Do True Detective and Philosophy Have to Go Hand in Hand?

facebooktwitterreddit

True Detective has been known for its philosophical leanings, but does it have to be?

The first season of True Detective was notable for, among many other things, the philosophy on display. Matthew McConaughey as Rust Cohle introduced audiences to a more pessimistic take on life, and it’s that very philosophy that guided the season along. Season two didn’t really offer up any new takes on that, but instead brought to the table what felt like a personification of Cohle’s beliefs.

More from HBO

True Detective season two had its troubles bringing Cohle’s pessimism to life, and it resulted in a crushingly bleak season of television.  But what would happen if True Detective dialed back the philosophy even further? Would it just get closer to a regular detective drama?

More from Show Snob

Maybe, but it would probably be for the better.

There can’t be another Rust Cohle. True Detective can’t so openly explore philosophy again without being accused of ripping off itself. That wouldn’t be a good space to be in, especially after all the work it and HBO have had to do to rebuild its goodwill. The season two way — characters spouting philosophical lines seemingly arbitrarily — doesn’t work either.

Either a refinement is needed or a scaling back. True Detective doesn’t have to be known for its philosophy; it would do just as well for being known for its noir tones. The two do not have to be mutually exclusive.

Next: Rachel McAdams will be a presenter at the SAG's.

Season three will have a longer time in the oven than season two, presumably with more voices in the mix. That should, hopefully, result in a more cohesive experience that find a better balance.