Fargo: Better than True Detective, Now and Forever

We start at the most important talking point of the two shows: the characters. Both anthologies decided to expand the cast for their second seasons, giving a more well-rounded look at Los Angeles in True Detective and North Dakota in Fargo. With more actors and more plot points as a result, there was fear of over-extension by both programs. In True Detective, these came largely true. With four main characters, the show didn't seem to know how to juggle them all. Taylor Kitsch was one of the most unconvincing actors I've ever seen, helped out by the fact that his character was ridiculously underdeveloped. Rachel McAdams had some kind of substance, but fell into a "disillusioned cop" stereotype, along with basically being a male character turned female due to complaints in the first season. Vince Vaughn's character was ambitious, but due to rather poor acting and poor pacing, also fell a bit flat. Only Colin Farrell's detective Ray Velcoro really succeeded, but one central character among many didn't do the show all that much good. Add that to the fact that not a single side character got any major development, and there was a season of characters that viewers just didn't really care for. 

Compare that to Fargo's second season. We're only five episodes in, and already we have five well drawn leads, along with a plethora of side characters. Ted Danson's grizzled sheriff Hank Larsson, Patrick Wilson's young Lou Solverson, Jean Smart's mafia family matriarch Floyd Gerhardt, and the two Blomquists, everyday people caught up in the crime saga, played by Jesse Plemons and Kirsten Dunst all captivate the audience, even with less screentime per character than in True Detective. Add them to the awesome supporting cast of Jeffrey Donovan, Brad Garrett, Cristin Milioti, Bruce Campbell, and the great Bokeem Woodbine, and there is a plethora of faces to care about in the show. Factions have been established, character traits laid down, and the stakes are raised to the point where the events on the show are of importance. 

Another aspect of the shows easily compared is the plot. Much like the characters, both shows decided to expand their plots in the second edition. However, once again, True Detective failed where Fargo succeeded. The second season of TD created an atmosphere of mystery, where every entity in the darkened city of Los Angeles had shadows. The case all led back to one central murder of a crime lord named Caspere whose complicated murder plot connected all of the pieces of the show. However, the connections were so confusing, the dialogue so vague, and the action so scarce, that the show was hard to understand. Random characters seen for only a minute or two turned out to be imperative to the plot, while ostensibly central pieces of the plot would turn out to be almost useless to the overall story. In Fargo, on the other hand, all of the moving pieces are very easily connectable. One character naturally connects to another, and all of the aspects of the plot that matter are very easily seen. The dialogue is well-written without being shadowy and vague, and the sense of atmosphere is just as strong as in HBO's miniseries. 

What it all comes down to in the end, above all, is enjoyment, as well. A sitcom provides thirty minutes of happiness, while a great comedy gives jokes that can be re-stated time and time again to be funny. It's the same way with drama. True Detective provided viewers with an hour or so of entertainment, filled with hard-to-get dialogue and plot. Though the production value was high and the stakes seemingly high, I had a tough time thinking about the show after the initial airing. Sure, it was fun to spitball which characters had significance, but what was barely an hour of enjoyment was certainly not a lasting pleasure. Every episode of Fargo however, provides weeks of conversation and enjoyment, talking of the best characters, the best scenes, and the outrageously clever lines uttered frequently. It's like comparing an episode of Friends to one of Seinfeld. The quality is just objectively better. (Sorry to fans of Friends.) 

Thus, as each show marches forward, both to a predicted third season, it'll be interesting to see how the comparison holds up. Judging by what we've seen so far, it seems that True Detective season one was a bit of a fluke, while Noah Hawley and those involved in Fargo are the true masters. All of this could change in the next five weeks, but as it stands, I'm more impressed with Fargo than I have been with almost any other show in recent memory (along with The Leftovers.) It'll be even more interesting to see what the overall public opinion on the two shows becomes in the future. Will Fargo go down as a legend and True Detective as a failure? Only time will tell on both, but the future is beginning to take shape. 

Also, before we end, I'd like to take a moment and give a shout-out to Bokeem Woodbine's Mike Milligan. The Kansas City Mafia member is slowly becoming one of my favorite characters on TV. "Mike Milligan and the Kitchen Brothers. Sounds like a prog rock band!"