[The Night Of Media]

The New York Times review (slightly spoiler-y about general direction of certain story elements) and a piece on John Turturro taking over for James Gandolfini in his role.

NYT episode 1 recap

NYT episode 2 recap

hilariously extensive debate and complaint in the comments over the eczema (and NYT recapper's mischaracterization of same as fungus)

NYT episode 3 recap

LA Times review (gives reassuring hint as to fate of victim's cat!)

add'l LAT story

[S01.E02: Subtle Beast]

3 hours ago, clb1016 said:

The arraignment judge was played by Ned Eisenberg, who appeared in about a gazillion episodes of Law & Order, usually as a defense attorney.

I never saw the British original, but I don't think the point of this series is simply a whodunnit, especially with Richard Price as the writer.  I think it's more of an exploration of the criminal justice system.  The point was already made by Det. Box that they're all cogs in the same machine.  Naz--whatever the verdict in court, or whether he's in fact innocent or guilty--will emerge from this experience a very changed man.  His family will also emerge with a different view of the American justice system.   Everyone else (police, attorneys for both sides, judges) will keep the wheels of the system turning.

Thanks for the correct credit on the actor. Apologies to Ned Eisenberg — all these years on all those episodes of the various L&O iterations I have carelessly thought he was someone else. I have a teensy bit of face blindness but there is a resemblance right? Anyway, he was awesomely cast as the judge.

And I think you are dead on with everything you have to say about the conception of the series as about the justice system writ large rather than Naz"s case in particular. I suspect that is what drew Richard Price to the project to begin with.

It struck me for some reason, watching the shot of the prisoner transport bus going across the bridge, looking up from below, that we had already left the victim long behind, and felt like I had the tiniest glimpse of what victims' families must feel once the machinery of investigation and prosecution gets going and it's all about the adversarial process and cynical as hell. 

[HBO's "The Night Of" vs. BBC's "Criminal Justice"]

I've been wondering about the stabbing overkill in this one too and if that means they're going in a different direction with the resolution of the mystery. I do hope that this series follows the tone and general direction of the first in defying our natural desire for a conventional murder mystery/crime procedural (it's interesting to me how much this is already being debated in the regular episode threads).

It's been long enough I don't remember exactly how the killer identified the girl when he didn't catch her right after she witnessed the hit — I think either someone told him who she was (being that they were all mobbed up) or he caught sight of her returning with Ben Whishaw to her house that night — or maybe I just fanwanked it :)

I agree the atmospherics are slowing the pace, and I hope the cinematography on its own doesn't account for stretching the series length from 5 episodes to 8! I also hope that it doesn't mean a whole lot more time spent in the prison storyline (although I guess it's hard to imagine how it wouldn't), because as brilliantly as I thought all of that was done, it was a rough watch and constantly reminded me of Oz

iI haven't watched the 2nd series of Criminal Justice, though I'll get to it —  when I saw the first one it was the only one available on Netflix

[HBO's "The Night Of" vs. BBC's "Criminal Justice"]

Thanks Drogo! Now I guess we'll see if I'm alone talking to myself in here ;p

Random thoughts I have had since the first episode but which didn't fit the discussion absent a thread like this:

I think it's interesting that they've flipped the script on the racial dynamic between victim and accused, as well as played with age and social class — UK version, Criminal Justice, the girl was a person of color and the accused really was a boy, a naïve white boy in secondary school... Both were working class.

Stone seemed less opportunistic and more compassionate toward his client in the original — although totally pragmatic when it came to trial strategy — which is what holds the two versions together I think. Without the natural device of requiring both barrister and solicitor, I wonder how The Night Of will manage to incorporate the additional legal representation for Naz that is needed to move the plot forward — or if it will find some other way to free him besides the claim of legal malpractice because he has an affair with his young and beautiful lawyer?

For those wondering whether Criminal Justice provided an answer to whodunit — it absolutely did — in an extremely tightly plotted way entwined with the time spent in prison and the relationships developed there.

Dying to know who will assume the Pete Postlethwaite role in this version — really hope they won't do away with that character altogether!

Wishing the David Harewood character could have been played by — David Harewood.

[S01.E02: Subtle Beast]

3 hours ago, Superpole2000 said:

My thoughts on just this episode were that it was a bit of a letdown. Suspense and drama were in short supply. The realism was there, though, and I hope this is just the calm before the storm.

Also, I'm not sure how much more time needs to be devoted to eczema. Probably none.

The breakneck pace of events slowed to a crawl this episode, but I found it appropriate given that this marked the transition to Naz's incarceration. As soon as bail was denied outright (hello Kevin Pollak! too bad you'll only be the arraignment judge!), my heart sank knowing this was going to be the start of the descent into hell at Riker's and whatever Naz might have to do to survive there. Since this is 8 episodes long (and putting aside what I can guess based on the original), I think we should settle in for a deep-dive exploration of Naz as accused (or even convicted) and not a quickly resolved mystery.

The eczema is a little much, I agree, and it is killing me too as I have a recurring/remitting autoimmune condition of my own (and I'm with preeya, and contemporary neuroscience, that itch can be worse than pain sometimes) — we've got the sandals, the chopstick, and now shopping at Duane Reade or whatever to stock up on creams, topped off with the "concern" of his client and the more sincere concern of his ex-wife. I'm not sure any symbolic value (or associated itchy feeling) is worth all this business. But if it forces the realization that Naz needs a fancier (or at least more social presentable/conventional) lawyer to assist or replace Stone at trial, well, maybe.

[S01.E02: Subtle Beast]

8 hours ago, Drogo said:

Something was not-right about his "It's not her"/"It's her."  Wouldn't someone who cared for her have a more visceral reaction to coroner's report photos?

 

5 hours ago, numbnut said:

His odd reaction to the photos could make sense if he's the killer, like he could be stunned at seeing the aftermath of his anger.

My read was that he wished to stay in denial, and/or uninvolved, a bit longer, but when they called his bluff and were about to lead him to the body itself, he caved and made the ID. I thought it was beautifully written and played in its  ambiguity — shock? revulsion? grief? guilt? numbness? all of the above? It all remains possible the way the scene has been presented.

5 hours ago, Princess Sparkle said:

I believe the eczema is a holdover from the original series, not something they specifically created for John Turturro.   Though, without watching the original series, I can't speak to how much of a plot point it was.  

