One of the beautiful and frustrating things about True Detective is the pacing. Information often comes at you in a deliberately methodical manner. It’s a show that requires patience, focus, and total attentiveness. The little payoffs have been good so far, but by the time we got to ‘Hunters in the Dark’ you had to feel utterly frustrated that we’re heading into the home stretch with little-to-no-headway.
The funny thing about patience is that reward is just that much sweeter.
‘Hunters in the Dark’ finally gives us answers on so many big questions, namely — what in the hell is actually going on here. We finally can confirm identities, clear up mysteries, set aside red herrings, and we can now let the theories fly.
From a performance perspective, Mahershala Ali is destined for an Emmy. His work, particularly in the 2015 timeline, is absolutely devastating. His scene with Stephen Dorff encapsulates just how impactful and complicated his performance is. He goes from commanding the scene, laying out his thoughts on the complicated theories behind the case to a complete blank slate, barely remembering anything about the situation. Dorff, who gets better and better every episode, is perfect as the foil in this scene. You see his character fiercely fighting back tears as he tries to work with his friend’s mental situation, never once doubting him or getting frustrated. It’s a tough scene these two just execute to perfection.
As mentioned before, the pacing of this series has moved at a snail’s pace. ‘Hunters in the Dark’ moved efficiently — dropping clues, teasing us with information, and then hitting that final chilling shot. That final shot, where Scoot McNairy finds the pink room, and someone coming upon him (completely out of focus) is one of the best shots this series has ever created. It raises the hair on the back of your neck, and I nearly screamed in both horror, frustration, and excitement. That is how you do a cliffhanger.
Now, based on this episode, here’s my theories on what could happen in the final two episodes.
The Reveal of Tom Purcell Being Gay Was a Red Herring: Speaking with television editor Matt Taylor, he noted that this series has yet again added another tortured closeted gay character, and given what they did in Season 2 with Taylor Kitsch’s character — it’s a road they probably shouldn’t go down again. However, he and I both surmised (mostly him to be honest) that maybe the reveal of his sexuality was actual was a bit of red herring. Much like Woodard, the community is much more likely to throw all their negative attention and assumptions on a marginalized member of the community. Tom’s sexuality, and Woodard’s ethnicity are immediate proofs of suspicion and guilt to this community. And this could be Pizzolato and company making the point of how these communities were ready to condemn those “unlike them.” Combine this revelation with the of the audio tape, and it’d be easy for the police to make Tom public enemy #1. However, it proved all to be a misdirect as proved when he ended up at the Hoyt mansion and found the pink room.
While it was a Red Herring, Could it be Used for the Cause of His Death: Remember when the producer of the documentary mentioned everyone who had died around this case — including Tom? One has to wonder if he makes it out alive of The Pink Room. Remember, Harris came in right behind him. There’s no way he makes it out alive, right? You could easily see the Hoyt villains making his death look like a suicide and pinning it on the revelation of his sexuality — something the community would easily accept.
Dan O’Brien Ends Up Dead…But Does His True Identity Get Revealed?: I think we can safely assume that The Hoyt Family takes out old Dan (Michael Graziadei). However, does anyone else feel that he’s actually the father to both kids? He intimated that he and Lucy (Mamie Gummer) were “close” and they were no related by blood (we hope). Also Tom could never totally answer if they were his biological kids. Also, remember how utterly repulsed Dan was when they mentioned the peep hole? I’m thinking he’s actually the dad.
The Secret Hays is Hiding: So Roland keeps bringing up “what they did” all those years ago. Now could it be how they didn’t do more to clear Woodard. who wasn’t the killer, back in 1980? Or was it something that happened in 1990? Well, I think we’re now seeing the answer is obvious — something happen in 1990 that is haunting everyone.
Now if you put the pieces together you’ll know that Harris disappeared shortly after the case was reopened in 1990. One has to think that Hays and Roland were behind this. I’m theorizing that somehow justice was not served (again). So it was up to Hays and Roland to take justice into their own hands — much like every lead in True Detective history. Why wasn’t justice served? Could this be because the DA swiftly moves the guilty verdict from Woodard to Tom? Maybe Tom doesn’t die at the hands of Harris, but is handed over to the prosecutors thanks to the Hoyts, and he’s convicted? Maybe.
However, I have to believe despite his “forgetting” about Harris, Hays (in 2015) knows what happened to him. And I think he and Roland execute him. The scene in the trailer with a bewildered, shirtless Hays standing next to a fire makes me wonder if he was burning evidence.
How does Amelia (Carmen Ejogo) fit into all of this? A lot of people theorized that Amelia might be behind the murders. There were mentions of a black and white couple with the children, and they drove a new car. Remember when we first met Amelia and her white male friend (who we’ve never seen before) picked her up from the town meeting in a new car?
However, the Hoyt revelation seems to have absolved her from this murder. I do think that she will be intimately involved in the cover up of whatever Hays has done wrong. This cover up will lead to Hays quitting the force, and fracturing his relationship with Roland.
Comments are closed.