S01.E02: Subtle Beast

[kay1864]

6 hours ago, kieyra said:

2) And if he cleaned up in the bathroom,

I thought of that...but who showers only the front?  That's what I meant about the police photos possibly saving him. Her handprints etc were still on his back, but no blood on his face, chest or legs.  The blood on his back should have washed off as well.

[kieyra]

22 minutes ago, kay1864 said:

I thought of that...but who showers only the front?  That's what I meant about the police photos possibly saving him. Her handprints etc were still on his back, but no blood on his face, chest or legs.  The blood on his back should have washed off as well.

Ah, if her bloody handprints were literally on his back, I missed it. I did see scratches on his back during the sex, and it looked a little weird because they didn't look like completely FRESH scratches. But I couldn't watch all of the stuff where they had him strip for evidence collection (too intense for my personal neuroses), so I missed any actual blood besides him palm.

So if it IS on his back in small quantities, but nowhere else, then it does feel like we, the viewer, are not supposed to have much doubt that he didn't do it. 

[Ellaria]

10 hours ago, kieyra said:

So if it IS on his back in small quantities, but nowhere else, then it does feel like we, the viewer, are not supposed to have much doubt that he didn't do it. 

I think that we are supposed to wonder what happened that night. Naz is wondering what happened that night. He has said "I don't remember" and "I didn't do it" - very different statements. IMO, this isn't a show about Naz's absolute guilt or innocence. Nor is it a show about one suspect or one murder. Its about the criminal justice system. The larger question is whether or not he will be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

I don't think the lime knife is the murder weapon. Why would the killer - regardless of who it may be - put that knife back on the table? Also, was the killer - assuming that it is not Naz - aware that Naz was still in the house and was, most likely, passed out in the kitchen?

[numbnut]

20 hours ago, kieyra said:

3) Side note for people who may have missed it (not saying the person I'm quoting above missed it, just pointing it out), the blood on Naz's hand is from when he grabs the stair-rail post on his way out of the apartment. It was originally deposited by Andrea on her way up the stairs after her hand was stabbed. (I noticed this on the second viewing of the pilot.) I'm not sure there's any conceivable way they will differentiate that from the murder blood, but no idea. 

I'm puzzled by the blood mark on the railing. Why isn't it dry or semi-dry after sex and Naz passing out? Why would it still be so wet that Naz can leave a big wet print on the cab?

[Tara Ariano]

In case you missed it, here's the Previously.TV post on the episode!

The Night Of's Heart Of Stone

How a dark procedural commentary on criminal justice uses its protagonist, and his relationships and reputation, in just the right way.

[Margherita Erdman]

3 hours ago, Ellaria Sand said:

[snip] IMO, this isn't a show about Naz's absolute guilt or innocence. Nor is it a show about one suspect or one murder. Its about the criminal justice system.

To me also this show is about Naz's definite, irretrievable loss of innocence in the mythic, psychological sense. He is Parsifal, setting out as a total naïf and armed only with the memories of love and support from family and community. Suddenly he is having experiences and fighting battles for which he is wholly unprepared, and he will never ever be the same, no matter the outcome of his criminal case.

I am simultaneously dreading and eagerly awaiting the Riker's Island arc. I trust Price and Zaillian have something really amazing in store for us, difficult though it may be to watch.

[The Hound Lives]

21 hours ago, Margherita Erdman said:

To me also this show is about Naz's definite, irretrievable loss of innocence in the mythic, psychological sense. He is Parsifal, setting out as a total naïf and armed only with the memories of love and support from family and community. Suddenly he is having experiences and fighting battles for which he is wholly unprepared, and he will never ever be the same, no matter the outcome of his criminal case.

I am simultaneously dreading and eagerly awaiting the Riker's Island arc. I trust Price and Zaillian have something really amazing in store for us, difficult though it may be to watch.

This...so much this. We may not see the aftermath, if there is an aftermath for Naz, on how this shapes his life moving forward but I think we have already seen a pronounced change. When he was talking to his parents, he understandably left much out. He said he was with the girl. Nothing about the drugs, the drinking or the sex. This of course will all come out and will wear on them, as much as him. I expect the parents to lay blame on themselves for what may be painted as a young guy out trolling for sex/drugs. 
But after he gave Mom and Dad the cliff notes his demeanor changed. Changes that are, yes, so subtle.
He looked at the camera. He echoed Stone while talking about Box..."He's a subtle beast". I wonder if the episode title isn't just about Box but also Naz, and moving forward (eventually) Stone. The players aren't equals...yet. As it all unravels, I don't think it will be about who can outsmart who because I don't think this is a tale about someone trying to get away with murder. This isn't a "cat & mouse" game. I feel like even as all the pieces of the puzzle are revealed, slowly and unassumingly with some things we may not even realize are a piece, we will be like a kid staring at a Where's Waldo book. We can stare at all the evidence for hours and still not figure out what we are missing, till like a friggin' lightening bolt, it actually makes sense. I am kind of hoping to have my mind blown. 