What is striking to me is that I feel like the character John Turturro is playing is so perfect to him, and yet I'm wondering how the character would've looked had James Gandolfini played him (or Robert DeNiro, the original replacement).  While I love James Gandolfini, I actually think this role works better with John Turturro in there - while Gandolfini probably wouldn't have played the character as schlubby, I think "schlub" actually works really well here.  Which makes me wonder what kind of route they would've gone with James Gandolfini in there.    

Even though it seems I am maybe the only other person watching this show besides Sarah who watched the original, I wonder if we could have a thread (saoirse? another mod?) dedicated to compare and discuss and speculate differences and departures from the original. I for instance would love to discuss

Spoiler

how the narrative opportunities offered by the barrister-solicitor split because of the U.K. court system that won't be available here (which resolved some of the dilemmas set up by Stone's very odd character) and I am so very curious how differently that might play out

but it seems both potentially spoilerish and inappropriate for the regular spec thread.

In addition, in the first episode thread someone spoiler tagged a conclusion drawn from the IMDb discussion boards about the resolution of the original series which was just flat out wrong but again I didn't feel it was the right place to engage that. Also far be it from me to impugn the quality of discussion and analysis over at the IMDb boards ;)

[S01.E04: Episode 4]

BBCA scheduling shenanigans aside, it seemed to me this episode actually lost momentum in its storytelling just when it should be sprinting to the finish line.

The more time spent with the police, the more lifeless it is (no pun intended). The series isn't built around some complex whodunit or serial killer profile (unless I'm failing to anticipate some big twist at the end), so the procedural aspect isn't where the interest lies for me (plus I find the police characters both incompetent and unlikeable). 

IMO the show is at its best as a subtle psychological drama about this escaped captive girl and her attempts to reclaim her identity, to reunite with her family and the world outside while staying strong enough not to collapse from the terror of her abductor who is still out there and obsessed with her...

Watching Thirteen has made me think a lot about Jaycee Dugard and Elizabeth Smart and what exceptionally strong, amazing women they have turned out to be. I admire them so much for reclaiming their lives and refusing to allow themselves to be portrayed as victims for ever and ever.

[S01.E01: The Beach]

On July 8, 2016 at 7:35 AM, humbleopinion said:

John Turturro's role was to be played by James Gandolfini.

Would JG would have chosen to have the character wear sandals because of the skin ailment?

Sad we don't get to find out.

 

On July 9, 2016 at 7:47 AM, humbleopinion said:

Anyone in a holding cell would feel better if JG walked in and said "I am your lawyer" instead of the disheveled JT  in the Columbo inspired stained rain coat.

 

On July 9, 2016 at 7:00 PM, AimingforYoko said:

Why the eczema on the feet thing, though? It seems like a weird thing just to be weird.

The foot eczema thing (clad in flip flops!) was an extremely prominent character beat for the same character in the UK version  I remember thinking it was weird but that it did work, in the end — Columbo is a pretty good reference actually. The lawyer seems to identify as a weirdo, an outcast, an outlier, like the accused. My guess is that if Gandolfini were in the role, he wouldn't be inhabiting a confident, put-together, Armani-clad persona but more of a shambling schlub, and maybe yes, with visible foot rash.

6 hours ago, lucindabelle said:

itoo am worried about the cat!!!! Not surprising given my avatar so thank you sarah Bunting. 

I mean that is a pampered upper west side kitty and Shes in a courtyard. Help the kitty!!!

she wasn't really a manic pixie dream I girl, she was a classic noir femme fatale.

Not to speak ill of the dead or blame the victim but nobody good puts her cat on the street like that so she can play knife games, do coke, and have sex with some rando who happens to have allergies.

[Well maybe I would kick out my cat if she did those things, unclear antecedent and all, but you know what I mean ;) ]

And I totally agree, the victim here was no manic pixie dream girl, much closer to the mysterious and beautiful doomed woman archetype of noir — she wasn't manic or pixieish, much more sad and jaded — except a little on the young side, with the styling and set dressing a little off. It's like the writer(s) and director were at odds with the casting director, costume, makeup, and set designers.

It's possible that it's just making an awkward translation from the original — I think the victim works fine as a jaded sort of party girl looking to feel something, but they're working off an original character who did seem to take a sort of mad glee in her own self-destructive behavior as well as (or especially) her persuading the boy to engage in risky behavior unfamiliar to him...

On July 2, 2016 at 3:45 PM, Joan van Snark said:

One question---if those cops were going to let him go, why didn't they just let him drive off?  Why did they stick him in their car?  Then at the scene, I thought I heard another detective tell the cops who pulled him over cut him loose, but they take him into the station and make him sit there.  Why?

I thought this was well-done as a series of miscommunications and delays resulting in the clusterfuck in the police station of the neighbor's revelation that it was a taxi driver + the witness ID + the discovery of the knife, culminating in that humiliating and terrifying interrogation. They didn't let him drive off because he refused a breathalyzer which is an automatic violation meriting arrest. Then when the detective in charge wanted him taken to the precinct to be "cut loose," the cop driving him back didn't get the memo and thought he was a witness to be held at the station.

[S01.E03: Episode 3]

5 hours ago, KaveDweller said:

I also felt for Ivy when she asked Emma about whether Craig is the one who likes having pictures of them together, and not just pictures of her. Which suggests Leonard would force her to poise in various pictures for him, and while that's not as bad as rape, it just shows how screwed up her thinking is because of what happened. She seems to think that being held like she was is a normal relationship.

These sister-to-sister moments are so subtle and yet so affecting, and so effective, to show not only glimpses of Ivy's trauma but to make it tragically clear how completely her life and development as a girl and then woman were interrupted at the age of 13, that time truly stopped for her while everyone else continued on.

The acting in this show is aMAZing. Jamie Comer has me absolutely persuaded she is a damaged young teen in a young adult's body. And the sister has been great in the past two episodes also.

i kind of wish I'd waited for the whole series to air before watching because this would be a great series to binge.

[S01.E03: Episode 3]

19 hours ago, kat165 said:

How long has Ivy been back home? I'm thinking a wk, maybe 2. So for Craig to be so fed up with it all is really kind of shitty. He's a crappy boyfriend & Emma doesn't seem all that in love with him anyway. Him leaving would be no great loss.

