Connect with us

Entertainment

Who (or what) killed the scientists? Issa López explains the 'True Detective: Night Country' finale

Published

on

Who (or what) killed the scientists? Issa López explains the 'True Detective: Night Country' finale

This story contains spoilers from the the season finale of “True Detective: Night Country.”

The darkness has lifted, “True Detective: Night Country” has come to an end, and some of us may never look at an orange in the same way again.

Written and directed by Issa López, the latest incarnation of the anthology mystery series relocated the action to the fictional town of Ennis, Alaska, and follows two women — Liz Danvers (Jodie Foster), the local police chief, and Evangeline Navarro (Kali Reis), a state trooper, as they investigate the mysterious death of a group of scientists at an Arctic research station — all while trying to heal the wounds of their past.

Invoking familiar “True Detective” imagery (creepy swirls) while introducing all new eerie iconography (one-eyed polar bears), “Night Country” put a welcome, feminist spin on the franchise after a four-year hiatus.

Leading into Sunday’s finale, many unanswered questions remained, starting with who — or what — was responsible for turning the Tsalal scientists into a corpsicle, who really killed Annie K., and how her tongue ended up at the research station six years after she died.

Advertisement

Over the course of the New Year’s Eve from hell, Danvers and Navarro make one bombshell discovery after another, learning that: 1. the scientists at Tsalal were pushing the mine to pump out more pollutants because it made it easier for them extract DNA from the ice; 2. Annie found out about it and destroyed their research; 3. the scientists killed her in a collective fit of rage; 4. members of the cleaning crew discovered the ice cave, where they saw the evidence of Annie’s murder; 5. they returned to the research station, forced the scientists out onto the ice in the middle of a storm, made them strip, and left them there in an act of revenge that proved fatal to them all; 6. except Raymond Clark, who hid in the abandoned ice cave for weeks until Danvers and Navarro found and interrogated him; 7. and he wound up becoming a corpsicle, too.

In the finale of “Night Country,” we witness Danvers (Jodie Foster) and Navarro (Kali Reis) uncovering the mystery of what happened to the scientists at the Tsalal research station.

(Michele K. Short / HBO)

Phew. Got all that?

Advertisement

The episode ends on a decidedly ambiguous note, however. An epilogue skips ahead four months to May. Navarro has seemingly vanished and Danvers faces questioning by investigators about the events of the previous December. She is evasive when asked about reported sightings of Navarro — who we see walking onto the ice, alone, then standing on a porch next to Danvers in the parting shot of the season. Is it really her? Or just an apparition? It’s impossible to say. “This is Ennis, “ Danvers tells the investigators. “Nobody ever really leaves.”

Speaking recently by Zoom, López broke down the series finale and was, thankfully, willing to answer more questions than Danvers. This conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.

It turns out the women of the cleaning crew were responsible for the deaths of the scientists at Tsalal — or at least they are the ones who drove the men out into the cold. Did you always know that would be the outcome?

I knew from the very beginning. Being Mexican and having moved to Los Angeles some 10 years ago, it’s interesting to see how behind every scene, there is someone you would never notice. I’m Mexican, and most people in California are Mexican or Latin American. They’re the person that washes the dishes, the person that cleans the office after you leave. They’re really invisible. However, they’re everywhere, they have access to everything, they know everything. Invisibility is a superpower. It can be terrible. And it can be conducive to horrors like missing and murdered Indigenous women. But at the same time, it can be a superpower. Why not flip that coin and use it for power?

The scientists turn out to be the bad guys in this story. They’re willing to kill Annie and pollute the town in the name of scientific progress. How did you decide to make them the villains?

Advertisement

That’s a tough decision for me. I’m a massive believer in science. If there’s a religion for me, it’s science. The idea that ancient DNA can be used is not impossible, it’s not madness. But it would be very hard to extract. All of that is factual. The pursuit of knowledge or any greater good without a moral compass, I think, is the question of our age, as we look at what’s happening with AI and so many technologies that put the human race in a place that we never imagined. I don’t know if there’s a moral compass behind those. I don’t think we’re growing morally at the speed that we’re growing intellectually. And that’s a very dangerous place to be. If you abandon responsibility for the greater good, it’s very, very dangerous. It’s not about the pursuit of knowledge, it’s absolute self-obsession. It’s egotistical. In the traditional Greek tragedy, the mistake of the hero is always taking endeavors that go beyond the human. When you overstep human capacities, it ends in tragedy. So I just went with the Greeks on this one.

