S01.E08: The Call of the Wild

[Neurochick]

11 hours ago, tennisgurl said:

To me, the cat represented all the people who are screwed over by the legal system, all the people who are chewed up and spit out by an uncaring system, who are abandoned, ignored, and passed off by uncaring people, and are eventually abandoned, possibly to their death or misery. But, in the end, Stone took the cat home, which means that, despite everything, there are people who care about these people, and will go the extra mile for them. The system is a mess, but it is not without hope, and there are still good people out there who want to help, even if its costs them. I honestly really love that last scene, and I think it says more about where I think this show was trying to go more than anything else that has happened. Plus that song was lovely. 

I agree with this.  Stone was the one who went that extra mile, and despite everything, took in the cat, it's like both the cat and Naz were secondary victims of Andrea's murder.

One more thing, Chandra's boss, what a nasty witch.  She could have said, "and clean our your desk" not "and clean out your FUCKING desk."  That showed me how low class the woman was; that she projects this air of class and respectability, that she put herself above Stone, "I'm a real lawyer" she told Naz's family.  But in the end, she cursed at Chandra like some no class, uneducated hood rat.

[BooBear]

7 hours ago, Refresh said:

All the legal procedure in this show was nutty. I'm not a lawyer either, I just get called for Jury duty a lot. Let me count the ways I noticed .. Do lawyers lean on the stand like the prosecutor did to Naz during questioning? No. There were barely any objections. There was a table of evidence (bloody lamp, seriously?) unwrapped sitting in the room 24/7. It's just silly.

The legal stuff was the worst. If they have another series they will have to get someone who really knows what they are doing. When lay people are noticing, you have a problem, and none of the things that weren't done right were done that way for great storytelling reasons. But yes... the exhibits can be left out in the room 24-7. The courtroom is locked when not in session.   So that doesn't seem crazy. The really sensitive exhibits can be taken back by their owners overnight so it is possible that Helen just took the knife with her when they were not in session.  I did personally like the idea that Helen changed her shoes before leaving at the end. I know so many prosecutors who do such things, typically their office is not in the courthouse.

For me this series was the best thing on during the summer. But it did have problems.  For me the biggest problem was Naz. He just wasn't sympathetic to me. He turned into a prison person too easy and their attempt to introduce doubt made me worry that Naz had that darkness in him.  The end of the series Naz was most sympathetic. But one thing I never heard that would have been helpful was any sort of Naz beating himself up for getting involved with Andrea anyway.  If it were me that would be the biggest thing. He was rather unsympathetic getting up on the high horse with his mom at the end with his tattoed body and after basically destroying their lives.

Chandra was also not believable as written.  Even a small plot point showing that she didn't like being a lawyer or that she was rebelling against her parents or conservative family might have worked. But without that... she wasn't just "a lawyer" -- she was a lawyer at a top firm. You don't get there by making poor decisions. I guess I could see her ambition to get Naz on the stand could blind her to the danger of smuggling drugs. But even that was a bone headed move. What was up with her crying in court. OMG that should have been when Stone asked the Judge for a mistrial. When your own lawyer is crying... geeze.

But I feel like this show and criminal justice had this thesis to it, like look what happens to this poor kid. But in a very real way it seems like that has to be the way it is.  People have to use their judgment to avoid these situations.  So the situation can't be too perfect and kind or people wouldn't want to avoid them. Naz I hope, will be more careful in the future. If he isn't oh well.  Can a few things be fixed? Yes.  but also I feel like this story made things too dire to drive its point home. I do think that Naz would have gotten some form of bail.

[Milburn Stone]

When show creators aren't skillful, I can have all kinds of problems. But when they are supremely skillful, as Price and Zaillian have proven themselves to be, I tend to go with whatever decisions they make. I don't say, "Why didn't they do this instead of that?" or "I would have liked it better if." I say, "Whether or not I would have liked more certainty as to Nas's innocence, the show Price and Zaillian wanted to make denied me that absolute certainty. Whether or not Chandra would have really put Nas on the stand, the show Price and Zaillian wanted to make had her put Nas on the stand." Etc. I went with every decision they made--pretty much saying, "Blow in my ear and I'll follow you anywhere"--and was rewarded for it, because they're just that good.

But mileage varies.

[kieyra]

I can't think of a single showrunner or team who gets carte blanche from me. Even Vince Gilligan & Co have done some fumbling with Better Call Saul. No one is infallible; everyone makes missteps.