But I can see that there's a point to him being in the story. It goes to further illustrate how much the family has changed since Ivy has been missing, along with the father & his affair and no longer living there...

I'm really enjoying this show, the eps are kind of engrossing, in the way that the original Girl With the Dragon Tattoo was. It's kind of slow and arty and draws you in. I just wish it was longer, even 8 eps would be good.

I thought the body in the wall was the young girl who was kidnapped after Ivy's return.

 

5 hours ago, Mabinogia said:

...I wonder if Craig knows (has always known) that Emma isn't really all that in love with him and is only marrying him because she's got nothing better to do. I think his days at the Moxom house are numbered...

I can't believe the show is almost over. I'm going to be sad when it's gone, but I'm dying to see how it all ends. I think the body in the basement is going to be a former victim...

I also am finding myself totally caught up in the world of the show and invested in the characters. I wasn't sure I would be after the first episode, but I am glad I decided to continue. I will miss it too and wish they would find a way to continue à la Broadchurch.

RE: Craig. I agree that Emma doesn't seem starry-eyed, head over heels for him, and I thought it was a telling bit of dialogue when she explained to Ivy that their mum liked Craig, and "that made a difference, it just did." Seems like they were longing for a man in the house to replace their father/husband and Craig fit the bill well enough. Now that Dad and Ivy are home, Craig isn't quite so wanted, because he was never that special, just filling a void well enough.

My personal guess for the body in the basement is the missing half brother Dylan, and that Ivy either feels responsible for or in some way actually played a part in his death.

[S01.E02: Jack-in-the-Pulpit]

17 hours ago, Winston9-DT3 said:

I wish I'd looked up what Jack-In-The-Pulpit art is beforehand.  It's a series of Georgia O'Keefe's.  This article said there's a shot in each ep inspired by the art in the title.

 

7 hours ago, sjohnson said:

"Jack-in-the-pulpit" refers also to the boy's little eulogy. (Sorry to be ob-com about making sure the obvious is out there.)

I laughed out loud at this at least three times. Perhaps I'm not supposed to watch it in the same frame of mind as watching The Addams Family...but I am.

There was a shot in the church of a floral arrangement with jack-in-the-pulpit, which may be a stretch because as a wildflower I don't think it's a flower generally used by florists, in funeral arrangements or otherwise. Not only does it have the literal pulpit connotation as sjohnson points out, its traditional meaning in the "language of flowers" is one of protection or shelter, a theme that came up repeatedly in the episode, and of course the series of O'Keeffe paintings is highly erotic in nature, specifically the female/lesbian erotic... Someone(s) associated with this show really likes their symbolism, and fancies this show very deep indeed.

Also, I will bet $1 that the name Hawthorne is intentional and meant to evoke the great and serious American literary tradition of the New England grotesque.

sjohnson, I believe I will enjoy this show about 1000% more by imagining Virginia Madsen as Morticia and Tessa as Wednesday.

[S01.E01: Arrangement in Grey and Black]

On June 22, 2016 at 10:47 AM, The Real Chon said:

Is this going to make us miss Lucas Buck?

I have missed Sheriff Buck ever since the original American Gothic was canceled. Such a perfect combination of seducer and creeper, just as Lucifer should be...the original snake in the garden.

On topic? I didn't like this pilot much, and not just because of the animal mutilation (and the family's complete and utter lack of alarm about it — I was relieved they rushed poor Caramel to the vet, but how on earth did they explain the "mishap" to Caramel's owner???).

Youngest daughter Tessa is likeable enough, but dull, as is her husband, and I think they are set up to be the good guys of the piece. Otherwise it's just not that interesting so far.  I expect a lot of exposition in a pilot, which is fine, but there wasn't even much of that. We know there was this Silver Bells killer, but hardLy more than that — who were the victims? What did they have in common? Were there any suspects? What was the deal with Dad's true crime hobby? Etc.

And seriously, it cannot be asked enough, what kind of family dysfunction or habits of denial are in play that a child morbidly obsessed with violent death and rapidly progressing to remorseless torture of neighborhood pets is not headed immediately for mental health assessment and intensive psychiatric intervention? Tessa is a schoolteacher and a mandated reporter for this kind of thing in her professional life. If at school she found a sketchbook like the one belonging to her nephew, complete with a diagram of a dismembered Caramel, she would be required to report it to authorities and get that child in the system for help and follow-up long-term.

 And did anyone notice the aside from the kid that he was inspired to draw the strangled and disemboweled bodies after borrowing grandpa's iPad? WTF was that about? If I were his dad I'd be snatching up that iPad tout de suite and scouring it for clues.

On June 22, 2016 at 8:02 PM, bmoore4026 said:

Of course there's some creepy ass child that's an insult to everyone on the autism spectrum.  Of course there is.  Because TV writers suck.

As the parent of a child with autism and someone highly involved in the autism community, I don't disagree that TV writers suck on this issue in general and that it has become an overused trope/catch-all unto itself;  I consider myself pretty sensitive to any hint or implication of a spectrum disorder.

But I didn't see that here... just a kid who at first presented with weirdly specific interests. Plenty of gifted or introverted or ADHD or simply quirky kids can have narrowly focused interests, not necessarily indicating a developmental, emotional, neurological, or mental disorder — and anatomy and pathology may just be two of those interests.

But then he attacked that cat and that put him over the line into mental disorder territory — still not ASD. ASD can be co-morbid with an emotional or mental disorder, but they are separate things, separate diagnoses altogether. ASD is associated with a lack of cognitive empathy — the inability to imagine the thought processes and life experiences of another — but generally are in line with the general population with affective or emotional empathy, the ability to identify and to identify with the feeling states of others. I know many ASD children and adults who are hypersensitive to this actually, so tuned in that they can find it unbearable to be around others who wear their hearts on their sleeves. With my son for example I must stay on a very even keel outwardly no matter what I'm feeling, or he gets very very anxious. My husband and I can never raise our voices or yell, not even to each other, he finds it so very upsetting. But I digress!

On June 22, 2016 at 8:13 PM, Anela said:

I only tuned in for Antony Starr. I missed parts of it, but are we supposed to think the boy has hurt the cat? Someone above mentioned a cat without a tail (I missed that). 

Is the one sister having an affair with her campaign manager?

