LostInTheMovies

Re: the podcast itself, I'm really glad you guys discussed the direction in-depth and the ways in which it makes a huge difference in the effectiveness of Pizzolatto's work. I feel like often direction gets seen as the flashier details - the tracking shots, the inserts - but it's also about creating a general atmosphere through pacing, line delivery, and small gestures (think the vast difference in those two rehearsal scenes in Mulholland Drive - Betty & Rita in the kitchen, and then Betty with the actor and producers; same exact material, WORLDS of difference). In terms of direction, "Church in Ruins" was generally on par with Fukunaga in season 1. It seems like a lot of people's frustrations with the episode are still about the writing, although Gormongous raised some specific objections to Miguel Sapochnik's choices. And I think maybe the ability to really love the episode is tied to the viewer's inclination to appreciate filmmaking independently from the writing. I don't generally watch TV and am much more a film guy so for me coming at it, this was what stuck out. While I do feel that Pizzolatto's writing was stronger in many ways than in previous episodes (and apparently his collaborator was back for this episode? I missed that somehow...), I also think there were many, many moments that ONLY played because Sapochnik gave the material much more than it deserved. The Ray-Frank confrontation, Frank's speech to Stan's son, and Ray's over-the-top binge all fell into this category. I doubt they would play on the page at all (especially that "pure gold" monologue) but they worked onscreen for me.

Seems like Ani's memory is definitely a point of controversy. I was of the few apparently who thought it was well-handled, even though that type of situation could come off as cliched/trope-y/rote. As with most of the other stuff I liked in this episode I felt it was more due to the direction than writing - or to be fair, that it was a moment that required good direction to work and (in my opinion) received it. Yeah, I think Sean mentioned being disappointed that they used the imagery of the little girl going to the van hand-in-hand with the hippie but I don't recall a shot like that in the episode. Instead I remember the one you are describing. I agree that the former shot probably wouldn't have worked and would have felt too on-the-nose/exploitative. While the actual shot (with adult Ani) was weirdly powerful and MORE disturbing for the reasons you mention. Oddly enough, I felt the character who came closest to being a potential Laura Palmer on season 1 was Audrey Hart. It really seemed like the show was hinting at a really dark secret in her life and then not only did it not go there, it abandoned her completely which was one of the more confusing aspects of the series. Maybe that's one reason I did not have the negative reaction to this revelation of Ani's past; it felt like for once Pizzolatto was being (at least somewhat) true to his undertones. This led me down the internet rabbit hole and I was surprised to find just how disputed the idea of repression is. Not in the obvious sense that sometimes memories have been falsely planted (most notably in the "satanic day care" hysteria of the late 80s), but as in there is apparently a widespread school of thought that believes it is scientifically impossible to actively forget a traumatic incident. Or am I misunderstanding the general objection? Agreed. That's how I took it. Even aside from the controversy MalcolmLittle alludes to, I think staging this as such would come off as too trope-y and too easily cathartic. I much prefer the idea that this was something Ani has lived with but tried not to think about. Then it bubbled back up at this moment of vulnerability. To me it was part of the tapestry of the sequence (albeit maybe the most important part on a thematic level) but not necessarily its entire crux.

My take on Pizzolatto - when I'm feeling charitable - is that he writes material that could go either way, setting up really effective drama/character or simply coming off as self-important cliche. It depends on the delivery and this is all the more true given how, in interviews, he seems to always take the most on-the-nose, literal interpretation of his work. I think this is partly what happened in season 1, where - especially in the masterful episodes 5 & 6 the direction maintained ambiguity and complexity until the screenplay simply wouldn't allow it anymore. Miguel Sapochnik is the first director all season to elevate rather than fall prey to Pizzolatto's work.Seems like we're gonna need an episode 6 thread...

I loved tonight's episode. Feels so good to be able to say that again.