The version of Alaska that a lot of us know through pop culture is this male-dominated frontier with fishermen and ice road truckers. In your version of Alaska, it’s the women who dominate and the men who seem lost. Were you consciously trying to present a different idea of Alaska?

I think that the male and female characters in the series are democratically helpless, in the sense that everyone is lonely — men and women. Everyone is a little terrified of the stuff that they carry inside of them, perhaps with the exception of [Eddie] Qavvik on the male side — that guy’s fine — and Rose on the female side. They have their s— figured out. Everyone else is completely lost and trying to find their own path. It’s the nature of this town at the edge of the world, at the edge of civilization, at the edge of reality.

The Alaska that you were describing is predominantly male in its presentation. And the Alaska that I explored is predominantly female, the characters leading the conflict and the drama and the decisions are female. That comes from my understanding of these communities — Nome and Katovik and Utqiagvik [Alaska] — these communities [can be] 70% [or more] Inuit and particularly Iñupiaq. The strength of the Iñupiaq women is key to their survival. They’re just as much the hunters and fishers. They’re dog-sledding. They’re just indomitable. It’s incredible. Putting that in there felt very necessary.

Issa López, writer, director and showrunner of “True Detective: Night Country.”

Advertisement

(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

A number of Indigenous women were consultants on the series. What kind of perspective and input did they bring?

I conceived the idea when we were in the lockdown. I couldn’t just pick up and go to Alaska and write it, which is what I wanted to do. I had to do the first passes based only on watching endless hours of “Alaska State Troopers” and “Life Below Zero,” which, by the way, I recommend.

I consumed hours and hours of social media of the people living in these towns. I listened to local radio stations while I was writing the scripts. Once I had an initial pass, we worked together through an association called Illuminative, which is amazing and connected us with two Alaskan producers [who were] very much in contact with the culture. They put together a council of the elder women of the Iñupiaq. When you say “elder,” I always think “ancient,” but there were women of [age] 45 and women of 90. They went through every single page of the scripts. I would mention elk, and they would say, “There’s no elk, not in that region.” [They provided details] like the type of fish, or how would they address someone coming into their house and insulting them.

Advertisement

Then I went to Alaska and I ate the animals that they hunted, we broke bread and I drank the wine that you have to get in the depot. I brought all that into the scripts and then some of the women in the elder council actually appeared in the series. They came with the clothing they made and they cooked the food that we served to the characters in the series. It was just beautiful. They became completely intertwined with the fabric of the series. They’re watching and loving it, which makes me endlessly proud.

I’ve watched the finale twice now. I’m still trying to figure out how literally I should interpret the final shot, with Danvers and Navarro on the porch. I assume you wanted to leave us with a mystery to think about. Tell me about that.

I think that the entire series has two readings. One of them is that everything is connected to the supernatural. The other one is there’s absolutely nothing supernatural happening. The dark brings its own madness and neurosis to some characters. The men walking onto the ice — you can go with they froze to death in a flash freeze and they had paradoxical undressing and delirium because of hypothermia. Or [you can believe] they walked onto the ice, and faced the thing they woke up by being in the wrong place. It’s up to you to decide which one of those readings you are going to embrace.

Navarro asks in the series, “Don’t you ever feel that you just want to go and walk away and never come back?” She talks about getting calls from something that has called the women in her family for generations. She’s terrified. In the climax of Episode 6, she goes into the darkness on the ice. When she finally surrenders to [the calls], in peace, she receives a piece of herself that she was missing: her name. That part of her is complete.

The part of her that wants to just go away is still there. Danvers says, “If you ever go, please come back.” In the very last part of the episode, we see her at peace. It’s up to her to decide if she goes on a walkabout to find herself and come back, as Danvers asks, or if she goes to be with the other women in peace, and is visiting as an apparition. It’s up to you to decide which one of the two it is. I have my version, but I’m not going to tell you.

Advertisement

“I think that the entire series has two readings. One of them is that everything is connected to the supernatural. The other one is there’s absolutely nothing supernatural happening,” says Issa López.

(Lilja Jons)

Clark says “time is a flat circle,” a callback to what is probably the best known line of dialogue from the original season. How’d you decide to bring that line in the episode? And did you have any anxiety about such a recognizable callback?