Love Antony Starr, but he was a little too scruffy for me here, even after scraping his face raw with that knife  maybe if he had hacked off some of his raggedy hair also.

Psycho kiddo (son of the cartoonist) hacked off the neighbor's cat's tail with garden shears in the basement — I guess we knew there had to be a payoff to the increasingly frantic visits from neighbor lady about her missing cat. Begs the question where was the cat being kept all that time, though.

Also, not to be too gruesome or nitpick too much, but (I do feel if there is going to be a graphic depiction of animal cruelty it ought to be dealt with realistically and not casually, as if it's easily fixed and no big deal: A) a tail is a limb, like a leg, with a complete articulated skeletal structure and a full set of nerve endings and everything, and it plays a key role in balance, etc., so that cat would have been screaming in fear and pain, alarming the whole house, rather just the brief yowl and flee as if it were merely startled by something; (B) it would have scratched the hell out of the dad trying to capture it to get it to the vet; (C) the blood loss would have to be immense; (D) as far as I know, you're not going to find a specialized veterinary vascular surgeon and orthopedic surgeon on call at an emergency vet some random place to attempt a reattachmsnt, if that's even possible; and (E) on the spectrum going to be obvious this was an animal abuse case, and the kid seems incapable of keeping his creepy-ass mouth shut, so it would seem inevitable the vet's office would call the cops, right???

That late night text sure seemed like the kind of thing you'd send to a lover not a business colleague right?

On June 22, 2016 at 9:02 PM, pezgirl7 said:

Hurting animals as a child is an early sign of serial killers, so I'm thinking it runs in the family.

I do think the one sister is having an affair with her campaign manager.

I'm with you on both counts.

On June 23, 2016 at 9:20 AM, NorthstarATL said:

When the good sister asked Garrett where he had been for so many years, I wanted him to say "Well, I was sort of a Sheriff in this weird town..."

I cracked up at the Whistler's Mother homage that ended the ep. I'm in.

That would have been ten kinds of awesome if Garrett had even just said he was in Indiana instead of Maine.

The Whistler's Mother tableau was one of the few redeeming features of this episode for me. Now if one of the menfolk gets out in front of one of those mansions in overalls holding a pitchfork at some point, I may really commit.

On June 23, 2016 at 11:12 AM, Ms Lark said:

I did wonder why they called the ep Arrangement in Grey and Black, since that's the actual name of the painting, until they did the homage at the end. Uh, huh, ok. So far we have American Gothic and Arrangement.

  Hide contents

Looking at  the upcoming titles (Jack-in-the-pulpit, Georgia O'Keefe and Nighthawks, Edward Hopper) it seems each will be pieces of famous American art.

I still wonder how it factors in, since all we have are a cartoonist and a morbid young artist who, while talented, are not producing museum-quality fine art.

 

On June 23, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Sandman said:

Are we meant to suppose that the killer considers himself or herself an unrecognized artist? (This idea carries shades of the (in my humble(ish) opinion) execrably self-serious twaddlefuckery of Hannibal, but there it is.)

My guess is that someone or someones involved with the creation and running of the show has an art history degree that they have decided to bust out and put to work, whether it fits or not from week to week. Do t forget the Norman Rockwell reference at the beginning as well as the "original Pollock" that seemed totally out of keeping with the house and taste of the mom and dad.q

On June 23, 2016 at 8:05 PM, Sandman said:

Juliet Rylance resembles Rosamund Pike in a way that unnerves me. I suspect that it's meant to. (It might be just me, but I also keep seeing similarities between Tessa (Megan Ketch) and Mamie Gummer.)

I love Juliet Rylance but since my only previous knowledge of her has been in The Knick, it is disconcerting to see her in modern clothes (fabulous wardrobe though it is, just my kind of fashion-forward structured dressing) and hair I do see the coldness you're speaking of, though. She seems uninterested in parenting her twins except insofar as maintaining them as darling campaign accessories.

Until I saw your post, I thought Tessa was played by Mamie Gummer, although there was something not quite right about the face and eyes so I was going to double check.

[O.J.: Made In America - Part 4]

On June 17, 2016 at 8:44 AM, Sarah D. Bunting said:

If you watch enough true crime, you come to understand that this is how it is with murderers a lot of the time, to wit: they're usually not masterminds. Asking questions that start with "but who would be dumb enough to [X]" will usually get you an answer along the lines of "most killers," because most people are not the 190-IQ serial killers of primetime TV. They are enraged, and probably not very bright. Would a novelist write a crime like this? No. Do people give themselves away like this all the time? Sure do.

...and even the genius serial killers of TV and movies and mystery novels are left with plot loopholes that would get them off with a good enough attorney. I consume a huge amount of true crime and mystery/thriller fiction, always have (with the exception of a trauma-induced hiatus as described below), and the thing with true crime is that timelines never quite add up (not even with the incomparable Ann Rule, or maybe especially with her because she is meticulous with her facts), and there's always at least one strange bit of evidence or lingering question somewhere. We never get the satisfying authoritative flashback in real life.

A couple of years before the O.J. trial — as I think I posted about when we discussed some of this during the FX series, so I apologize if I am going on, as my southern grandma would say — I was a juror on a trial for rape-murder that has always informed the way I see every aspect of the O.J. crime and trial. Black defendant, white victim, horrible violent crime, racially divided city. Tons of evidence — fingerprints, eyewitnesses, police sketch. No blood or DNA though, because they didn't catch the guy right away and the victim died slowly in the hospital on life support, so all the EMT and medical intervention destroyed forensic evidence. Even with literal cartloads of evidence, I t wasn't a perfect puzzle piece case. Never would be. Medical examiner couldn't even say with 100% scientific certainty that the physical injuries "consistent with" rape and sodomy were in fact caused by being raped and sodomized, because that's not how the rules of evidence work. It's MESSY.

The experience was so horrible that I couldn't read even Miss Marple cozies for a year or so afterward, couldn't fathom how I or anyone else found violent crime to be entertainment, was disgusted with myself for my mystery novel collection and encyclopedic knowledge of the serial killer genre. This circuitous glove discussion amd the death photos are bring everything back with a big whooshing rush, sticky-summer days locked in a room with grumpy people and bloody evidence and horrifying pictures. I may be taking another vacation from true crime for a while.

On June 17, 2016 at 8:44 AM, RCharter said:

"Reasonable doubt" has rarely been given a clear definition by anyone, and there is no single definition agreed upon in the legal community as a whole.

This is true, but every time this comes up with respect to the O.J. trial and jury I reserve all my considerable frustration and rage for Judge Ito — because it is up to the trial judge to issue jury instructions to guide deliberations that will define concepts like reasonable doubt for the purpose of the trial. His discretion, his responsibility. One of his worst, maybe THE worst, of his failures.

I know that without the clear and narrow definition of reasonable doubt (distinguishing it in very concrete terms from shadow of a doubt, admonishing us against bringing any outside or personal knowledge or speculation to the table, forbidding us from considering any argument or information not brought out in open court, etc.) that our trial judge gave us as a jury when we decided the murder case I described above, we would have been unable to reach a verdict. We would have hung along racial lines, for all the reasons.

On June 17, 2016 at 3:59 PM, Bastet said:

I'm not sure about the rest of the photos, but those two will only be shown uncensored on the Watch ESPN app and on tonight's original airing on ESPN; in all re-airings on ESPN, they will be blurred.

They are being shown un-blurred On Demand also, at least by my cable provider.

On June 18, 2016 at 7:38 AM, whiporee said:

This has turned out a lot differently than I thought it would. It's very good, but listening to interviews with Ezra, i thought the presentation of the case would be a lot more balanced...it's done a fabulous job of completely demonizing Simpson -- while he probably deserves it, the interviews I heard before the show started did not lead me to think that's what the show would be.

Edleman has presented a longer version of the standard white take on this case...I don't think he's explained other possibilities. All the evidence was presented in a pro-prosecution light, with only the faintest of hints that the defense might have actually had points to make

...not the groundbreaking thing that made everyone re-evaluate the case with new material. it's more of the same stuff we heard 20 years ago, and more of the same re-itteration of the arguments opponents of the verdicts have made for 20 years. I had hoped for more --and Edleman's interviews had made me think there was -- but in the end, it's just more of the same.

I'm curious to hear more what you thought it might be. Truly! I thought it was extremely balanced, sympathetic, and open to most points of view in this real-life drama (I agree though, not at all sympathetic to Simpson).

If it was groundbreaking, or prompted anyone to reevaluate (and I think it was), I believe it was because of the sheer volume of material and the skill with which he sifted and presented it, and because the perspective of 20 years and change has shifted some things with some additional wisdom (Marcia Clark) and hardened some others to demonstrate how urgent and current these issues continue to be (Fuhrman, other LAPD veterans, opinions on domestic violence).

On June 18, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Bastet said:

I don't particularly care for asking defense attorneys whether they think their client is innocent.  Their job is to ensure the prosecution makes its case.  We give the state the power to imprison (and, in some cases, execute) people.  The check on that enormous power is that it must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  Defense attorneys perform that check, as someone up-thread described beautifully.  Sure, it's easier to be sympathetic to a public defender who's working to ensure a fair trial for some disadvantaged member of society particularly vulnerable to police and prosecutorial misconduct than to a high-paid attorney for a celebrity client, but the principle is the same.  If any defense attorney wants to only take on clients she or he believes are innocent, that's fine, but I'm not throwing shade on those who are focused on not guilty (the legal standard) rather than innocent.

The flip side is I also don't much care for defense attorneys faced with that question doing a dance rather than just explaining that it's irrelevant.

Whenever there's a horrific cause of death, I become fixated on how awful it must be for victims' families to think about how violent and terrifying their loved one's final moments were.

I do wish the defense attorneys in this case would just own their role in the justice system and be done with it.

On June 18, 2016 at 7:48 PM, reggiejax said:

On a different note, I will also admit that I took a break from my usual Marcia Clark bashing to laugh my ass off in agreement with her assessment of the existence, and substance, of the Fuhrman tapes, which was "What the fuck, dude?!". What the fuck, dude, indeed. 

That moment caught me by surprise during all that grimness and I laughed out loud also. I can't imagine what it must have been like to be Marcia Clark in the midst of that trial. Seems like Sarah Paulson really did nail it in her portrayal in American Crime Story.

On June 19, 2016 at 3:14 AM, Asp Burger said:

I thought this episode was the least interesting of the first four, because it's the only one that didn't tell me anything I didn't already know. I saw the trial footage when it was ongoing. Maybe for someone who was too young then or didn't pay attention, it was more entertaining. In my opinion, the best episode of the first four was actually the first episode, covering OJ's childhood and USC days.

While I have admired and been riveted by every minute, I agree the first installment was most revelatory, and re-introduced me in a way to the magical charm of the young O.J.

[O.J.: Made In America - Part 3]

On June 17, 2016 at 10:17 AM, psychoticstate said:

[snip] The topic was whether or not you could be a fair and impartial juror if you were chosen.  I was floored by two calls in particular - - both were men.  One said that Simpson had done so much for the world of football that we should just overlook this one little "mistake" he made.  (Because nearly decapitating your ex-wife is a mistake along the lines of forgetting to pay your electricity bill.)  The other caller said that if he was seated, they could show him a video of Simpson committing the murders and Simpson could admit he had done it and this man still would not convict.  Because it was O.J. Simpson.

It was sad, it was disheartening and it was mindboggling. 

This is what sickened me at the time —could we not find a better way to demonstrate the value of African American lives than to utterly devalue the lives of women?

So many public figures and ordinary people at the time framed it as either/or, support O.J. OR Nicole, equality for black Americans OR justice for women.

Just as there were those callers to the radio show willing to write off Nicole's death as less significant than a speeding ticket, there also were advocates for domestic violence prevention and feminist activists who said and did horrifyingly insensitive things, suggesting that misogyny and abuse were intrinsic to African-American male identity.

[O.J.: Made In America - Part 2]

On June 15, 2016 at 4:59 AM, smiley13 said:

I wish they would have spent more time discussing the background of OJ and not the misdeeds of the LAPD.

IMO, what makes this series worth 10 hours of viewing and elevates it from biopic or narrow genre true crime doc to epic American tragedy is precisely the wider socio-historical context provided, and portrayed so seamlessly along with  the specific saga of O.J. Himself, taking full advantage of the long-format TV doc medium.

On June 15, 2016 at 4:28 AM, Giant Misfit said:

And it goes without saying that Daryl Gates was garbage of the lowest kind.

