"The Night Of" on HBO

they definitely set up another season......even thought they said there would not be one.

 

Agreed.

 

I totally agree. I think I started to sour on the series with "the kiss". I think that was a huge misstep and just not that well developed for that to happen (because of a short phone call from jail?) Then the whole drug smuggling thing sealed the deal. Chandra, as a character, was completely ruined.

Too many plot diversions and indulgences for my liking. If, indeed, the show was an expose on the criminal justice system it swerved all the place way too much. I said it once and I'll say it one last time: Naz's parents ordeal was far more riveting than any other plot line in the series. If you want a season two, show me that plot line as I'd be pretty interested in that.

 

I have to go against the flow of the last few posts and say that I am really going to miss this show. Wonderful directing; beautiful look. Turturro was brilliant as was the kid playing Naz. And Omar! I'm a sucker for anything he does. It's rare that a TV show brings tears to my eyes but this one did. Anyway, back to the usual televised dreck.

 

Fantastic final episode.

 

"...and Omar, I'm a sucker for anything be does."

After John Turturro, the most talented actor in the ensemble was Michael K. Williams (Omar). That said, he was almost criminally misused in this series. Truthfully, I've never seen him give a less engaging performance, he practically phoned it in. Of course, IMO the fault lies with the writing, there just wasn't any meat on that bone for him to chew on! He was FAR more enjoyable in a series that I don't recall seeing mentioned around here; Hap & Leonard!

 

the kiss was thrown in so they could put John Turturro in the courtroom (finally)

 

It would be gratifying to see the guy from Royal Pains go to prison.

 

Don't worry! The new season of Fear The Walking Dead has just started.

 

Yeah, you're right.

I'm really pissed off with this series at the moment. I'll post some better prepared commentary when I chill out a bit.

 

Maybe the kiss was set up implausibly, but I don't think her character was "ruined" -- I think that her character was developed to illustrate her 'lack of suitability' to her field. She often seemed clueless and made poor choices. Sure, her trajectory could've been handled differently, but it served the function to move Stone into the 'driver's seat'. It also seemed like a commentary on professionalism and the complete lack of it in some cases; i.e. she was a bad lawyer, or that she just wasn't cut out for the job.

 

I disagree that she was ill suited to her field or clueless. She was very good in court, prepared well, made cogent arguments and points that would have played well to the jury. But this is in direct contrast to her hamfisted extracurricular activities ,which felt tacked-on due to some bad writing.

 

To me, she seemed tentative and lacking a fully fleshed-out approach in court -- her opening statement was... efficient? Would it have been ill-advised to illustrate Nas in any sort of positive, humanizing light, beyond simply stating that "the burden is on the state" to prove Nas' guilt, however brief? It felt slight, or like a vague platitude that didn't seem to have much effect. She was ill-informed about Nas' history of violence in high school, and the "if it doesn't fit, you must acquit" line, while she may have been (cleverly?) referencing the mention of the OJ Simpson trial (during Weiss' dialogue with the forensics expert "Katz"), it just came off as corny and seemed to lack any impact. Of course, these are minor nitpicks.. she adequately fulfilled her role. I'm not familiar with court proceedings, but her whole approach felt minimal and without much assertiveness.. though that could've been their best/only approach?

 

I have to agree that the Chandra takedown was poorly conceived and didn't ring true. Being out of her element representing Kaz is fine, but the kiss came out of nowhere, and the subsequent drug smuggling seemed very implausible.

 

I felt it was left for the viewers imagination.

 

I take your point and I think this speaks to a wider problem with the way the court proceedings were written in general (not just this ep). For example:

Prosecutors are not allowed to present evidence of previous bad acts by the defendant to bolster their case against him (Adderall selling and high school fights would not be admissible). Only if Naz testified that he was a perfect angel, would the prosecution be able to bring up that evidence in cross.

One is not permitted to bring up any evidence at all about a plea bargain (whether it was offered or refused). It's grounds for a mistrial.

The way the cross-examinations, by both parties, were presented was puzzling. Each party walks away and act as if they made a devastating argument, even though they were pretty weak. There were so many possible 'objections' that went begging just so that a story could be told by either lawyer.

How about the detective admitting to violating evidentiary procedure, just about guaranteeing an appeal hearing at best, or worse, a mistrial. Chain of custody is one of the most misunderstood and abused concepts in legal shows. And the defense doesn't even ask any follow-up questions? Like 'is it common to give evidence back to the suspect' or 'how often in your thirty three exemplary years did you witness this sort of behavior'?

The problems lie on both sides of the competency equation, due likely to the show having limited legal advisors, if any, or the writers just not caring about the details in order to drive the plot where they want it to go.

 

i thought that they set up the retired detective and the DA to go after the financial adviser in next year.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/29/arts/television/the-night-of-finale-recap.html?_r=1

 

The Night Of Finale Was the Perfect Ending for This Show: Beautiful, Ambitious, and Hollow »

 

Review: What's the verdict on 'The Night Of' finale? »

 

I think they got all that they needed, struck while the iron was hot etc.

 

The Symbolic Power of Eyes in 'The Night Of' »

 

I disagree with one point in this NYT review: I certainly don't see Chandra as a victim at all. Kissing Naz in his cell was totally unprofessional, and smuggling drugs into Rikers for him was not only unprofessional, but highly illegal. Any attorney caught doing that would surely be disbarred, and probably prosecuted.

 

I don't expect complete accuracy from a TV show but they didn't even get the easy little things right. For example, all rise as jury enters.

 

All fair points. But I wonder if the drama was enhanced by it- it sets the hook for Box to be portrayed as humane from the start. And, who brought up the plea deal? Wasn't it Naz's lawyer? (I not suggesting that was the right thing to do, but it made for a more compelling argument). I suspect that HBO and the producers behind this show have more than enough lawyers they could call on if they wanted to. They could also bore them to death with procedure. I hear you- maybe you found it distracting/annoying- that happens sometimes when I know the script gets it wrong- for some reason, it really didn't bother me here.