I am mentally preparing myself to be devastated by Naz's arc, not only in court but at Rikers. 

[The Solution]

On 7/20/2016 at 10:04 PM, kieyra said:

Ah, if her bloody handprints were literally on his back, I missed it. I did see scratches on his back during the sex, and it looked a little weird because they didn't look like completely FRESH scratches. But I couldn't watch all of the stuff where they had him strip for evidence collection (too intense for my personal neuroses), so I missed any actual blood besides him palm.

So if it IS on his back in small quantities, but nowhere else, then it does feel like we, the viewer, are not supposed to have much doubt that he didn't do it. 

Didn't she wrap her hand at some point after she stabbed it?

[kieyra]

35 minutes ago, The Solution said:

Didn't she wrap her hand at some point after she stabbed it?

Would need someone else to confirm. I thought they went straight from the hand-stabbing to sex. 

Meanwhile, had lunch with a friend who said he never saw any blood on Naz's back, only scratches.

Guess we would all make terrible witnesses.

Edit: Also, you say after 'she' stabbed it, but pretty sure Naz was the one who drove the knife through her hand. 

Edited July 22, 2016 by kieyra

[Joimiaroxeu]

OMG, I did not need to see a cell phone being pulled out of a guy's butt, with sound effects. This show might be a little too real.

As others have expressed upthread, there's something not right to me about the dead girl's stepfather. If this were a soap opera  (or Law & Order: SVU) the ME would discover that the girl is pregnant and a DNA test of the fetus would point to him. I hope the show doesn't go that route.

[Portia]

On 7/22/2016 at 2:35 PM, kieyra said:

Would need someone else to confirm. I thought they went straight from the hand-stabbing to sex. 

Meanwhile, had lunch with a friend who said he never saw any blood on Naz's back, only scratches.

Guess we would all make terrible witnesses.

Edit: Also, you say after 'she' stabbed it, but pretty sure Naz was the one who drove the knife through her hand. 

Yes, Naz was the one who stabbed her hand. And yes, they went straight to the sex stuff. 

[scrb]

Can't imagine Tony Soprano in the lawyer role.  I'd expect him to emotionally and physically intimidate his clients if he was getting frustrated by them not following his directions.

Though TBH, I never saw Gandolfini in anything else.

[Addlepated]

On July 21, 2016 at 10:00 AM, numbnut said:

I'm puzzled by the blood mark on the railing. Why isn't it dry or semi-dry after sex and Naz passing out? Why would it still be so wet that Naz can leave a big wet print on the cab?

He cut his hand breaking back into the house. The blood is his own. 

[kieyra]

56 minutes ago, Addlepated said:

He cut his hand breaking back into the house. The blood is his own. 

Interesting. I think we're both right. I just rewatched some pieces. (EDITED TO ADD: I realize now we may not actually be disagreeing, and you may just be explaining the taxi stain.)

1) They show a lingering closeup of Andrea's bloody hand on the post. It's obviously intentional.

2) The camera focuses on Naz's RIGHT hand on the post on his way out. It's not as long a take, but it's still obviously intentional. 

3) You're right, he seems to cut his hand when he reaches into the broken window--with his LEFT hand.

4) He leaves a bloody handprint on the taxi roof with his LEFT hand. 

5) But in the police precinct, when he first takes out the phone and calls his parents, you can see a round, blurred bloody imprint on his RIGHT palm as he holds the phone. 

I believe the two closeup shots of palms on the post were intentional. And Andrea's hand was bleeding so badly the blood could definitely still be tacky when Naz touches it later with a lot of force with his RIGHT palm (the entire event only takes a few hours). 

That said, his left hand also seems bleeding (presumably his own blood). The handprint from his LEFT hand on the taxi looks fresh. The blood on his RIGHT palm is drying and darker in the scene with the phone. 

The list above is not from memory, I just re-watched those scenes a minute ago. But caveats:

1) Didn't have the patience to try to find the multiple quick shots where he looks down at his palms.

2) I can't watch the strip-search scene.

Edited July 24, 2016 by kieyra

[Margherita Erdman]

13 hours ago, scrb said:

Can't imagine Tony Soprano in the lawyer role.  I'd expect him to emotionally and physically intimidate his clients if he was getting frustrated by them not following his directions.

Though TBH, I never saw Gandolfini in anything else.

I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have been Tony Soprano who showed up.

If you read some of the articles linked in the media thread or elsewhere, it's mentioned that before his death Galdolfini filmed the first episode with a full beard and, yes, sandals. I'm imagining a shambling mess of a presentation belying the intellect and fire beneath, different from Turturro's take of course because they have such different energies and physical types, but still the same hangdog, Columbo, ne'er do well, jailhouse bottom feeder thing going on.