I agree, but the point that Gil Garcetti makes so well in one of his interview clips is that Gates was a hero to many, and not just his own officers. While folks in the Valley, the Westside, and establishment leaders throughout the city were incredibly grateful to him for maintaining order and making them feel safe in the era of the Symbionese Liberation Army, the Black Panthers, etc. He inherited the mantle of William Parker and brought the LAPD and its traditional harassment of minority communities into a new, more modern iteration. And he invented SWAT — a model in use and emulated pretty much everywhere still. The advent of SWAT also powerfully institutionalized the LAPD as a paramilitary organization.

All of which arguably made him more dangerous as a racist SOB who protected even more racist and violent SOBs on the force, because he did have so much political capital and influence and wide popularity. It made him almost untouchable until Rodney King.

On June 15, 2016 at 6:46 AM, Giant Misfit said:

This documentary is called, "OJ: Made in America." It is attempting to put OJ, his crimes, his trial, and his acquittal into historical context. Nicole could have been a druggie, a hooker, a whatever one wants, none of that matters. She was a human being who became an innocent murder victim. That's the only thing of importance here.

Agreed, but I do feel a central conflict is weirdly absent from the documentary (or only very glancingly touched upon as personified by Marcia Clark contending with the instinctive dislike of many jurors for both Nicole and for her) that made the whole mess even uglier, and was very much debated and discussed (sometimes in very nasty terms) at the time: the intersection, or outright collision, of the issues of race and gender in America. So much concern for whether a black defendant could get justice — but there was also concern for whether a battered woman victim could get justice — most especially a beautiful, sexy woman victim whose whole "value" as a person, to herself and to the world, was wrapped up in those qualities. Layer upon that the prosecution's case that uncomfortably evokes the poisonous archetype of the predatory black man stealing the vulnerable white woman, and the whole situation was (and remains, I suppose) such a thicket of nastiness that anything seems possible in terms of what any given human being might bring to the situation in terms of personal experience or bias.

On June 15, 2016 at 8:05 AM, delicatecutter said:

Yes none of what [Nicole] did makes her any less of a victim of a horrible crime. But I see her as somewhat complicit in these games she and OJ played.

Sure, every relationship and family is a dynamic in which all members participate. That doesn't mean everyone has the same amount or kind of power. O.J. had money, influence, and physical domination, and he had been the most important person in Nicole's life since she was barely a legal adult.

Not to mention, we're once again committing that terrible oversight of leaving Ron Goldman out as if he wasn't just as much a victim of this crime and just as worthy of mention, mourning, and justice.

On June 15, 2016 at 8:13 AM, RCharter said:

I don't think it was logical.....it was emotional, but the emotions are understandable.  Years and years of abuse and being told that no matter what, the police are always right, the system is always right, and you are always wrong, and you should always just be put down and debased and you should just take it with a smile....and you better not say anything about it, because you're at fault for even complaining about abusive treatment.

Just a note about this comment — even though it's about the 1992 public unrest, I am struck by how it could apply just as easily to Nicole finally being fed up and ending her marriage for good — which, not for nothing, is always the most dangerous time for the victim in a domestic violence situation — something I think is much more generally known now than 20 years ago.

On June 15, 2016 at 7:02 AM, PreviouslyTV said:

'Part 2' uses the passing of years and screentime minutes to retell old stories.

View the full article

Quote

 

Edelman turns to the history of Simpson and Nicole Brown's marriage and the increasing violence and power imbalance in that relationship. Here again, Edelman does not package the 911 calls as safely as we may have gotten used to; they're allowed to play out, and to settle upon us the intransigent cluelessness of dispatch ("it's kinda busy in that division right now") and the irrational raging of Simpson. Made In America also spends more time with Nicole herself than any "O.J. case" property has, and it's the first real, dimensioned sense of her and what she was like, versus what she did and had done to her, that I've gotten. Many commentators and family members have lamented all along that Nicole and Ron Goldman themselves always disappear from the case somehow; their frustration about that is perfectly understandable, bust mostly irremediable, because the Catch-22 of the story of a murder case is that it begins where the story of the person killed has ended.

Edelman has more running time to play with, more room to interview friends and sisters and ex-boyfriends, and to show Nicole's journal, her flinty accounting of Simpson's abuse rendered in study-hall-note bubble script, her winning awkwardness at talking to babies. She always had the right hair. You can think what you want about l'affaire Marcus Allen, but if it did happen and if it did proceed from a vengeful desire to grudge-fuck Simpson into madness, that is just the combination of warrior spirit and petty point-scoring I enjoy, and I think I would have liked her. Edelman gives us time to recognize Nicole as a woman we know, a friend we've had or might meet, not merely a crumpled body or a cardboard saint in an '80s flip. Clock the footage from that karaoke night, Simpson drinking tequila and blathering to the camera; Nicole is off to the left, a trifle shy, happy that Simpson is happy, apprehensive about the Patron dime he might turn on later. Her Angela Chase-y little waltz step in and out of frame...there she is, herself. Breaks your heart.

 

Thank you Sarah for pointing this out. I think you're right that this is the first time I've seen Nicole so humanized, neither beatified as the perfect wife and mother nor condemned as druggie or whore. It is just the right note, since so much of the documentary is dedicated to demonstrating how enormous a persona O.J. was, that he eclipsed everyone and everything around him.

On June 15, 2016 at 8:06 AM, angelamh66 said:

I also found Fuhrman's presence to be jarring, especially with no lead-in.

[snip]...I will never understand the rioting, here or in any other similar instance. I do understand being so pissed off that you feel violent and like nothing would feel better than to act on that violence, but in this type of scenario doesn't it just give those that want to paint people of color in a certain violent and lawless light more ammo to do so? And I will never understand how beating a white truck driver nearly to death accomplishes anything for the cause.

I think it's brilliant that Fuhrman be present and horrifying yet appropriate that he appears completely unreconstructed and un-self-aware, still. Seems like the filmmaker made the choice to just let him be his own repellent self and let the thing speak for itself.

On June 15, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Kbilly said:

It absolutely broke my heart to see Nicole's repeated evidence of beatings, of OJ's friends saying they knew he "beat the hell out her" and that totally disgusting interview with Roy Firestone where they make light of and excuse his arrest for beating Nicole, OJ smiling and laughing and Firestone telling him "You bounce back from something like this". !!!!! Made me think--are we still doing this today? In light of the Johnny Depp-Amber Heard situation?

You bet we are! Look at the support offered to that football player a while back captured on video beating hell out of his wife (fiancé?).

On June 17, 2016 at 0:33 AM, Pollock said:

When the reward for taking (mostly) the high road for decades and turning the other cheek so often is humiliation upon humiliation upon further humiliation, it should be no surprise that at the end of the story, the moutain gave birth to a volcano. The first and second episodes did a good job showing the boiling pot. All I could think about was those rejoicing screams at the OJ verdict and I began to get why they were going to happen.

This series is a lot to take in on the racial front and after that on the abused women one, it became physically painful for me to watch. The silence about both of those issues was astounding. The other officers watching that man being beaten, friends and family watching Nicole being beaten. And nobody said anything. Nobody intervened. Doing nothing is an active gesture at the end of the day, and the series demonstrated it further. Those "micro-silences" really mirrored the things we choose to ignore as a society.

The documentary is so well done to capture his personality that I was rooting for young OJ. It conveyed really well his charm. I can't reconcile the hard working, mother loving, funny, generous, intelligent, eager to learn guy and the psycho who murdered two people, who almost decapitated the mother of his children while they were asleep, just left her on the frontdoor staircase for them to find and who butchered some random man who was just here at the wrong place and time. At the end of this episode, three hours in, I couldn't believe what was "about to happen". I mean, I know it, I've seen it in the news, I've seen American crime Story, I've read everything the forum talked about the case, I've read wikipedia, and still, I root for him and wish the story is going to change somehow. He's gonna be innocent. Nicole and Ron are still alive and well. Nicole's photograph carrer is florishing ; Ron's restaurant is a success. All of this was a bad joke, just a tv show. OJ is a productive member of the society and the role model he was destined to be. So sad. 

This is so well-stated, all of it. Sadly all of this feels very current still, the racial politics, the tolerance of and excuses made for domestic violence by popular celebrities, the desire for public heroes so strong we're willing to overlook almost anything.

On June 17, 2016 at 0:54 AM, RCharter said:

I understand people saying that rioting was illogical, and it probably was, but I understand it.  And honestly, I'm not sure what their other avenues were.  When the community sought justice, they were told that the cops can't be held liable for beating a man on video and that those same cops would go right back to policing their communities, they were told that a woman can shoot a 15 year old girl in the back of the head over orange juice and get probation.  The community tried going the legal route and were stymied over and over and over again.  

Your unique point of view makes me think that the rioting was not only a black eye to LA in the eyes of the nation, but to the eyes of the world.  And that may be part of the reason why so many changes were made following the OJ verdict and the riots.

Let's remember that while the unrest/rioting had an enormous impact on the city and had tremendous news value, it was a very tiny sliver of the community who was out there committing criminal acts, and even fewer of those committing violent acts. Most people living there were appalled also and devastated to be left picking up the pieces.

Also, sadly, while there were many calls for reform and for changes to be made (the high-profile Christopher Commission comes to mind), very little actual change occurred until years later, with the Rampart scandal and then William Bratton bringing his brand of policing to Los Angeles.

On June 17, 2016 at 9:38 AM, reggiejax said:

[snip]...nothing Clark has said in this doc has changed my mind one bit about how truly and colossally she fucked up.

I have always felt that Clark was really good at what she was really good at, but that she was unaware of her blind spots, and was unwilling and unable to adjust to this completely unprecedented situation. Ironically, I think she personally thought she could be as free of racial baggage as O.J. always thought he could be, and that was disastrous.

On June 17, 2016 at 0:17 PM, mojoween said:

...the riots really beat the shit out of Asian-owned businesses and now I wonder if the grossly under-punished murder of that young girl had something to do with it.

Absolutely. The Latasha Harlins murder and the 1992 unrest cracked open the already-volatile fault lines between the African-American and Korean-American communities (specifically Korean-American, since Koreatown is adjacent to South LA, and it was Korean immigrants who had increasingly assumed ownership of liquor stores and other small businesses in South LA, since they were affordable to purchase). It has taken years of hard work by community activists to repair some of that damage.

[O.J.: Made In America - Part 1]

5 hours ago, PreviouslyTV said:

Yes, 30 For 30's O.J. Simpson event is 'really that good.' Why you should turn on the Juice.

View the full article

Sarah, this entry is a little gem of personal criticism — I found it both moving and insightful. Thank you!

[Feed The Beast - General Discussion]

On June 8, 2016 at 8:17 AM, lordonia said:

Oy. Too many bad decisions and stupidity for me. Am I supposed to care and/or be rooting for these pitiful and unlikable men to succeed?

 

On June 8, 2016 at 4:12 PM, Ohwell said:

...I don't care for the woman who's in the grief counseling sessions with him.  She's a bad actress.  

I wanted to like this show, I really did — I like many of the actors and thought the premise was interesting, a mashup of many topics and genres that are right in my wheelhouse...

But the comments ⬆️⬆️⬆️ sum up the fatal problem in my mind, one that has rendered this show unwatchable for me with a quickness: this show is populated with men (and one woman!) who are relentlessly, unrelievedly repulsive, weak, selfish, nasty inside and out — many of them, like the cop and The Tooth Fairy, outright caricatures, although I can't tell whether that's intentional. This parade of human scum is broken only by the wife, the young boy, and the school counselor (and note that those good guy/at least not obvious reprobate characters are dead, mute, and one-dimensional, respectively).

i just don't want to spend time with these people. They're not interesting or funny or intense or unique enough for me to overlook what awful human beings they are.

[S03.E06: No Beast So Fierce]

I had sort of hoped the twin mysteries of the Talbot fortune and Ethan's lupine curse might be related.

But the only realistic way that parcel of land would be the source of substantial family wealth and power at that time would be if there were mineral and water rights attached and something worth mining underneath. Which would mean that it came at the expense of the Chiricahua and others previously living there.

But that is all speculation and anything that requires so much fanwanking on our part is a failure of storytelling on their part.

On June 9, 2016 at 6:47 AM, Athena said:

This episode should be titled "Ethan's Three Dads."

I like the actor who plays Rusk, but they've dragged his arc out long enough.

LOL @ Ethan's 3 Dads. Make that into a madcap sitcom format (only an hour instead of 30 minutes) and that would be a bottle episode I could get behind.

I will miss Rusk. The arc was getting tired, but I think he was underused and under-imagined. The gang could use a friend at the Met.

[S03.E06: No Beast So Fierce]

On June 5, 2016 at 10:19 PM, Tech Noir said:

 ...in HG Wells novel "The Time Machine" the protagonist has no name but in the 2002 movie they gave him the name "Hartdegen". Coincidence?

 

8 hours ago, Violet Impulse said:

I think not; the 2002 movie's screenplay was written by our own John Logan.

So do we think that Catriona the "thanatologist" is some kind of time traveling vampire slayer? That would be kind of awesome on its own as a concept but it feels like PD's plate is already so full this season and there is too much to properly season, cook, and digest already, if that metaphor isn't getting too tortured.

[S02.E01: War]

7 hours ago, fastiller said:

Just 'cause Romeo hit it off with Rachael, doesn't mean that he's not also into Darius.

Yes indeedy, bisexuality is a thing.

Plus all these other fluid sexual identities that seem to be emerging. Down with binaries!

[Lifetime Original Movies: Mother, May I Escape From My Terminally Ill Dangerous Ex? - General Discussion]

On May 27, 2016 at 7:38 PM, luckyroll3 said:

Has anyone else seen the trailer for the newly "revamped" Mother Can I Sleep with Danger?  It's ridiculously awesome!  Can't wait.

I'm disappointed this is not getting its own thread, given how large it looms in the TWoP and PTV pantheon! But I can't wait for the big ol' bloody trainwreck of camp this promises to be. Thank God Tori Spelling was available to work, amirite?

Judging from the trailer her acting has if anything gotten worse the past 20 years. She is the very model of the modern Perils of Pauline.

[S02.E01: War]

1 hour ago, wings707 said:

Darius' manager was banging Rachael in the opening scene up against the glass so no gay theme there.  They did that last season so wouldn't do that again anyway.

I saw that scene but thought it was airless, chemistry-free. And I would hope that we are beyond the time in modern entertainment that a "gay theme" considered broadly is considered so gimmicky that it would be a one-off for the run of the show.

9 minutes ago, Silo said:

I got the impression (which may be totally wrong) that they would each be in charge of alternating episodes and seeing who  could get the best reactions/make the most interesting TV from the women, not creating 2 different shows.

I got the opposite impression — two totally different shows. Now I am confused.

[S03.E06: No Beast So Fierce]

6 hours ago, ganesh said:

Please tell me someone else lol'd. "I am so over this family bickering." BOOM

Like, make that next week. No one makes fuck-me-eyes like Eva Green. swooooon

Having [Dorian] call out Victor on paying him back certainly has to pay off at some point. 

I totally snickered when Sir Malcolm stopped Talbot's long-winded threats about hunting his son from the grave with a single well-placed shot.

I also totally thought that the chemistry between Vanessa and Catriona was smoking! Much stronger than with Sweet/Dracula. Talk about needing a mask to avoid fainting from the fumes! HoYay ahoy!

Here's my second theory (so far) about how the Jekyll-Frankenstein lobotomy serum will end up being deployed — tonight's episode set us up for Dorian to call in his chit with Victor to use it on Lily because the way Lily has explained it to Dorian, she will never feel truly aligned with him as a free immortal because she cannot shake herself of her past baggage. And I think he's sick of running a home for wayward homicidal women.

9 hours ago, luckyroll3 said:

I love how Malcolm had no time for any of their shit!  He doesn't want to listen to you guilt your son.  He doesn't care to eat your food after you threatened all their lives and killed a guest at the table.  And he surely don't want to hear you mouth off about what a pussy your son is and how you will follow and haunt him after said son just spared your life.  Don't ever stop being a bad ass motherfucker,  Malcolm.  You are awesome!

Absolutely loved Vanessa's hair.  Not sure if it was cut or just tucked under, but it looked great on her. 

My husband, a film school graduate who does not watch PD, walked in on the final sequence and stayed because of Brian Cox, Timothy Dalton, and Josh Hartnett. He was a little thrown at first by Hecate's demon form ("why is there an alien in this shootout?") but otherwise he was totally spellbound and when the screen went to black after Sir Malcolm silenced Papa Talbot's cursing for good, hubs said, "this is an awesome show!"

I like Vanessa's hair this season also, even if it doesn't seem quite true to period — not "done" enough even for a less severe style. But it certainly works as she lets her hair down and loosens up in more ways than one.

On June 6, 2016 at 1:15 AM, Ravenya003 said:

Oh, this show and its anti-climactic deaths. Malcolm shooting Jared in the head was fun, but is that really it for Hecate and Rusk.

 

On June 6, 2016 at 1:15 AM, Ravenya003 said:

No way is all this going to be wrapped up satisfactorily in only three episodes.

It does feel very disjointed this season so far, as if the storytelling is becoming more diffuse rather than coming together as a whole.

On June 4, 2016 at 5:54 AM, sjohnson said:

^^^I nominate Rusk to continue as the antagonist who kills off the superfluous characters, Dorian, Victor and yes, Ethan. 

PS As we see, not to be. Alas!

He did get Hecate though so there's that. Who knew, last season, with all the stürm und drang about killing those witch bitches, that all it would take was a simple pistol shot to the shoulder. Anticlimactic, as ravenya003 says.

[S02.E01: War]

2 hours ago, Silo said:

who was the guy following the suitor around? His manager? Best friend? Entourage?

Was I the only one getting a boyfriend vibe off that relationship?

Also, much as I am glad this show is back, the biggest "ooh!" for me in this episode was the discovery that there is a James Franco remake of Mother May I Sleep With Danger! Airing later this month on Lifetime or LMN or maybe both? How did I not know this????? And where on PTV is it being discussed?

[S03.E06: No Beast So Fierce]

Other things to say later when my thoughts have crystallized into coherent conversation, but the inner 13-year-old will out (mine is far more immature and giggly than the preternaturally, tragically worldly Justine) and can't resist on this one right away:

On June 5, 2016 at 11:13 PM, Glade said:

[snip]

Could the serum change someone's sexuality from straight to gay? 

There are way too many carrots dangling at this point. 

Sooo very many dangling carrots on this show. Hee.