And sometimes you get True Detective season 2. ;) 

[benteen]

23 minutes ago, kieyra said:

I can't think of a single showrunner or team who gets carte blanche from me. Even Vince Gilligan & Co have done some fumbling with Better Call Saul. No one is infallible; everyone makes missteps.

And sometimes you get True Detective season 2. ;) 

Very true.  I wasn't as crazy about Better Call Saul Season 2 as a lot of other people were, despite liking the show.

If I had a problem with one thing, I think it was the fact that no one, not the cops or Chandra, found the earlier video footage of Andrea with Ray. 

[Neurochick]

1 hour ago, BooBear said:

If it were me that would be the biggest thing. He was rather unsympathetic getting up on the high horse with his mom at the end with his tattoed body and after basically destroying their lives.

Chandra was also not believable as written.  Even a small plot point showing that she didn't like being a lawyer or that she was rebelling against her parents or conservative family might have worked. But without that... she wasn't just "a lawyer" -- she was a lawyer at a top firm. You don't get there by making poor decisions. I guess I could see her ambition to get Naz on the stand could blind her to the danger of smuggling drugs. But even that was a bone headed move. What was up with her crying in court. OMG that should have been when Stone asked the Judge for a mistrial. When your own lawyer is crying... geeze.

First, Naz didn't destroy his parent's lives.  That's the point of the show.  What happened to him could have happened to anybody.  I mean Naz's and Andrea's encounter looked like something you'd see in some JJ Abrams relationship drama, meaning there wasn't anything sinister about it IMO.

I think that what happened to Naz could happen to almost anyone.  It kind of reminded me of a movie I saw decades ago, The Lost Honor of Kathryn Beck.

I got Chandra when I watched again.  She got cocky, pure and simple.  She was winning and wanted to put Naz on the stand, because she thought it would be a good idea.  When she told Naz, he told her that he needed to get high before, and that's how she wound up scoring drugs for him.  Interesting that when she got into trouble, it wasn't for scoring the drugs, it was for the kiss. 

[ganesh]

Are people really taking the cat too seriously? CAT= NAZ was shoved down our figurative throats. There were close up on the cat, scenes that dealt with only the cat, and the final scene, the final shot was the cat. I think if you're featuring a cat that much on your show, then it's going to engender a lot of discussion. 

I think most of us here much have watched a different show than the rest of the world because people were gushing all over it on my FB feed. 

 

Quote

I can't think of a single showrunner or team who gets carte blanche from me.

No, that's not how it works. There's a level of buy in for every show. Putting Naz on the stand is a dramatic choice. It's rare irl, but ok, I can buy it. No one questioning why a 23 y/o druggie lives in such an extravagant house until months later, that's a little much. A detective with 30+ years and 300 cases not immediately noticing the alleged murderer didn't have a spot of blood on him is absurd. Even somebody burnt out or just ready to retire would pick up on that on muscle memory alone. 

Edited August 30, 2016 by ganesh
car radio

[Neurochick]

49 minutes ago, ganesh said:

I think most of us here much have watched a different show than the rest of the world because people were gushing all over it on my FB feed. 

Does that mean we're too critical, or are others not critical enough?

[ganesh]

I don't think bringing up obvious and glaring missteps is too critical. They were giving it way too much of a pass. 

[candall]

For me, the finale was excellent.  I was pleading with my television screen on several points:  PLEASE let Naz walk out of Rikers safely.  PLEASE let the cat come home.  PLEASE let Box step up (and have it matter.)  PLEASE let Stone save the day in court and PLEASE don't send Naz to prison for any of x, y or z reasons.

In every single instance, I was pretty damn sure the show was going to dash my hopes, purely for the sake of being "gritty."  (Man, did this show ever love the grit.)  But, no!  I got every last toy on my Christmas list, which was such a nice surprise.

 

They did all that and still maintained the darkness.  Every character was bloodied and disillusioned at the end.  I loved Stone's bleak summation to Naz:  the wheel keeps turning--you don't really matter in the long run so the best you can do is shoulder your load and try to learn something as you go; fuck everything else.

clap clap clap

[The Hound Lives]

9 minutes ago, ganesh said:

I don't think bringing up obvious and glaring missteps is too critical. They were giving it way too much of a pass. 

