True Detective and The Transformation of Matthew McConaughey

[Love And Submission]

So last night I finished Form and Void the final episode of the first season  of True Detective and I wanted to talk about here. I don't know if anyone else here is watching it but I just kind  of wanted to post  my thoughts.

It's a good show. I'd say it's a solid A show. I don't think it's as well written or paced as say Breaking Bad or The Sopranos but what really  made me fall in love with the show  is the transformation of Matthew McConaughey from this sort of Ken Doll guy from Sahara to probably the best actor on television.

I didn't see Dallas Texas Buyers Club so perhaps that's why his amazing performance here caught me off guard but I've been scratching my head trying to think of an Actor that went from being a punchline on SNL to being someone who I think should win the Emmy for Lead Actor. I really think that his performance as Rusty Cohle  has been that good. It's amazing to watch a guy who  previous to this shows  ,   best performance was in Dazed And Confused  out act Woody Harrelson.

I recommend the show. I think it's an incredibly interesting take ont he old police procedural and I also think Rusty  Cohle is a very interesting statement on   modern day american culture because of how different he is from other lead police officer. He's much more intelligent and well spoken then Vic Mackey or  even  Raylan Givens.

I  love the fact that it shows that Yes your main character can break the rules for justice but he can also be a  semi-likeable decent educated man. He  can be articulate and cultured.  The Cowboy Cop doesn't  necessarily  have to dip chew and  rough up suspects. He can  discuss M-Brain Theory and philosophize  while  still being a tough authoritative figure.


Then again. Going back to my  original  point , i don't know how well Kohl would work if  he wasn't played McConaughey.

That's not to say that the story isn't incredibly well crafted (even if it is occasionally bogged down by unnecessary side stories) but I don't know if it would be as must watch in my eyes if it wasn't McConaughey. He really does take a show that I would say deserves an Emmy Nod to a show is probably (even though this is only the first season) a must watch TV show. I think that if you are even mildly interested in good TV Shows that you should seek out True Detective.  Hell , I love The Killing and The Bridge but this show is a lot better then them. It might even be better then Twin Peaks in all honesty. It's a very good show and McConaughey deserves a lot of credit.


Of course Harrelson has his moments as well where he  carries the show and does a great job of doing so. Those two have amazing chemistry  and the two lead characters  (Cohle  and Hart) are really really well written. They are very admirable and understandable.




So yeah I    recommend   True Detective even if you don't like the story , just for how good McConaughey's acting is on this show and how amazing his transformation has been. You can just see how much work he has put into this role and it really pays off in my eyes.

Harrelson is easy for me to ignore because he's always been such a good actor that his performance is sort of typical for him.



So has anyone else checked out this show? Did you enjoy it as much as  I did? Do you have any theories on the second season? Looking Forward to it? Think it should've ended in the first season or what?



Also here is the best example of how well McConaughey is in this show. Spolier warning.

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8x73UW8Hjk

[elwood]

I haven't watched True Detective yet, and to be honest my reason was exactly because Matt McConaughey was one of its stars - because I'd pigeonholed him into the stereotypical "punch line."  However, I had the opportunity to see Dallas Buyers Club (more out of boredom than anticipation), and I was shocked at how much I enjoyed the movie, and particularly his performance.

I'd always thought of the Oscars as a pretty political process - usually more of a high-school popularity contest than a reward for real talent, but I am 100% certain that McConaughey deserved his Oscar for DBC.  At first, I thought all the acclaim for him was due to the fact that he lost all the weight for the role, but after watching the movie, I'd have to say that he acted his ass of! I actually lost myself in his character, completely forgetting that he was Matthew McConaughey. Definitely one of the top performances I've seen in a film in a very long time.

So to answer your original question, I haven't seen True Detectives... yet. But after watching the all-new MMc, I plan to check it out!!

[Hemingway]

I watched the last episode last night, and I really loved the show. McConaughey was absolutely brilliant.

I found the first two or so episodes a bit slow, and they really failed to grab my interest immediately. I kept watching because I'd heard so many good things about it, and I was not disappointed. Third episode really got me hooked.

I'll be really disappointed if the second season doesn't get it right. I just don't really see how it can. I mean, it can't exactly be a copy. It's known that Harrelson and McConaughey won't return, and you really can't have a new set of actors portraying different characters who behave in the same way, you know? My main fear is the main characters won't be as well-written. I also fear the plot won't be as interesting, but at the same time I hope there's a sufficiently fresh plot, and not some branch of the same plot. Part of the appeal was the utter mystery, and if the plot of the second season just goes deeper into the same case, I'm not sure that'd work as well.

Still, looking forward to it.

I read this article by someone who was disappointed with the ending ( no spoilers here! ), but I really can't say I agree. I thought the ending was just about perfect. I actually really enjoyed the whole structure of the show, and how not every mystery is explained. It makes the show sort of live up to its true detective/pulp inspiration.

[Bloodied Porcelain]

I'll be really disappointed if the second season doesn't get it right. I just don't really see how it can. I mean, it can't exactly be a copy. It's known that Harrelson and McConaughey won't return, and you really can't have a new set of actors portraying different characters who behave in the same way, you know? My main fear is the main characters won't be as well-written. I also fear the plot won't be as interesting, but at the same time I hope there's a sufficiently fresh plot, and not some branch of the same plot. Part of the appeal was the utter mystery, and if the plot of the second season just goes deeper into the same case, I'm not sure that'd work as well.

