narrative. I'm sure it will all come into focus, and the feelings of disorganization and confusion all seem intentional to me; but it does detract from character development. Both Woodrugh and Jordan (Frank's wife) suffer for it.
voilenoir
Nicole
This is pretty much what I said to a friend regarding Vaughn's acting. I think it's been pretty decent so far. Here's what I said: His whole storyline involving the basement incident and being forced to squeeze the rats to death being parallel to getting pulled back into a criminal underworld that he doesn't want to be a part of because he's "better" than that, even though he clearly isn't, and the fact he wants a child when (it seems) he's unable to produce the sperm, so violence and thuggery is the only avenue for him to be a "man". He's his most "natural" when he's ripping some guy's grill out. Half of his ten dollar words he's been using have been awkward and forced. It's all part of the show, as they say
Einherjar86
Active Member
That all sounds convincing to me. So it may be that Vaughn's poor acting simply fits the role perfectly.
Jimmy... Dead.
contemplative curmudgeon
Einherjar86
Active Member
So, the other day someone asked me what my favorite television series is/are.
I still think the first season of Rome is one of the best seasons of television ever. Breaking Bad was fantastic, all the way through. For comedies, Seinfeld takes the cake (along with the first two seasons of Arrested Development). And I still maintain the cultural value of Lost.
But the more I've racked my brain, the more I realize that no show (in my opinion) touches the first season of True Detective. Even alongside The Wire, Sopranos, Mad Men... this show offers the most potent alignment of actual human existence with other-worldly horror. What I find the most interesting about fiction isn't human characters grasping for meaning in a nonhuman world, but inhuman characters shackling meaning to its base materiality - which is what Rust did in season one.
When I read Ulysses, or Gravity's Rainbow, or Absalom, Absalom!, or Blood Meridian, I don't look for human voices. I'm looking for a voice that breaches the liminal realm of the corpse. True Detective is the only show to have done that via a commitment to form and dedicated philosophical rigor.
Sorry, I was thinking about this today at work and had to spill.
I still think the first season of Rome is one of the best seasons of television ever. Breaking Bad was fantastic, all the way through. For comedies, Seinfeld takes the cake (along with the first two seasons of Arrested Development). And I still maintain the cultural value of Lost.
But the more I've racked my brain, the more I realize that no show (in my opinion) touches the first season of True Detective. Even alongside The Wire, Sopranos, Mad Men... this show offers the most potent alignment of actual human existence with other-worldly horror. What I find the most interesting about fiction isn't human characters grasping for meaning in a nonhuman world, but inhuman characters shackling meaning to its base materiality - which is what Rust did in season one.
When I read Ulysses, or Gravity's Rainbow, or Absalom, Absalom!, or Blood Meridian, I don't look for human voices. I'm looking for a voice that breaches the liminal realm of the corpse. True Detective is the only show to have done that via a commitment to form and dedicated philosophical rigor.
Sorry, I was thinking about this today at work and had to spill.
rms
Active Member
Jimmy... Dead.
contemplative curmudgeon
Ein ya pretty much nailed it on a level I never could. Season 1 truly was phenomenal
this is great:
No Exit From Darkness: A twelve piece series of articles by academic philosophers that examine the philosophical ideas present in the first season
http://www.thecritique.com/exclusive/no-exit-from-darkness-the-philosophy-of-true-detective/
and fuck what anyone says Lost was a great show. I've never been so infatuated by a show before. Breaking Bad did the same thing.
As far as comedy goes yea Seinfeld is king. The American version of The Office was excellent too, just some great comedic writing. Especially the early seasons
this is great:
No Exit From Darkness: A twelve piece series of articles by academic philosophers that examine the philosophical ideas present in the first season
http://www.thecritique.com/exclusive/no-exit-from-darkness-the-philosophy-of-true-detective/
and fuck what anyone says Lost was a great show. I've never been so infatuated by a show before. Breaking Bad did the same thing.
As far as comedy goes yea Seinfeld is king. The American version of The Office was excellent too, just some great comedic writing. Especially the early seasons
Master_Yoda77
Juggalo
Einherjar86
Active Member
Well, I won't go into it too much since this is now the True Detective thread.
Basically, I just thought Rome did a fantastic job of weaving (somewhat accurate) history with a narrative of deep personal concern. Intimate events reflect large historical events. It was very good writing, I thought.
Then HBO cancelled it and condemned the second season to the negative effects of time constraints.
EDIT: Jimmy, thanks for that link; I look forward to reading through those when I get a chance.
In the meantime, I'll probably try to post some thoughts and/or links here more often, provided I have the time.
I think it's safe to say that the second season is not delivering the way the first did, but part of me wants to believe that's because it has different interests. Most noticeably, I feel that the philosophically engaged aspect has fallen off some. Season one had a deceptively simple narrative: two detectives solve a crime, which branches out into further potential crimes, and we'll tell the story in a nonlinear fashion. Fancy, catchy, but not too complicated.