Here’s the thing. I never set out [like], “Oh, let’s put everything we can that references Season 1.” I believe in the idea of letting the story speak to you. I decided that Alaska was a super interesting setting for this series. I rewatched Season 1 and I realized Rust Cohle’s father had lived and died in Alaska. It would be crazy to never mention it. It’s the same universe. There is a corporation that is funding the endeavors of a greedy machine that is lying about pollution. In Season 1, there is an evil corporation too — it would be silly to have two different ones. When there is a symbol in my season that signifies the proximity of a different level of reality — the supernatural — and there is a symbol for that in the first season. So why add in a new one? That just makes it not “True Detective.”

Advertisement

The idea in Clark’s crazed mind [is] that Annie’s spirit has always inhabited this cave, because maybe Annie is herself, in a way, whatever was sleeping there. Annie’s friend tells us she dreamed about this spiral when she was in school. Clark [tells Danvers], “She has been there forever, she will be there forever.” it’s just absolutely natural that he says, “Time is a flat circle.” That is a concept that comes from quantum physics. He’s a scientist, so it’s the most organic thing.

The other unresolved mystery is the tongue. How does that fit in?

Same story. If we’re going to go with the supernatural story, Hank is the one that dumps [Annie’s body] and cuts out the tongue. He leaves the tongue there, and the tongue disappears. No one ever finds it until six years later. In the moment that the scientists face their fate, the tongue reappears because it’s the time to tell the story that was silenced before. Was it Annie’s ghost?

If you’re going to go rational, Hank cuts the tongue and leaves it there. And then the body is found, not by Navarro — Navarro is the first cop at the scene — but by the community. In my mind, the women find Annie and they cannot take her body, but they can keep her tongue in a gesture of kindness for their friend. Danvers says it has some unusual cellular damage, it could be from freezing. They keep the tongue, they freeze it and when they go into the research station [to attack the scientists], they leave it there: Full circle. Time to pay. You can decide which one you believe.

Can you talk about how the ice becomes a border between the human and the supernatural, the living and the dead, especially in this last episode?

Advertisement

It’s absolutely at the center of the entire narrative. If you look at the title sequence, it’s all about that; we’re on this road that will expose what’s under the ice. When I picked the setting, [I was interested in] the idea of the things that we freeze inside ourselves, and hide under ice, so we cannot access them. However, the ice breaks, and the things that lie beneath will come to light. The ice won’t last forever. It is a massive metaphor, and it is at the very center of everything we’re saying in this story.

Entertainment

After Amazon drops OpenAI movie ‘Artificial,’ film finds new home at Neon

Published

on

After Amazon drops OpenAI movie ‘Artificial,’ film finds new home at Neon

A Hollywood portrayal of OpenAI Chief Executive Sam Altman portrayed by actor Andrew Garfield will be released later this year, after Amazon MGM Studios dropped the movie.

“Artificial,” which chronicles Altman‘s 2023 ouster from OpenAI and his reinstatement as CEO, was acquired by Neon, the studio announced Tuesday.

“The acquisition underscores Neon’s commitment to partnering with visionary filmmakers, and bringing ambitious cinema to audiences around the world,” the studio said in a statement. “Artificial will compete in this year’s Oscar race.”

The film has a critical take on artificial intelligence, according to three sources briefed on it who declined to be named. That portrayal caused Amazon to want to distance itself from the film, given the company’s $50 billion investment in OpenAI, two of the sources said.

Amazon declined to comment on the claims. In a statement, the company said it has “the utmost respect and admiration” for the movie’s director Luca Guadagnino. “We believe that ‘Artificial’ will be better served if it were released by a different studio and are working closely with the filmmaking team to find the film a new home,” Amazon said.

Advertisement

The deal was negotiated by Neon, CAA Media Finance and Amazon. CAA and Amazon declined to comment. A Neon spokesperson did not immediately respond to questions regarding the financial terms of the deal.

Puck News first reported Amazon dropping the movie.

Other studios, including Netflix, A24 and Focus Features, screened “Artificial.” Netflix and Focus passed on the film.

Amazon’s decision to drop the film comes at a time when Hollywood is grappling with the growth of artificial intelligence. Some creatives are concerned that the technology could displace jobs; others worry that their likenesses are being used to train AI models without their permission or compensation.

Meanwhile, many AI companies are eager to work with studios, saying their AI tools can help speed processes and reduce costs.

Advertisement

To foster more nuanced discussions about artificial intelligence, Google is collaborating with talent management firm Range Media Partners to develop films that present a less dystopian view of the technology.