I'm really hesitant to make any predictions, but I do think that we won't see the town of Twin Peaks until some ways into the first episode, maybe even the very end (or hell, maybe not even until a subsequent episode though I doubt they'll take it that far). Mark Frost has said some ambiguous things suggesting that might be the case and it would certainly be classic David Lynch to hold back on our expectations like that. I also think Frost's book "The Secret Lives of Twin Peaks" (which was going to come out in a few months, but has probably been postponed to next year as the show itself has been pushed back) will cover most of these plot/character-oriented questions and the show will have its sights set elsewhere. Sherilyn Fenn seems to be very upset on Twitter that she hasn't been contacted yet (at least as of a few weeks ago) but I imagine she and the other originals will play a part though I'm not sure how big it will be. I really think the new series is going to surprise us. When the news was first announced I was expecting an extreme Inland Empire-type project only tangentially connected to the original show (and naturally, I wondered how the hell Showtime got onboard for this) but over time I've stepped back from that conclusion and I think we'll be seeing a purposefully more restrained Lynch than we've seen in a while. Though I also think parts of it will be more avant-garde than anything he's ever done. Honestly, my ideal would be something that runs the entire spectrum from The Straight Story to Inland Empire, the perfect capstone for Lynch's surprisingly diverse career.

Would people be game for starting 9 new threads, one for each (non-FWWM) Lynch feature? (Maybe 10, one for all his shorts and other projects?) I think it could be cool, but don't want to just go hog-wild and clutter of the page with a lot of new threads unless some people express interest. Maybe it will encourage people who are still keeping an eye on the forum to watch some of them and leave their first reactions, ala Twin Peaks Rewatch. Anyway, let me know if you are interested.

Considering they can't even say the word "gay" I'm not surprised...

Something tells me Paul's mom may be right, but that she also would have been one of the good looking white men keeping a place like Vinci a cess-pool. Well, ok, most of those guys aren't good-looking (and some of them aren't white, come to think of it) but you know what I mean. It's possible that Paul's status is due not just to his failure to seize opportunity, but also his hesitance to be a scumbag. Though he's still such a cipher at this point, it's hard to say (I wonder how much of the Black Mountain stuff we will actually get to learn). This. Thank you for mentioning this! This happened numerous times in the episode, particularly with Colin Farrell - where his expression changes completely over the course of a cut (the other example that comes to mind is in the custody sequence). All of the performances were terribly off this episode, though Taylor Kitsch (and the actress playing his mother) suffered the most. There are a few decent scenes for the actors, like the second between Frank & Jordan (though the first is very weak - especially Vaughn's performances) and the one between Ani & Ray in the bar (though that one is marred by Farrell's delivery of an admittedly terrible line, when he calls Paul a "god warrior" - I actually had to pause the video I was laughing so hard). But for the most part, this is the worst acting all season which is a pity because in many other ways this was my favorite episode: it had by far the most momentum, the details finally started coming together, the characters went through interesting changes, and there were lots of cool little moments/setpieces (Ray following the guy with the bass pounding was the most atmospheric this show has been all season). And it's weird that the acting was so bad when apparently John Crowley, the director, comes from theater and just had an excellent film at Sundance. All I can gather is that he had no handle on these characters at all, and the actors - five episodes into the show! - couldn't really help him. It stinks of a somebody working in a creative vacuum. To be honest, I'm getting really, really irritated with Pizzolatto about now. I feel like he has shot himself and his show in the foot by insisting on being the all-seeing showrunner when in fact he has no vision beyond plot points and character moments (and his vision isn't so great there, either; this really feels like a 2-3 episode story arbitrarily stretched over 8). The refusal to credit Fukunaga for any of season 1's quality (which, to be fair, seems to be shared by Fukunaga towards him) comes off as insecurity, given how closely season 2 attempts to follow season 1's narrative structure. It's as if he's saying "look guys I can't do it again, all by myself!" Reading interviews, it seems like he is a novelist who has decided to be a showrunner simply because that's where the action was. Well, cool, but when you don't bother to understand the intricacies of performance, atmosphere, and pacing - and refuse to collaborate with someone who does - you really haven't earned the right to compare yourself to David Chase. I really want the last three episodes to be rewarding, but considering how last season actually dipped a bit at the end (for me) I'm worried. Episode 6 was my favorite last time, so maybe it will be this time as well. But I think the show is now past the point where whatever comes can miraculously justify what came before. I hope the experience of the show's mixed-to-lukewarm reception humbles Pizzolatto enough to realize his own shortcomings as a storyteller. But I could also see him getting defensive and doubling down for season 3, maybe even directing himself as he said he might in Vanity Fair. Then again, he seems to be pretty responsive (maybe too responsive) to criticism, so there's hope. I've heard people imply he's just a complete hack who lucked out with a great director and actor last year, but I don't think that's true. A lot of what is cool about True Detective is definitely due to Pizzolatto. But I think he rushed to assemble this season, and with the wrong motives, and it shows.

For those who felt the show's atmosphere was too 50s and desired more early 90s 'tude in their Twin Peaks characters:

Hope you'll stick around & leave feedback. I feel mostly disappointed so far about the season but would love to hear an alternate perspective.

Might send this as an email too because I find this really interesting. On this episode of the podcast you mentioned wondering about the original scripts for s1 and how much they differed from what was shot. I was always under the impression the Pizzolatto went off at and wrote his magnum opus and then brought everyone else onboard. Well, I just stumbled across this interview with Fukunaga (you may have read it already) and got a very different impression from it: http://www.salon.com/2014/01/09/true_detective_director_cary_fukunaga_explains_the_shows_dark_humor/ Fukunaga talks about being involved from "conception" (although later in the interview he implies brought in early but not necessarily first). He was part of the project when it was still supposed to be shot in the Ozarks, and apparently was heavily involved in the casting, even suggesting that he was the one who brought McConuaghey in. And most surprisingly he talks about him & Woody Harrelson giving Pizzolatto notes! (How much you want to bet THAT practice has ended in s2?) I found this to be the most telling passage: "There wasn’t a lot of humor in the script originally, and that was actually my first note and Woody Harrelson’s first note. Woody was like, “Yeah, it’s really interesting, it’s really dark — but it needs some light in it.” I was like, “I 100 percent agree.” Woody was really responsible for pushing and looking at scenes together to try to find the natural humor in them – -those pregnant pauses and stuff — and so was Matthew. Matthew’s a funny guy to really bring out that side of it — which I think was really important — because it wasn’t necessarily the writing." Like I said, old news, and I don't just want to simplistically cast Fukunaga as the good guy & Pizzolatto as the bad. But this perspective explains a hell of a lot about the differences between seasons 1 and 2 which - despite the noticably similar story beats - are starting to feel like night and day. Most importantly, I think, is Fukunaga's discussion of how season 1 was shot like a film, rather than TV. I don't get that sense at all from the end results of these episodes in which the narrative does not really flow or build, and each week the actors and characters seem to be starting from scratch.

I've been thinking about this too. Why did season 1 have this feeling of ominous pent-up dread, of something lurking around every corner whereas season 2 lacks that sense of deep mystery and fear? I think location has a lot to do with it. Rural Louisiana (like woodsy Washington in Twin Peaks) has that sense of isolation and emptiness where where whatever sinister forces are lurking there are all the more creepy because of the quietness, the calmness of the environment. In corrupt, violent, crowded L.A. somehow it doesn't feel the same way. Even though theoretically an urban environment should have more places for that darkness to hide. I'm having trouble explaining it, but I do think atmosphere has a lot to do with the plot problems you're talking about.

Like Chris and/or Jake, I thought this was a dream sequence at first, way earlier than the press appearing. When they showed up, I was convinced it was a dream sequence. Then I was really surprised when we cut to Ani and Ray. Wow, this is a really fascinating observation that didn't even occur to me. I know season 1 was shot with all the '95 stuff first, and then they went back and shot the 2012 scenes (in other words, it wasn't shot episode by episode). I would love to know the shooting schedule for season 2. It feels so all over the place that I too have to wonder. Each episode feels like starting anew and there is no sense of the actors growing into the characters or the story/direction coalescing. Pizzolatto seems really lost without Fukunaga.

I liked the email about Caspere being like Laura Palmer. At first it seemed an obvious point - well yeah, they are both characters whose deaths initiate a mystery, like every other murder mystery out there! But the more I thought about it and the points made by the letter-writer, the more interesting the comparison is. After all, Dora Lange in season 1 really WASN'T like Laura. It was explicitly stated that she was chum in the water and outside of episode 2 we learned almost nothing about her. Laura, on the other hand, was someone who tied together everyone in the community (both publicly and privately), whose sexual kinks implicated her neighbors, and whose hidden life bespoke a deep sadness and pain. The obvious differences between her and Caspere - a powerful older man - are actually a neat way of bringing out the similarities. Despite his penchant for orgies and the ominous nature of that snuff house, the idea of Caspere as a passive observor - perhaps even on the receiving end of sadism - suggests a fundamental weakness, almost making him seem more like a victim of something than a perpetrator. With this email in mind I'm actually hoping we learn more about Caspere, a character whom I was becoming bored with as I waited to see how he tied the larger conspiracy together. I'm wondering if she's the killer, which I've heard a few people suggest already. Although with the way they've been keeping the shrink out of view lately, it would kind of seem like a waste if they didn't make it him. I just really want the show to surprise us in its back half after its slow build-up and I'm kind of hoping the missing maid turns out to be a cold-blooded murderer (albeit maybe with high-minded if vengeful purposes).

I actually enjoyed this episode, probably more than the others. But it leaves me more uncertain than ever about where this season is going, if anywhere. Last season we got a really strong and gripping arc that led to a somewhat disappointing conclusion (for me, anyway). So I want to believe this arc is going to be muddled and uncertain until we get a bang-up climax, but that's probably not going to be the case. I guess I just liked this episode because it finally let some air into the Caspere plot (which had mostly been endless allusions to his orgies till now), by allowing some hints of the religious institute and statewide corruption to sneak in. Of course, (season 1 spoiler) And the action sequence at the end, however implausible, was pretty gripping television after a lot of meandering plotlines (Frank's was excruciating this episode). Does anyone else get James Hurley vibes from Paul? The sensitive, brooding motorcyclist who just wants to shut off his lights and ride into the night? That said, this was the episode where his storyline finally began to work for me. I buy his repression as a personal/psychological matter more than broader social conditioning: it just isn't who he personally wants to see himself as, however culturally acceptable on its own terms. But yeah at times it does feel a tad dated. Anyway, whatever you think of season 1's ending, I think the strength of its momentum, suspense, and character development up to that point made it worth watching. Sadly, season 2 is going to HAVE to have a really amazing finish to justify the rest because it can't really stand on its own. I just have absolutely no idea where Pizzolatto is going with any of this beyond a routine wrap-up (oh it was the shrink/mayor's son/character-we've-never-met-before - lol what if it's the Fukunaga stand-in?). It's a bit like watching your team play football, and something's off but you just keep believing. They're just a little behind, maybe they'll catch up, ok here's a drive - oh wait, they fumbled, and now it's halftime, and now it's the fourth-quarter, and now there's 2 minutes left and...please, please get that Hail Mary...

Ha, this sounds about like True Detective's approach to storytelling this season. It's like they have two basic templates for scenes. Template A: Ray and Ani go to location and meet shady character. Shady character tells them Caspere was a pervert, without offering any variations or clues. Template B: Semyon goes to location and meets weak character. He leans on weak character in passive-aggressive fashion even though their business association was supposed to be over. And then Pizzolatto just uses different characters or locations in the hope we won't notice the repetition. It's getting tiresome. Ep. 4 at least made some progress beyond the first situation, but it doubled down on the second.

Also, Lynch would NEVER do those dissolves at the end of the Conway Twitty dream. I don't think David Chase would either, for that matter.