Season two, instead of beginning with a point and moving forward (or looping backward), starts with numerous points and takes its time in bringing them all together. In other words, season one was singular but nonlinear, while season two is linear and multifarious.
I do wish the acting was better at times, but at this point I enjoy the the overall effect of season two - the displacement of characters within systems of corrupt politics, transportation, urban development, pending ecological catastrophe... Season one teased the complexity of systems, but didn't quite give it to us. I'm thinking of Rust's discovery of the "sprawl," which implied numerous actors across great stretches of space, and involving various religious and political institutions. But we weren't given a real glimpse into those networks.
Now, I think season two is going there.
Basically, I just thought Rome did a fantastic job of weaving (somewhat accurate) history with a narrative of deep personal concern. Intimate events reflect large historical events. It was very good writing, I thought.
Then HBO cancelled it and condemned the second season to the negative effects of time constraints.
EDIT: Jimmy, thanks for that link; I look forward to reading through those when I get a chance.
In the meantime, I'll probably try to post some thoughts and/or links here more often, provided I have the time.
I think it's safe to say that the second season is not delivering the way the first did, but part of me wants to believe that's because it has different interests. Most noticeably, I feel that the philosophically engaged aspect has fallen off some. Season one had a deceptively simple narrative: two detectives solve a crime, which branches out into further potential crimes, and we'll tell the story in a nonlinear fashion. Fancy, catchy, but not too complicated.
Season two, instead of beginning with a point and moving forward (or looping backward), starts with numerous points and takes its time in bringing them all together. In other words, season one was singular but nonlinear, while season two is linear and multifarious.
I do wish the acting was better at times, but at this point I enjoy the the overall effect of season two - the displacement of characters within systems of corrupt politics, transportation, urban development, pending ecological catastrophe... Season one teased the complexity of systems, but didn't quite give it to us. I'm thinking of Rust's discovery of the "sprawl," which implied numerous actors across great stretches of space, and involving various religious and political institutions. But we weren't given a real glimpse into those networks.
Now, I think season two is going there.
rms
Active Member
Really enjoyed that article. #4's idea is fascinating to me. All sound awesome. Going to have to read most of them, seems they deserve at least that!
Jimmy... Dead.
contemplative curmudgeon
Einherjar86
Active Member
Sure, although you probably have a better idea than you think. I'll say a bit more though because I was speaking somewhat metaphorically.
First things first, the word "liminal" comes from liminality, which is an anthropological term used to designate a transitional moment within rituals. For example, in any kind of rite of passage there is a movement from an immature state toward a state of maturity; liminality signifies the ambiguous moment when the subject transitions from one state to the next - from boy to man, for instance. When exactly does this happen? The moment, speaking both from within and outside of the ritual, doesn't really exist. Instead, there's this kind of haze or period of uncertainty. Anthropologists call this "liminality." It basically means occupying both sides of a threshold.
When I use the word "corpse" I'm speaking metaphorically to signify not only death, but also simply the inanimate material world. More specifically, the corpse is a fascinating image because it introduces a liminal notion into our treatment of dead human bodies. Corpses are uncanny, meaning they still look human but are lacking a certain vital quality (obviously). When near a corpse we almost always feel a sneaking, just less-than-conscious anxiety over it somehow coming back to life. So corpses introduce a kind of liminality: they somehow linger on either side of the divide between life and death.
This isn't simply an abstract postulation or theory-wankery; it's been observed and studied in various cultures by anthropologists, and death is often invoked as a kind of zero-degree difference that regulates all forms of exchange. Jean Baudrillard writes:
To put it plainly: death becomes a kind of master-signifier for the binary distinction of all social relations. It represents the not-A of every positive identity.
Because of this, death becomes a kind of ineffable and indeterminate basis for all social relations, which all involve social exchanges. Where any exchange is threatened, the penalty of death looms; it is the great equalizer. Ultimately, life and death comprise the final exchange: death for life.
The fear, or the horror, of the corpse (or of death, of inanimate matter, of the unthought) derives not only from the superficial fear of necromancy (i.e., "omg, zombies!"), but from the realization that the dead coming back to life dissolves the basis of all social interactions. In other words, all bets are off. The penalty of death no longer guarantees the equitable operation of social systems.
The liminal realm of the corpse is thus not only the blurry division between life and death, but also the lingering threat of the meaninglessness and fragility of the structures on which our lives are built.
First things first, the word "liminal" comes from liminality, which is an anthropological term used to designate a transitional moment within rituals. For example, in any kind of rite of passage there is a movement from an immature state toward a state of maturity; liminality signifies the ambiguous moment when the subject transitions from one state to the next - from boy to man, for instance. When exactly does this happen? The moment, speaking both from within and outside of the ritual, doesn't really exist. Instead, there's this kind of haze or period of uncertainty. Anthropologists call this "liminality." It basically means occupying both sides of a threshold.
When I use the word "corpse" I'm speaking metaphorically to signify not only death, but also simply the inanimate material world. More specifically, the corpse is a fascinating image because it introduces a liminal notion into our treatment of dead human bodies. Corpses are uncanny, meaning they still look human but are lacking a certain vital quality (obviously). When near a corpse we almost always feel a sneaking, just less-than-conscious anxiety over it somehow coming back to life. So corpses introduce a kind of liminality: they somehow linger on either side of the divide between life and death.
This isn't simply an abstract postulation or theory-wankery; it's been observed and studied in various cultures by anthropologists, and death is often invoked as a kind of zero-degree difference that regulates all forms of exchange. Jean Baudrillard writes:
To put it plainly: death becomes a kind of master-signifier for the binary distinction of all social relations. It represents the not-A of every positive identity.
Because of this, death becomes a kind of ineffable and indeterminate basis for all social relations, which all involve social exchanges. Where any exchange is threatened, the penalty of death looms; it is the great equalizer. Ultimately, life and death comprise the final exchange: death for life.
The fear, or the horror, of the corpse (or of death, of inanimate matter, of the unthought) derives not only from the superficial fear of necromancy (i.e., "omg, zombies!"), but from the realization that the dead coming back to life dissolves the basis of all social interactions. In other words, all bets are off. The penalty of death no longer guarantees the equitable operation of social systems.
The liminal realm of the corpse is thus not only the blurry division between life and death, but also the lingering threat of the meaninglessness and fragility of the structures on which our lives are built.
Jimmy... Dead.
contemplative curmudgeon
So our environment/ecology and social structures are sort of an unconscious response or effect to this threshold? is this the voice? like a voice of the living dead, the past or I guess the undead
Einherjar86
Active Member
Ha, good question; I only realize now that I didn't address the "voice" part.
I meant something more along the lines of a narrative, or potentially even the lines of a character, that organizes itself in contrast to conventional notions of rationality, individual subjectivity, and the knowable world. True Detective's narrative (in both seasons, I would say) presents itself as a darkened vision of the world we know; in other words, it makes something familiar appear strangely unfamiliar, or uncanny. Just like the corpse is an uncanny image of the human, True Detective depicts a world that is an uncanny version of itself (this is basically the hint of Lovecraftian horror bleeding through - that the world is always-already inhuman, is radically not for us).
A language of this kind of reality would be vaguely interpretable, but also slightly odd, or unsettling. This is what I mean by a voice of the "liminal realm of the corpse"; it's a voice that forces us to pay closer attention because it says things that make us uncomfortable, or that force us to think about things in new ways. Cohle delivers this as a character, and the entire show delivers it formally (i.e. narratively, thematically, contextually, etc.).
To give an example of a predecessor to Rust Cohle, I would cite Addie Bundren from Faulkner's novel As I Lay Dying; she is given only one chapter from her perspective, and in it she speaks to us as a recently deceased corpse:
I meant something more along the lines of a narrative, or potentially even the lines of a character, that organizes itself in contrast to conventional notions of rationality, individual subjectivity, and the knowable world. True Detective's narrative (in both seasons, I would say) presents itself as a darkened vision of the world we know; in other words, it makes something familiar appear strangely unfamiliar, or uncanny. Just like the corpse is an uncanny image of the human, True Detective depicts a world that is an uncanny version of itself (this is basically the hint of Lovecraftian horror bleeding through - that the world is always-already inhuman, is radically not for us).
A language of this kind of reality would be vaguely interpretable, but also slightly odd, or unsettling. This is what I mean by a voice of the "liminal realm of the corpse"; it's a voice that forces us to pay closer attention because it says things that make us uncomfortable, or that force us to think about things in new ways. Cohle delivers this as a character, and the entire show delivers it formally (i.e. narratively, thematically, contextually, etc.).
To give an example of a predecessor to Rust Cohle, I would cite Addie Bundren from Faulkner's novel As I Lay Dying; she is given only one chapter from her perspective, and in it she speaks to us as a recently deceased corpse:
rms
Active Member
Einherjar86
Active Member
It was okay. It wasn't as good as the last few.
And fuck offffffff Vince Vaughn. That conversation between Frank and Ray was torture.
The problem is that the show really makes it look like Frank's actions and words are coming from some genuine place (e.g. his speech to his dead employee's kid), but with that acting I just caaaaan't. I really wanted that kid to tell him to fuck off, but instead he cries into his chest? Frank is the worst part of the show.
And fuck offffffff Vince Vaughn. That conversation between Frank and Ray was torture.
The problem is that the show really makes it look like Frank's actions and words are coming from some genuine place (e.g. his speech to his dead employee's kid), but with that acting I just caaaaan't. I really wanted that kid to tell him to fuck off, but instead he cries into his chest? Frank is the worst part of the show.
Similar threads
