« Why the U.S. Military Is Into Bee Brain Surgery | Main | WSJ Reporter: Missing Flight 370 Could Have Landed »

March 13, 2014

The disappointment of the “True Detective” finale

true-detective-finale.jpg

suggests how we are entering a confusing and precarious time in television’s evolution:
we approach a show as an artistic achievement with all the privileges and responsibilities that this brings, when we may have done better to embrace it instead as pleasurable genre trash. As Rust said to Marty, “You have to be careful about what you get good at.” We have to be careful about the shows we choose to make into Trojan horses, packed with meaning and insight. Sometimes what we are watching contains multitudes, and sometimes there’s nothing inside but air. 'True Detective' and the Art of the Television Finale : The New Yorker

Posted by gerardvanderleun at March 13, 2014 2:23 PM. This is an entry on the sideblog of American Digest: Check it out.

Your Say

Jeez, overanalyze much? Got sucked into the show, missed the 'internet frenzy', thought the ending was entertaining and well-done (especially considering the actors involved). Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Posted by: jay-dubya at March 13, 2014 2:51 PM

Funny I heard people really liked the ending. I haven't seen any of them but then I thought the ending to The Sopranos was perfect because I understood what the show was always about.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 13, 2014 5:39 PM

The sort of review that tells us more about the reviewer than the show. He could have just said "Worst. Finale. Ever." and we would know everything one might want to know about him. All of it annoying.

Posted by: Mike James at March 14, 2014 8:44 PM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)