This is exactly why I refuse to watch the show and have from the beginning in spite of my excitement at the idea of McConaughey and Harrelson being on a show together (I've always loved Mc in spite of the punchlines... he's always been insanely talented but he got a lot of really shitty roles that capitalized on his good looks and/or his accent). I have zero desire to get hooked on a show with actors I love knowing they won't come back after the first season... so pretty much any show with actors who are more movie stars and less TV stars. I've always been of the opinion that if you're gonna do that... just don't fucking bother because all you're doing at that point is abandoning the viewers and leaving them to sub-par actors.

[Ebb]

This is exactly why I refuse to watch the show and have from the beginning in spite of my excitement at the idea of McConaughey and Harrelson being on a show together (I've always loved Mc in spite of the punchlines... he's always been insanely talented but he got a lot of really shitty roles that capitalized on his good looks and/or his accent). I have zero desire to get hooked on a show with actors I love knowing they won't come back after the first season... so pretty much any show with actors who are more movie stars and less TV stars. I've always been of the opinion that if you're gonna do that... just don't fucking bother because all you're doing at that point is abandoning the viewers and leaving them to sub-par actors.

I'd urge you to give it another look, although it might involve a shift in thinking. I prefer to think of it as a mini-series, or maybe a set of short movies, and less like a standard TV show. The advantage of having a limited run is that they can plot out a complete story with a beginning, middle and end that neatly wraps up the character arcs (I liked the ending a lot too, Hemingway).

Not to say that you're not entitled to your preferences, because of course you are. But I've really enjoyed watching True Detective just for what it is. Next season I expect to enjoy it too, as a completely separate thing - new actors, new director, new plot. Really the only thing that carries over is the brand name, which given the great reviews of the first season should help them to rope in a pretty high caliber of talent.

[Bloodied Porcelain]

I'd urge you to give it another look, although it might involve a shift in thinking. I prefer to think of it as a mini-series, or maybe a set of short movies, and less like a standard TV show. The advantage of having a limited run is that they can plot out a complete story with a beginning, middle and end that neatly wraps up the character arcs (I liked the ending a lot too, Hemingway).

Not to say that you're not entitled to your preferences, because of course you are. But I've really enjoyed watching True Detective just for what it is. Next season I expect to enjoy it too, as a completely separate thing - new actors, new director, new plot. Really the only thing that carries over is the brand name, which given the great reviews of the first season should help them to rope in a pretty high caliber of talent.

That's the thing... it's not a miniseries. Otherwise it wouldn't be coming back. It's a show, and shows have to have some semblance of continuity to work. Completely dropping the two main characters between season one and season two ends any semblance of continuity for me. I'd spend the whole of season two thinking about how bad the acting is in comparison with season one and how much I miss the original characters/cast.

[Hemingway]

It actually makes sense in context. I won't spoil the show for you, but the show does a very good job of wrapping up the plot of the first season. There seem to be very good reasons why they wouldn't return, although ...

Massive ending spoiler!

Neither of them dies.

I'm actually hoping season 2 will be a completely standalone plot, with no connection to the plot of the first.

[Ebb]

I'm actually hoping season 2 will be a completely standalone plot, with no connection to the plot of the first.

As I understand it, that's the plan. Much like American Horror Story, which had a completely separate plot, setting and characters for each season -- although that show re-used most of the same actors. For all intents and purposes, each season is set in its own 'universe', although I wouldn't be surprised if they buried little Easter eggs tying them together just to see if people notice.

It sounds like it's just not something you'd enjoy, though, BP. No worries -- plenty of other stuff out there. For what it's worth I enjoyed seasons one and two of American Horror Story, but really didn't like the third one, so stopped watching it.

[ThePrince]

I am on episode 6 and I heard someone suggested that True Crimes takes place in the same world as Harry Potter. I like that idea.

I wouldnt worry about a sub par cast for the next season. Lately a lot of big name actors have been doing tv series and mini series. Plus its from HBO and they have the money to attract good talent.

[Hemingway]

I wouldnt worry about a sub par cast for the next season. Lately a lot of big name actors have been doing tv series and mini series. Plus its from HBO and they have the money to attract good talent.

Hell, I'm more worried they'll cast some big name I don't like. I saw someone throwing Brad Pitt's name around. While that looked like pure speculation or wishful thinking, I really hope they don't get someone like that. Unless...

You know who I'd like to see? Ed Norton. Ed Norton is brilliant.

[RedPhoenix]

I really don't think Matthew McConaughey has ever been a bad actor. He just got lame roles so who could tell? If he had tried to turn one of his stoner roles into something deep and emotional that would have been five times as dreadful. He got a lot of flak for A Time to Kill but god that movie was one of the worst I've seen as far as completely missing the point of the book and oversimplifying the message until it was so diluted it was meaningless. I'm not sure what he was supposed to do with that part. Otherwise I've always thought he was very good. I think people are finally noticing his range and that's a good thing. Because I mean, if you're going to get paid millions to do a job you could do in your sleep why would you turn it down if you're young and coming up. Now that he's got money in the bank and some credibility to his name maybe we'll see him really stretch his wings. I thought Brad Pitt was in a similar situation about ten years ago but after a few challenging roles he sort of reverted to type.

You know who I'd like to see? Ed Norton. Ed Norton is brilliant.

Funny this name should come up. Ed Norton is almost like the anti-McCounaghey, he's got tons of really deep roles and hasn't done all that great a job on them imo (I know many disagree, but to me he just sort of plays the same character every time, which is fine the first time you see it and then sort of frustrating every other time).