Drama in a Time of No Consequences

by

Sterlin Harjo’s FX series, The Lowdown, follows Ethan Hawke’s character, Lee Raybon, as he investigates a possible murder in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Lee, an amateur journalist, is convinced that Dale Washberg, from a prominent local family, was killed and is determined to uncover the truth. He wants to expose the Washberg family’s corruption and prove he’s right. His investigation is a complex one, leading him through surprising discoveries about things like paddlefish caviar and rare books, while also affecting his relationship with his teenage daughter. Ultimately, he does find out what really happened.

The central mystery in The Lowdown isn’t particularly captivating. The more important question is whether solving it will even make a difference, as discovering the truth likely won’t change much. Like the classic Columbo, Elsbeth focuses less on who committed the crime and more on how the detective will prove it. Task, HBO’s new crime drama, is different from creator Brad Ingelsby’s previous show, Mare of Easttown, which kept the identity of the killer a secret until the very end. Task makes it clear who committed the crimes, and the tension comes from the consequences. The drama revolves around whether Mark Ruffalo’s detective can connect all the dots, and if so, whether that will actually improve things for the people involved.

Traditional storytelling depends on cause and effect – one thing happens, and something else logically follows. But this feels increasingly untrue today, as we see many actions go without consequences. Over the last ten years, particularly in the United States, there have been numerous instances where wrongdoing hasn’t led to accountability. We’ve seen extensive investigations – like those you’d see on shows like Law & Order – into events like the January 6th insurrection and the separation of families at the border. We have plenty of data showing the human cost of conflict in Gaza, demonstrating the safety of transgender individuals, and linking gun violence to domestic abuse. However, this evidence rarely translates into meaningful change. Guns remain readily available, those involved in the insurrection have been pardoned, and discussions about transgender rights are often dismissed. When action does occur, it often takes the form of rulings that allow discrimination. This raises a fundamental question: how do we create narratives, or even understand the world, when cause and effect seem broken?

“The Lowdown” isn’t alone in addressing contemporary issues, but it stands out by offering compelling insights. Similar to shows like “Elsbeth” or “Poker Face,” it doesn’t focus on who committed the crime, but rather why. The show quickly reveals who killed Dale – two hired thugs – and everyone initially suspected turns out to be guilty. Frank Martin (Tracy Letts), a representative from the real estate company, is conspicuously suspicious throughout, always lurking and displaying his wealth. It’s no surprise he’s working with Dale’s wife, Betty Jo (Jeanne Tripplehorn), and when Frank hires some local toughs to intimidate Dale, they accidentally kill him. The obvious villain and secretive woman are guilty from the start, and it’s fitting that the story, set in Oklahoma, revolves around the exploitation of land originally taken from Indigenous people.

As a film noir, The Lowdown doesn’t necessarily offer a happy ending. While Betty Jo escapes relatively unharmed and Dale’s brother becomes governor, things don’t quite resolve neatly. Frank’s death isn’t a result of his own wrongdoing; he’s killed by a mother seeking revenge for her son. Crucially, the public remains unaware of the corrupt corporation’s scheme to build a haven for white supremacists on stolen land. Lee’s efforts to correct this injustice end tragically, as he pushes Arthur Williams – the land’s rightful owner – to fight for his claim, despite Arthur and his grandson wanting nothing to do with it. Lee’s desire to fix things leads to mistakes. When Frank discovers Lee’s interference, he murders Arthur. Driven by a need for justice – first for the land dispute, and now for Arthur’s death – Lee ends up in a final confrontation, holding a gun on a church congregation. Despite the congregation being filled with white supremacists, Lee’s actions – brandishing a weapon in front of children – make him the villain.

It would be easy to give up on finding justice, especially considering the setting of Tulsa. However, the story finds resolution in other ways. Donald wins the election for governor, but Lee uses information to convince him to transfer his family’s land to the Osage Nation, honoring his brother’s memory. This allows Donald to appear selfless and make amends for his family’s past wrongdoings. Meanwhile, Lee is left to deal with the consequences of his actions. He caused an innocent man’s death, and his constant need to interfere has damaged his relationship with his daughter, who desperately needs his support. Ultimately, Lee has to put aside his own pride to achieve a positive outcome. He can’t reveal his involvement in the negotiations with Donald or expose the secrets he learned about the Washbergs in order to get the land returned.

Unlike a classic mystery where finding the culprit neatly resolves everything, or a bleak noir where justice feels impossible, the ending of this story isn’t about complete victory or utter defeat. Instead, it’s about a character, Lee, finally understanding that his actions have had lasting consequences all along – consequences he’s been stubbornly ignoring. He realizes the outcome he desired was always unrealistic, a way to prove he was right. While seeking the truth isn’t wrong, he can’t expect others to take responsibility without acknowledging his own part in things. He must now accept a different, more difficult set of consequences and confront the biases and assumptions that drove his relentless search for answers.

Lee’s appearance at his ex-wife’s wedding isn’t a moment of victory. He doesn’t win her back, and his daughter doesn’t suddenly forgive him for past mistakes. However, when Lee finally acknowledges the hurt he caused, he starts to accept a solution based on what others truly need, rather than what he thinks is fair. He initially set out to write a big, explosive story about the Washberg family’s wrongdoing, but choosing to instead celebrate Dale’s life shows a hopeful outlook. Lee is capable of growth. By trying to understand Dale, he gains self-awareness and realizes that there are always repercussions, even if they aren’t what he expected.

Similar to other dark, atmospheric TV shows, The Lowdown is likely to attract a dedicated but modest audience. Many promising shows – like Perry Mason, Terriers, and Teenage Bounty Hunters – haven’t found large viewerships, and The Lowdown seems headed for a similar fate. (True Detective and Veronica Mars were rare exceptions, achieving mainstream success only briefly.) This makes sense because these shows aren’t as comforting as typical TV mysteries, which usually offer clear solutions and a restored sense of order. The Lowdown demonstrates that a story can reach a fulfilling conclusion without relying on easy answers or superficial apologies. It offers a way forward from the bleakness of a world without consequences. The show’s sense of victory feels genuine and lasting, unlike the flimsy satisfaction of simple justice. Lee Raybon’s willingness to admit his errors and persevere is particularly compelling.

Read More

2025-11-10 17:55