This was the treading-water episode to me, sort of like episode 4 last season. Actually, it made me appreciate that one more. The decision to focus on the biker gang as a semi-standalone story seems more justified in retrospect after watching THIS episode, which neither contributes to the ongoing mystery nor tells a compelling tale of its own. What did we learn about the victim this episode? Um, that he partied a lot and liked to watch hookers. Which we learned way back at the beginning of episode 2. It was just repeated by every single character they visited over and over this time. What a treadmill. On the other hand, the characters grow more interesting to me with each episode. I think that's really all this season has going for it right now and I'm not sure if it will be enough but we'll see. People are mentioning Lynch but to me the most obvious callback of the opening was to The Sopranos' infamous dream sequences (granted, David Chase was heavily influenced by Twin Peaks). Aside from the memorable opening image, whose shock value faded quickly, it just didn't have the gravitas or visual interest of Tony's vivid psychosphere. For a moment I thought we might be getting some more dynamic direction with the departure of Justin Lin, but if anything this episode felt even more by-the-book than the previous two. So ok, Pizzolatto and Fukunaga. Did anyone read the recent Vanity Fair profile of Pizzolatto? http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/06/nic-pizzolatto-true-detective-season-2-better-than-season-1 Hoo boy. Somebody needs to invent a term that combines "laugh" and "cringe." There are some interestin insights in there but they are buried under so much portentous puffery. Even Rich Cohen's attempts to paint Pizzolatto in a dark, contentious light present him as some sort of godlike figure. Aside from everything else, the article never once mentions the name "Fukunaga." Instead it offers this gem: "But watching Nic on the set, you realize he has two personas: the guy in the room, churning out pages, and the guy in the action, with cameramen and actors, more akin to a bandleader, or wizard, working levers that send puppets across the scrim." Um, Rich, there's already a word for this mystical creature: it isn't "bandleader" or "wizard," it's "director" - and last time I checked Pizzolatto wasn't one. The passive-aggressive shafting of Fukunaga's, indeed any filmmaker's, role in drawing us into his world has me as worried for season 2 as anything I've seen in the last few episodes. It's as if people like Cohen and Pizzolatto have no real understanding of what translates the abstract ideas of the writer's room into an audiovisual medium - a suspicion borne out by Pizzolatto's HBO appearances in which he seems to think everything meaningful about a character and situation can be explicitly stated in words.

Re: the relevance of Leonard Cohen's song "Nevermind"...isn't that a raven mask that the killer wears? EDIT: And seeing that they rearranged the verses so that the "Nevermind" chorus appears before this week's episode makes it seem even more like there is a connection there. Edgar Allen Poe meets Raymond Chandler? DOUBLE EDIT: I'm an idiot - it's "quoth the raven nevermore" not "nevermind" (maybe I was mixing up Poe with Cobain haha). Ah well, that's crackpot theory #1 for season 2 shot down...

Yeah. I'm 90+% sure at this point that Farrel is going to be alive in the next episode, so I'm really just hoping they don't come up with some really lame excuse for his survival. I also like the idea that the shooter wanted to leave him alive vs. the sloppiness of intending to kill him but not doing it right. Yeah, doing it in this method is risky but it's a guy in a giant bird mask so he's already gotta be a little unhinged, right? Oh, and for anybody reading my previous post and wondering how the hell I could think there was a bird on his shoulder rather than a giant bird-face covering his entire head, the screen I was watching on was REALLY dark! I just re-watched the scene on my phone and it's abundantly clear what he's wearing... Love your avatar, btw.

First off, anyone with more knowledge of firearms than me know if shooting someone with blanks could send someone sprawling to the floor? Or anything other than actual bullets? I didn't see any blood on Farrel or on the wall behid him. And the shooter would be pretty dumb not to go for a headshot if it turns out he's wearing a bullet proof vest. I think it's a warning shot, not meant to kill. Also, the shooter has something to do with Caspare's killing because you can see the shape of a bird on his shoulder or head (was the thing in the limo a mask, as some have suggested)? If so, it can't be a warning from Vaughn unless he doesn't realize the shooter was connected to Caspare's death and it's just someone with multiple underworld connections (because I don't think Vaughn had anything to do with the killing - that would feel a bit too much like a cheap trick at this point and I don't think it's Pizzolatto's style). I love the ambiguity of it. I hadn't thought of her having that kind of secret life, just assumed it's more repressed with her. That would be an interesting shift from season 1, where Are we avoiding spoilers for season 1?

I've heard some talk about there being links to Japanese warrior culture in the show (including Rachel McAdam's thing for blades and a book in somebody's house - maybe Caspare's). I missed most of that, however I did notice something else: that opening shot of the stakes in the ground (presumably the big land development), with the ribbons fluttering in the wind, is a dead ringer for the iconic shot of Seven Samurai, with the swords stuck into the ground to honor the dead. I'll try to find specific pictures later to show what I mean. Even the technical jargon text attached to the poles looks a bit like Japanese characters from a distance. EDIT: Hmm, could've sworn there was a shot in Seven Samurai where the sashes on the swords are fluttering like the ribbons on those stakes but maybe I imagined it. There is a better shot for this in the film, where the characters are actually standing over a mound and plunging the swords in as I recall - but I don't have the DVD onhand unfortunately. Oh, and another thing: the plot of Seven Samurai is about several very different warriors, at least one of whom is seriously messed-up, teaming together for a common cause - which is roughly what Pizzolatto has been setting up in these past two episodes. That plus the other Japanese links (Vanity Fair mentions that so far the show has featured Musashi's A Book of Five Rings, by an undefeated samurai, Hagakure: Book of the Samurai, and Araki: Tokyo Lucky Hole - about the Japanese sex underworld) has me intrigued.

She is a very well-rounded performer, apparently, who has done a lot of voice-acting work as well. Ready to have your mind blown? She is the voice behind the French-accented feather-duster who is romanced by Lumiere the candlestick in Beauty and the Beast!

Great podcast. I am hoping this doesn't turn into a Twin Peaks season 2 situation where I enjoy the podcasts much more than the actual episodes haha. That said, I didn't hate this premiere by any means. Certainly not as much as anyone on Twitter declaring their fury (glad I mostly avoided the reaction till I was able to watch it today). But it did disappoint me in ways I didn't expect to be disappointed. Like, as I think Scott said, I didn't expect the storytelling to feel so off. I thought I might not be keen on where Pizzolatto was taking it but that I'd still be hooked in by the narrative momentum, but I wasn't really. Sadly, except for the open ending it felt remarkably like a conventional network cop show to me. I was curious how Fukunaga's absence would affect proceedings. It's interesting to consider that the listlessness of the narrative is down to that but honestly I think it's more a writing problem. Instead of starting with something punchy and iconic like season 1, we start with a bunch of disparate, not entirely engaging threads and then glimpse they might wind together into something more intriguing. I agree this could prove interesting in retrospect so I'm trying to withhold judgement. But I can see why people would be alienated right out the gate. The absence of that immediately identifiable hub also made a lot of this hard to follow for me. I watched it on HBO Now and had to rewind several times because I felt like I missed something (usually it was a single vague line or split-second image). Where Fukunaga's absence might be most acutely felt is in the performances. I didn't find any of them to be remotely as engaging as Harrelson's or McConaughey's. Granted, that's partly the script - these characters don't have the snappy dialogue or sharp personality traits of Cohle or Hart. But I think it's also direction. There was a real feeling that those s1 characters knew who they were from the first frame, and the actors got it completely. In this episode it feels like they're still figuring it out and don't really have a handle on their identity yet. Glad someone else mentioned the milk thing - that really threw me! As for what Vinci is, at the end McAdams says "What the hell is Vinci?" And Farrell responds "It's a town. Supposedly." Or something to that effect, suggesting it is indeed a fictional little city on the periphery of the L.A area. I love Chris's Chandler comparison; that's what it felt like to me too, and why it's one of the elements of the episode I quite liked. Rachel McAdams' character, incidentally, is supposed to represent Ventura County. That's I guess where the body was found but probably not where the Vinci is supposed to be located (since it would be odd if she never heard of a city in her jurisdiction).