True Detective, Nic Pizzolatto and When Intent is Not Enough
0
0
Read Time:4 Minute, 43 Second
True Detective has been all up and through the news lately. From the news that the HFPA would be forcing the show (correctly I might add) to compete in the Limited Series category at the Golden Globes to the on-going and exhausting casting rumor mill for season 2. However, what has inspired me to even talk about this show again was Nic Pizzolatto‘s interview with The Hollywood Reporter that dropped yesterday. It’s a fascinating read for anyone interested in seeing just how the show got made and the creative decisions that go into writing for this type of genre. I was thoroughly enjoying the read, but like every TV creator these days, it seems that even he couldn’t resist putting his foot in his mouth, especially with regards to his critics.
Let’s examine the following paragraphs:
Although the vast majority of reviews for his debut series were rapturous — “the two central performances are so powerful, the dialogue so evocative, the look so intense, that they speak to the value of the hybrid anthology format Pizzolatto is using,” wrote Hitfix’s Alan Sepinwall — he seems to be hung up on the handful of negative ones. The most vocal detractor was Emily Nussbaum of The New Yorker. In a critique titled “Cool Story, Bro,” she railed against the shallowness of his female characters, who serve as “wives and sluts and daughters — none with any interior life.” And Nussbaum wasn’t alone. On one corner of the Internet on Sunday nights, True Detective‘s “woman problem” emerged as a trending topic among bloggers.
Such criticism incenses Pizzolatto. Those who hammer the character of Marty’s wife, Maggie, played by Michelle Monaghan, for being flimsy are missing the point. If her point of view had been shown and she had remained a lightweight, he acknowledges, then those jibes would have more validity. But the first season, he argues, was conceived as a close point-of-view show, wholly told through the eyes and experiences of the two male characters. “You can either accept that about the show or not, but it’s not a phony excuse,” he says, unable to hide his frustration. He adds that he consulted his friend Callie Khouri on the matter: “When Callie, who wrote Thelma & Louise, thinks that that’s stupid criticism, I’m inclined to take her opinion over someone with a Wi-Fi connection.”
*squints* *goes back to the top and re-reads* *slowly turns and looks around* Did he just…did he really just equate an esteemed writer of The New Yorker with someone with a wi-fi connection? I mean I feel like this criticism was directed at me, personally given what I’ve said about the show’s treatment of women, but Emily’s name comes up so I’m perplexed he got so angry/frustrated with this. It’s not like she’s some hack and the shade is so misplaced with this I can’t see the forrest for the trees.
Also, and more importantly, his defense against the criticism leveled against him, especially by mentioning Callie Khouri, reads similar to the many “I have a [insert minority here] friend so I can’t be [insert offense here]” defenses we hear in everyday life when someone encounters brush back for their actions. Excuse me Nic, but am I supposed to say “Oh no I’m sorry my opinions after consuming 8 hours of your content were completely in the wrong and dumb because the writer of Thelma & Louise thinks it’s dumb!”? I mean honestly, who the hell is she to validate the opinions others have about something you’ve done. It’s also hilarious how he picked a woman to defend him, when it’s not like women are the only ones dragging him for the series’ issues. My favorite writer Alyssa Rosenberg quickly chimed in on Twitter with the has tag #NotAllNicPizzolattos (a play on #notallmen) and I cackled heartily because that’s what this devolved into. Delving further into the piece he mentions how this critique had affected his writing for season 2, forcing him to pause and cut out some characters because he was addressing the critics. So, let me get this straight. The criticism about season 1 was dumb (because both you, the majority, AND Khouri think so) but it was important/dug into your skin enough to affect how you wrote season 2? Hmm…something doesn’t add up here.
What’s so puzzling to me about this is that Pizzolatto had already done enough in his defense by stating his intent with the series. His comments on making it a limited POV, while not excusing him completely in my eyes, serves as an adequate explanation and he should have left it there. But it got me to thinking about just when intent isn’t enough with regards to art. It’s a battle I’ve had with several people about how one must at least take into account what the creator has envisioned the material to be. For instance, not every movie with falling building is meant to evoke 9/11, although many are. However, there does come a point in time where the intent of the author of the piece can still lead to there being issues, because it is now up to audience interpretation. The POV of the series does not mean that folks shouldn’t find fault in issues they find fault with. The onus is not on the audience to get and like everything you’ve served, but the onus IS on you to deliver.
Given this foolery, I’m really interested to see what the hell he has planned for season 2. It should be interesting to see how Pizzolatto, who is a gifted writer, can navigate the waters of expectations.
Happy
0 %
Sad
0 %
Excited
0 %
Sleepy
0 %
Angry
0 %
Surprise
0 %