Amazon passing on the film raises questions about whether tech company-backed studios would be willing to release movies that are critical of innovations in which they have a stake. It could create a chilling effect, said Robert Thompson, director of Syracuse University’s Bleier Center for Television and Popular Culture.

“The chilling effect could not only be on films critical of AI, they could be on films critical of all kinds of things that these companies have their tentacles in,” Thompson said.

Stories about tech company founders can be attractive to audiences, most notably with the 2010 film “The Social Network” about the founding of Facebook. That film earned $225 million worldwide at the box office, according to Paul Dergarabedian, head of marketplace trends at Rentrak. “The Social Network” came out a time when many people were talking about Facebook and had big talent behind it, including director David Fincher, Dergarabedian said.

“Neon is a perfect custodian for this film, and they will shepherd it to the big screen, I think very effectively,” he said. “They’re very filmmaker-centric … I think they found the perfect home with Neon.”

Advertisement

“Artificial” features major talent, with actor Monica Barbaro portraying former OpenAI Chief Technology Officer Mira Murati, and Ike Barinholtz as Elon Musk. Other actors include Jason Schwartzman and Billie Lourd.

Director Guadagnino has worked on films including “Challengers” and “Call Me By Your Name.”

Staff writer Samantha Masunaga contributed to this report.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

Young Washington (Christian Movie Review) – The Collision

Published

on

Young Washington (Christian Movie Review) – The Collision

About the Film 

Advertisement

On the Surface

For Consideration

Advertisement

Advertisement

Beneath The Surface

Engage The Film

The Makings of a Leader

Advertisement

  • Daniel holds a PhD in “Christianity and the Arts” from The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He is the author/co-author of multiple books and he speaks in churches and schools across the country on the topics of Christian worldview, apologetics, creative writing, and the Arts.

    Advertisement

    View all posts


Continue Reading

Entertainment

’47 Ronin’ director Carl Erik Rinsch sentenced to 30 months in prison for Netflix fraud case

Published

on

’47 Ronin’ director Carl Erik Rinsch sentenced to 30 months in prison for Netflix fraud case

Carl Erik Rinsch, the director of the 2013 Keanu Reeves action film “47 Ronin,” will serve more than two years in federal prison for defrauding Netflix of $11 million.

U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff on Monday sentenced 48-year-old Rinsch to 30 months in prison, the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of New York, announced. Federal prosecutors convicted Rinsch in December of wire fraud, money laundering and other counts. A legal representative for Rinsch did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Tuesday.

Federal prosecutors indicted Rinsch in March 2025, alleging the $11 million went into Rinsch’s personal accounts. The filmmaker “quickly transferred” the money from the Rinsch Co. account, where it had been deposited March 6, 2020, by Netflix, through additional accounts until about $10.5 million wound up weeks later in a personal brokerage account. He lost more than half of that money in less than two months via risky investments in the stock market, the indictment said.

Though Rinsch told the streamer that his sci-fi show “White Horse” was progressing nicely, the filmmaker allegedly moved the remaining money into cryptocurrency and profited from crypto speculation over the next couple of years. The streamer had invested around $44 million in the show. Rinsch was accused of spending around $10 million on five Rolls-Royces, a Ferrari, watches, clothing, luxury bedding and linens, credit card bills, attorneys to sue Netflix for more money, and lawyers to work on his divorce.

He was arrested in West Hollywood and released the same day after agreeing to post a $100,000 bond to guarantee his appearance in a New York federal court.

Advertisement

Rinsch never finished the Netflix show.

During his sentencing, Rinsch and his legal team told the court his behavior was a result of mental health struggles and medication problems and they are working to address those issues with a new care provider, the Associated Press reported.

“I failed to recognize the danger of the state I was in,” Rinsch said, though his mental issues were not described in court, and his attorneys declined to provide further detail.

Ahead of the sentencing, Reeves — the star of Rinsch’s most notable project to date — penned a letter in May requesting “leniency and mercy as well as justice” in the filmmaker’s sentencing.

In addition to prison time, Rinsch must serve three years of supervised release, forfeit the $11 million and pay $700 in mandatory special assessments, according to Monday’s announcement. U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton said in the announcement: “Today’s sentence sends a deterrent message: fraud will not be tolerated.”

Advertisement

The Associated Press and former Times assistant editor Christie D’Zurilla contributed to this report.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending