What they say to the detectives is unreliable, what we see is reliable. We are not watching an interpretation or memory of what happened, we are watching exactly what happened.
Yes, hence the whole point about it needing to be an unreliable narrator for it to work...Because right now we take it as gospel, fuck it, I'll explain. (And note: I don't think this will happen, I'm just explaining the thought process I ran through when thinking about the possibility and why it might.)
Yes, right now, there are
no indications it's unreliable to us; the scenes from the past seem completely 100% honest, even things that were "bad" were told to us, which proves it was honest using basic logic (IE if it was dishonest, why are they showing Hart cheating? ect).
However, the major narrative,
within the story, was showing how effective altering a story can be to people who RELY on it for their view, and whatever goal you have, can change HOW you alter the story. If you want to get into a biker gang, you alter your story to make you look like a bad guy, if you want to lie to the police and become heroes, you alter it to make what you did righteous: Either way, the main themes of Act 2 are story alterations, unreliable narrators, tricking other people in the show. But, yes, we, as the audience,
feelas though we are above it, because WE always see the truth. (We feel smarter than everyone else.)
However, in the show, Rust's hints at a kind of self awareness of his own universe. We are the "4D creatures" that are watching as time is a round disk, collapsed on itself. A lot of the show points to this meta commentary on us, in a small way, the show is self aware. It's commenting on things like how we view escapism in our fiction (Which is why a major theme is how the characters deal with people who are trying to escape the realities of life, Rust through disdain, Cohle with easy understanding). There are a ton more little things the author does to show the correlation between the events in the show, and how we, the "4D" people use story telling and fiction as escapism, but this is going to be long already. (But one main thing is Rust being our "hero", a rational, smart person who believes he sees the world for what it is, while most people are delusional...Just like we believe we are seeing the world on the screen for what it is.)
So the show, like I said, is hinting at being self aware that there is an audience watching (Dressed up as society, or whatever: Rust even says, the reason why he does this is to appease the illusions of society, IE because the story needs it, if he had the constitution he stopped jumping through rings like puppet and kill himself.). Then the show busts out Carcosa, which exists in a play called "The Yellow King" that essentially says any human who reads even ONE word of the third act, will be driven insane by the revelations he will experience. So this play does not just affect the characters within it, it affects it's audience, draws them into it's narrative. Now, Carcossa is a place written about originally by Ambrose Bierce. Bierce's most famous work was an
Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge, which is essentially the pulp version of Vanilla Sky--it's a story that's told in a fraction of a man's life, that's essentially a big delusion about what's happening. It's one of the most famous uses of unreliable narrator in early English pulp literature (In a free newspaper though, not a pulp magazine but it was serialized in them). This show, by the way, is based on a series from Pulp novels in 1930 (Back when the main theme of the crime noir was gritty, dark realism: Like today.).
So now we are headed into the third act of our show, knowing all the above. It strikes me that the
fuckedup thing in Act 3 (Because again, the Yellow King gets fucked up in Act 3) could easily be one of them turning out to be an unreliable narrator, and then we, the audience, experience the same kind of a trick many people in the show experienced:
Our world view shifts because what we expected to be true from the narration, is actually a lie. As to
WHYthe first two Acts would seem to be brutally honest if it were an unreliable the whole time? Because the main point of an unreliable narrator is to
trick it's TARGET.
Ifthe show is
self awarethen the narrator's goal isn't to protect Hart or Rust's reputation, but rather to
make us interested in watching the rest. We're being lied to in order to lull us into the world, because that's the narrators main objective: Get us to believe the story is the same as every other piece of fiction. (And get us to be confident about our beliefs, like Cohle is. Because that's what draws him into the murder...So we are being drawn into the story through this same belief we "know" more than others, like Cohle wants to keep following the murder because he feels he knows more than any of the hicks around him.)
So the whole point of the unreliable would be to poke fun at us and Cohle for believing we viewed the world in any other way except how the narrator wanted us to view it. It would be a pretty "Nihilist" literary trick, showing you that your interpretation is fucking pointless, the story is fucking pointless, at any time the person in control of the story can change it to be whatever outcome he wants and your supposed enlightenment or intelligence means absolutely dick, your belief in what's "real" is as fleeting and false as the people in that church who think Jesus will save them. So as we would, on the screen, simultaneously watch our hero get snapped into reality by Hart's trick, we'd ALSO be snapped into reality by our own concrete belief, wrapped in our own intelligence, being shattered because we never stopped to even think our perception was wrong.
Of course, if that happened, it would be a dick move. It would drive us nuts. Half the people here have said how fucking retarded that would be. It would be crazy. But that's the kind of culmination that happens in Act 3 of the Yellow King: The
AUDIENCEitself is affected. The story's whole purpose wasn't to tell a story about what's on screen, it was to affect
the people reading it. So if he's making a commentary on that, he could very well just be looking to troll the fuck out of us, the audience, to continue his meta commentary on how we relate to fiction. (He directly says he's not doing this, though. So, take it for what you will).
Again, I'm not saying the above is going to happen.
I actually do NOT think it is.But if it does, he's set it up so it's not completely out of left field; IF you're examining the show as something that's self aware and a kind of critique on it's own genre (IE dark, gritty pessimism); then you'd almost expect a new level of "fidelity" in the story telling during Act 3 (IE you'd almost expect a lot of shit in the first two acts to be proven false because the pretense of the "story" falls away and we'll see the "real" world finally.) Again, though, I wouldn't find that too satisfying but it's possible. It depends on how much the author wants to mirror the supposed effects of the Yellow King and use the actual audience as a component of his story telling.
If we take him for his word? He won't do that. But the themes of him poking at the audience, and the show being slightly self aware? Are there.