And I highly recommend checking out Gandolfini's other work, especially his more vulnerable and comic roles. Apparently these were much closer to his true personality — shy, warm, a bit of a homebody preferring the company of close friends and family.

[TaraS1]

Just finished the first two episodes and l love everything about it...except the actor playing the stepfather. I groaned out loud when I saw him, because I hated his performance on the last season of House of Cards and he's doing the same monotone, low energy, creepy thing here. I'm not a fan. 

[ganesh]

The arguments for bail were most interesting to me. I actually thought bail would have been set at a high amount and not just Naz remanded right to Rikers. The argument is circumstantial.

I'm surprised Box is so confident that the killer is Naz in his conversation to the AD. I mean, I get, "tell me what I'm missing." Well, you're actually a high up murder detective. There's nothing here that seems off?

I also liked the other criminals in the court being all like "oh damn" when they read out Naz' alleged crimes. 

I just don't see that he actually did it because if he blacked out and then remembers he actually did, he would just kill himself. That's just not sustainable as a tv show.

I'm not particularly interested in Naz "losing his innocence" at Rikers because that just seems like a contrived 80s tv movie, so I'm really hoping there's more to this.

[Margherita Erdman]

3 hours ago, ganesh said:

I'm surprised Box is so confident that the killer is Naz in his conversation to the AD. I mean, I get, "tell me what I'm missing." Well, you're actually a high up murder detective. There's nothing here that seems off?

I don't think that Box really is that confident or convinced, but he doesn't have anything concrete to support his doubts, and the DA is demanding that he reassure her that he will stand behind this arrest 100% when it goes to trial, so that's what he's giving her.

Begs the many questions raised in this forum related to what the hell is up with the forensics investigation and wouldn't that yield some discrepancies that would give Box some actual evidence to hang his doubts on?

3 hours ago, ganesh said:

I'm not particularly interested in Naz "losing his innocence" at Rikers because that just seems like a contrived 80s tv movie, so I'm really hoping there's more to this.

Curious what you mean by a contrived '80s movie (I can understand not being interested in the the innocence lost thing — although it's totally my thing — but IMO, IME, when something like that goes off it usually goes in a pretentious art house direction)...

In any case, I think your comment illustrates a real strength of the series — which is that it is so complex and multi-layered that it engages viewers for all kinds of reasons: those absorbed in the timelines and blood evidence (not my thing at all, not for the purpose of this story) as well as those who enjoy "reading" the meta mythic motifs in play... and everything in between.

[ganesh]

If Box isn't that confident, I'd like to see some scene that indicates it. Everyone one agrees that it doesn't look good for Naz, but that's not really relevant. As it stands I don't think this is 'beyond a reasonable doubt' at all. He's not cut, there's no signs of struggle. He wasn't covered in blood when he woke up. 

I'm just more interested in seeing how this case unravels rather than focusing on Naz in prison getting either beat up or not and all the things you see on tv about prison. I've seen that. 

[scrb]

When Box was talking to the DA, it made me wonder if cops and DAs under the pressure of a high-profile case would railroad a suspect because he's handy or they just want to get a big notch on their belts.

Obviously Crowe is doing it for just that reason, not some vague notions of justice that a publicity-hounding lawyer may have.

How often do cops and DAs prosecute because they can build a case, regardless of whether they have doubts?

Edited July 25, 2016 by scrb

[LittleIggy]

John Turturro is aces, as usual. As an avid Coen Bros. fan, I just love him.

[Negritude]

As someone with a relatively mild case of eczema it struck me as odd that the dermatologist would recommend applying Crisco to Stone's feet. But what do I know, maybe it helps and I should try it.

[Happytobehere]

On July 20, 2016 at 2:35 PM, The Hound Lives said:

I wonder if he was an up-and-coming lawyer with a great pedigree that really screwed something up. He was adamant that Naz not give him details, instead waiting on the prosecution to make the first move before they establish their story. That seems really odd. Lawyers are all about the fine details and spinning those "facts" to suit their client. Maybe he had a client that he knew was guilty of something heinous and got them off, only to have them offend again. Maybe he got busted for withholding evidence. Who knows...I just feel there is more to the "washed up Lawyer makes the big time" angle. 
And Naz is the unassuming guinea pig in Stone's attempt to re-establish his status. Damn, I cannot wait for Sunday. 

It is common practice for an attorney not to want to know about their client's guilt.  As officers of the court, if the know their client is guilty, the defense they can mount is limited.  For example,  they then can't put the client on the stand because that would be suborning perjury.  Along the same lines, know too much might hamper a lawyer's ability to mount a defense, seeing as many defenses are rooted in speculation, if you know too much, your speculation could cost you dearly.

I'm not discounting your theory, because I think Stone's character will play a part in the telling of the story, but his not wanting to know about Naz's innocence or guilt doesn't indicate anything other that Stone is a lawyer trying to do his job.