"The Night Of" HBO

[cornichon]

http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/the-night-of-made-its-characters-morons-because-it-kind-1785891990

That article sums up a lot of my thoughts. I think this show had some great performances and looked/was paced like a prestige show, so people treated it as if it were one. I think it greatly benefited from airing during the months when nothing else is on.

 

[Orange Jennyslipper]

@cornichon, you're a much better analyst than that. The writer Tom Ley (whose name means "law" in Spanish) is admitting he missed the point of the whole series. Completely.

Most Americans "feel" like there's something wrong with the way crime is investigated, prosecuted and sentenced, but most people also shrug their shoulders because they know they can't do anything about it.

Cops, lawyers, judges and corrections officers are human. Some are among the most intelligent people in our population, some are at the other end of the scale and most are somewhere in between.

The author says most if not all the characters were morons and did stupid things. Yep, they were and did. And yet we give those people the power of life and death over each of us if we run afoul of "the system."

The most remarkable criminal justice system in history is eaten up with people who allow the guilty to go free, the innocent incarcerated, and the general public to believe that a person MUST be guilty because "they" arrested him.

I thought the program was a blistering indictment of every step in the judicial process. And yet, we still have the world's premier system of laws.

 

[Air_Thurman]

I agree with the bulk of the article and the criticism of some of the characters being really dumb. It took me out of the story a lot. I disagree with the point about Box being dumb though. I think the point was to show that even really good detectives 100% zero in on a suspect when they think they have their guy. He didn't look into the victim's timeline before she met Naz because it was pointless. He had his guy and what happened before they met didn't matter.

 

[cableok]

Having watched all 8 episodes I will say two things.

1) If there is a "The Night of 2" ... I will not watch it.
2) Good acting, but my investment in the time to watch the show did not equal the payback.

 

[Been Jammin]

I agree with the bulk of the article and the criticism of some of the characters being really dumb. It took me out of the story a lot. I disagree with the point about Box being dumb though. I think the point was to show that even really good detectives 100% zero in on a suspect when they think they have their guy. He didn't look into the victim's timeline before she met Naz because it was pointless. He had his guy and what happened before they met didn't matter.

I think that is a key point that some are overlooking (@AggiesBoy covered this as well). Box felt like he had his guy because that was his initial take on what happened. But, deep down inside, he didn't feel like Naz had that horrible crime inside him. Box wanted to be right, but it just didn't feel right. Stone said it to him at the beginning of the series. Chandra brought his doubts to the surface with the discussion about the inhaler and how long it took Box to actually charge Naz with a crime.

I think they showed that the D.A. was in a similar position. At the beginning, she asked Box something along the lines of "what do I not know that is going to derail this case?". Obviously, she wants to be right and get a conviction for multiple reasons. Even when Box came to her with evidence that the killer might be someone else, she wasn't able to turn away from the path she had already chosen and put so much effort into. The hung jury gave her a way out of the mess she was in, and she was happy to have an excuse to do what she knew was right.

I get some of the criticism that people are leveling against the writing, but I think the writers had characters do stupid things because real people do stupid things. Sometimes they do them despite knowing better. Sometimes they just make mistakes.

 

[cornichon]

@AggiesBoy Sure, "people" are stupid, but a person can be smart. I can guarantee you from personal experience that if Chondra was an associate at a firm as prestigious as hers seemed to be, she was very smart. Even smart people make mistakes, granted, but she made a number of really stupid mistakes in a very short period of time. Kissing Naz and then smuggling drugs into a holding cell with a cop within eye- and earshot that obviously also was covered in security cameras? Idiotic.

Box may or may not have been smart, but he was definitely a very competent investigator. He investigated nothing at the beginning except the crime scene. He took the time to recreate Naz's timeline in an early episode, but didn't take the time to recreate the victim's timeline. Based on last night's episode, it seemed like he put together the bulk of the case against the financial adviser in about two minutes. That's pretty damning. That's on top of the seeming mistakes made in the handling of the evidence. None of that even occurred to him until the totally green attorney pointed it out to him.

Speaking of Chondra's lack of experience, why was she allowed to defend such a high-profile case? It's not entirely certain the judge would have even allowed the partner to withdraw from Naz's defense. Also, if the firm was as prestigious as it appeared, I can't believe they would have allowed a junior associate to litigate without a senior attorney from the firm there to protect its reputation. For that matter, why wouldn't John Stone have handled most of it? He may have been a low-rent guy, but he had plenty of experience. He at least knew enough not to put the defendant on the stand and allow the prosecutor to crush him.

Also, why didn't anyone - Naz, Box, Stone, Chondra - bring up the fact that Naz wasn't covered in blood? Everyone on the internet was screaming about it. None of these people thought of it? If the answer was, "He could have taken a shower," it still seems unlikely that no one raised the question or mentioned something along the lines of, "There was blood found in the shower." How could Stone especially not have brought it up? He apparently went from being a guy who pleads out junkies and johns into the world's greatest street investigator. Why didn't he think of this obvious stuff? Why wouldn't he force the financial adviser to testify if he had evidence implicating the stepdad, evidence that would definitely cause reasonable doubt in the jury's mind? The answer is because, if he had forced the financial adviser to testify, his story would have been investigated, and we couldn't have had his hooker-beating fetish, relationship with Andrea, and theft come out of left field in the finale.

If the show was really a character study and about the impact of the system on a group of people, why include all the red herrings? Why the seeming focus on the stepdad as an obvious sinister figure? Why the lingering shots of the blood on the deer head (never explained how that could have even happened)? Why have Naz unable to remember if he really did it? It makes the show look like it couldn't decide what genre it was going for.

I get that people make mistakes (I haven't even gotten into Naz's flight from the scene, taking the knife and drugs, or failure to call 911), but this felt to me like the writer(s) worked backwards from what they wanted - everyone's life is ruined by this corrupt/decayed system - and had characters do things that were out of character to get to that end result. That's weak writing. And that's why it's not a classic to me. In the end, it's a forgettable show.

 

[Air_Thurman]

@AggiesBoy

Speaking of Chondra's lack of experience, why was she allowed to defend such a high-profile case? It's not entirely certain the judge would have even allowed the partner to withdraw from Naz's defense. Also, if the firm was as prestigious as it appeared, I can't believe they would have allowed a junior associate to litigate without a senior attorney from the firm there to protect its reputation. For that matter, why wouldn't John Stone have handled most of it? He may have been a low-rent guy, but he had plenty of experience. He at least knew enough not to put the defendant on the stand and allow the prosecutor to crush him.

I thought that part was pretty well established by they the show. The law firm wanted to make some quick headlines and when Naz blew their plea deal they realized they would actually have to put a ton of time into the case and it was most likely a loser. So they said they wouldn't do it pro-bono and dumped it over to a junior associate. It was their way of washing their hands of it all. I don't think they ever intended it to go to trial.

 

[blbronco]

I thought it was a fantastic show with outstanding acting and a good story. I really had no issues with the writing. Chandra...young, naive, idealistic lawyer doing what she did was somewhat believable. Naz was never the most likeable character to me, but they kept him consistent. I thought it was well done. I had no preconceived notion of what to expect, so that may have helped.

 

[Orange Jennyslipper]

So, Shindler's List and The Wire were outliers? I think these writers have a pretty good grip on their craft. I'm not sure any viewer can say a character was "out of character."

It's not "weak writing" to know where a story is going to end before you start writing it. The writer may surprise himself with some of the directions the story takes him in the middle, but few stories lead a writer to an end he wasn't prepared for.

I think Chandra making so many mistakes follows the theme of the show: people who you expect to be smart, sometimes aren't. I agree with @cornichon's assessment that she must have been very smart or she wouldn't have been working where she was.

But that's why her behavior, like most everyone else's was so maddening. I don't know anything about being a defense attorney, but I do know a little about debating and I would never have let the DA go unchallenged on some of the crap she pulled while cross-examining Naz.

Chandra should have anticipated where the DA would attack and been ready to re-direct Naz to better explain himself. Instead, she was dumbfounded that the DA made him look so bad.

The writers' goal, it seems to me, was to piss off viewers. Looking back, as much as I enjoyed the show, I stayed pretty pissed off for eight weeks.

 

[MegaPoke]

I liked it.

 

[Orange Jennyslipper]

Concerning the cat, I was sure that he'd be standing in the apartment when Stone opened his door in final scene.

When he wasn't, I told Mrs. AB that they had missed a huge opportunity for a great closing scene. I was smfh.

Then, when he put on his jacket and headed back toward the front door, I was screaming, "Here it is! Here it is! He's going to call down the hall, 'I'm going out!'" like he always did when the cat was shut inside the spare room.

Then he walks out without saying a word. I thought the writers were surely dumbasses to pass on such a great ending. When the cat finally strolled out, we both screamed like the night Jamie Blatnick took off down the northeast sideline with Jones' fumble under his arm.

Good times.

Both of them.

 

[100TonsofOrangeFury]

So on the surveillance video, where was the accountant shown getting out of the car? Was it in front of the brownstone?

My only two criticisms are also around character's choices.

1) Chandra was too smart to do all those stupid things. Maybe one, but not all.

2) Chalky taking Naz under his wing just defied any reason. Naz seemed more likely an easy target than a trophy. I guess he did use Naz to his own devices, so it wasn't all just human kindness.

Guess dad got his cab back, would have liked some kind of scene that addressed his relationship with his partners. Or did he sell it in the previous episode after all?

Detective Box's hair was my favorite thing in the show.

 

[Orange Jennyslipper]

Saw an interview with Riz Ahmed Monday night. I didn't know he was a rapper, and I didn't know he was British. He's in the new Bourne film and Rogue One.

Before Noght Of, he was flying to the States and his agent sent him the script on his phone and told him HBO wanted an audition as soon as he landed. He said his first reaction was that it was interesting that HBO was expanding into dramas. He thought all they did was late-night boxing.

 

[Been Jammin]

So on the surveillance video, where was the accountant shown getting out of the car? Was it in front of the brownstone?

My only two criticisms are also around character's choices.

1) Chandra was too smart to do all those stupid things. Maybe one, but not all.

2) Chalky taking Naz under his wing just defied any reason. Naz seemed more likely an easy target than a trophy. I guess he did use Naz to his own devices, so it wasn't all just human kindness.

Guess dad got his cab back, would have liked some kind of scene that addressed his relationship with his partners. Or did he sell it in the previous episode after all?

Detective Box's hair was my favorite thing in the show.

The accountant was getting out of the car at his own home, but it was at 3 am, not right after he and Andrea parted ways.

I am pretty sure that Dad sold his share of the medallion to the other two guys. That is basically the license that allows them to drive a cab in NYC. I would think that the actual cab might be tied up in a grand theft auto case, but the 2 partners would likely drop the charges to get the vehicle back.

 

[hollywood]

Cornichon,

I've seen some Ivy League types waltz into law firms with great grades and credentials, and so lacking in common sense and street smarts they didn't survive their first year.

I always think back to a lesson I learned in Law School, in my moot court class. There was a 3rd year who had basically Am Jured (received the highest grade) nearly every class he had taken. The guy was simply off the charts in terms of understanding the black letter elements of the law, in virtually every subject. During an exercise in direct and cross examination, a guy from my class - who was barely passing and often rolled into class looking like he was on a 3-day bender (which he was), in 15 minutes had Mr. Am Jur so frustrated, lost and tied in knots it wasn't even funny.

To me Chandra was an extremely intelligent person, but was just not worldly, nor did she have any experience with relationships or fully appreciate/understand how tenuous her position with the firm actually was. Book smarts isn't always a predictor of acting with "smarts" in general. Extreme naivety, inexperience and her virginal lust was just more than she could compensate for with intelligence and an understanding of the law.

 

[nathajw]

Edit: Wrong Thread!

 

[MegaPoke]

My biggest problem with this show is the representation of the Muslim New Yorkers ostracizing Naz for maybe killing a western girl.

And my second biggest problem is with the evident bigots harassing his family with swastikas. Made no sense.

 

[3Gamma]

Really enjoyed the series, along with the speculation and back and forth in this thread.
Acting was excellent, but would've liked to see more scenes with Box v Stone verbal sparring. My only real gripe was they gave away the killer way too early in the final episode. Hope there's a 2nd season.