I think some people just didn't get invested in to many details. I don't necessarily think it's giving it too much of a pass because what works for some, won't work for others. When it comes down to it, if you are invested enough to post on a message board then you will be critical of things that don't wash. I pretty much praised everything about this show. I loved it. There are things I wish they had done differently or explored more, absolutely, but I was heavily invested in the outcome for Naz, Stone, Box (sorry, not really the kitty). It's not without it's flaws, some glaring, but perfection doesn't exist in this medium for me. Even my favorites of all-time, The Wire and Game Of Thrones, have some serious head-scratching moments that don't make a lick of sense (GoT, definitely) but I tend to forgive those missteps because the overall products has a quality that dwarfs pretty much everything else on television for me. 
I think the writers gave us a solid, well-paced character driven story that did break a mold. It wasn't about showy twists (though I kind of wanted to have my mind blown) or all the fine details of a crime that truly was secondary to the character study but it worked for me as a whole. And it was some of the best acting on television in a long time. The things left unsaid by the characters, had just as much impact as the things said. 

[iMonrey]

I'll have to disagree, Hound. I too was invested but not because the series as a whole was so well written and executed. I thought the pilot episode was compelling as hell, but the story lapsed into tiresome cliches and retreads of familiar TV tropes for the next six episodes. It was the pilot alone that kept me invested and kept me watching. I wanted to see how it ended. And it did redeem itself somewhat in the finale. I was satisfied with the way it ended, so there's that. I was able to walk away from it without having to say "I wasted eight weeks on this." But the middle six weeks did have an awful lot of wasted opportunity. The show never really lived up to its potential after crafting such a well constructed storyline in the first episode. 

And I think a lot of viewers will stick with a show if the pilot catches their attention, even if the show goes downhill afterwards. The fact that we knew this was going to be an eight-episode, limited series made it easier to stick with it. Not the great writing or the compelling characters, just the time limit and the promise of an end. 

On the other hand, had this show been presented as a first season of an ongoing story, I think a lot more viewers would have bailed early on.

[Irlandesa]

14 hours ago, represent said:

I see James Gandolfini was a producer. I wonder if they would have continued with this for another season if he hadn't passed away. Although there are other producers but... Or, was this a play or something before it came to HBO? I haven't read anything on it.

It's based on a British series called Criminal Justice.  I haven't seen it but the story description tracks pretty closely to what we got with The Night Of.  Gandolfini was originally going to play Stone. HBO initially passed but then decided to do the show. When he passed away, DeNiro was going to do the part.  Scheduling conflicts led to Turturro taking over the lead role.  So the show already survived Gandolfini's death.  They could have easily chosen to not do it after his death and DeNiro pulling out.

As for another season, I wonder if True Detective has made HBO a bit gunshy.  They might be better off doing these types of criminal mysteries, like True Detective, annually but with different concepts, titles and creators.  

1 hour ago, Neurochick said:

Does that mean we're too critical, or are others not critical enough?

Neither.  When I binge, as I did with this show, I tend to be more forgiving.  When I watch weekly, the smaller critiques I see, as well as what I read here, can sometimes make me more frustrated than I would otherwise be.  OTOH, online discussion can sometimes make a show better because people see things that I don't.  I don't think either way is wrong.  There were things I loved about this show--the acting, the atmosphere, the cat--that I'm glad I enjoyed without focusing too much on the lack of blood evidence.  Then there were things, like Chandra/Naz, that even in binging I couldn't ignore. 

But people watch for different things and in different ways so if their way meant they enjoyed it, good for them. It's not like the show had nothing to offer even with its missteps.  And if they bailed, also good for them.

[Neurochick]

1 hour ago, ganesh said:

I don't think bringing up obvious and glaring missteps is too critical. They were giving it way too much of a pass. 

But you might think something is a misstep, but another person might not. 

It's like in the show, I can't understand what drugs the six jurors who thought Naz was guilty were taking. 

As soon as ketamine was mentioned, I groaned, that's why Naz was knocked out and can't remember.   Ketamine makes you immobile, and messes with your memory, it's the date rape drug.  No way could Naz have killed her if he took that.

[ganesh]

I don't think it's unreasonable to have a high standard over sloppiness and laziness for a show. Something like the 6-6 jury just seems a way to back out an ending. Even with a hack lawyer there was way more then enough reasonable doubt. Don't say he was given special K then. One can easily drink a ton of tequila and black out. Trust me. That would make more sense for a 6-6 jury. 

I don't know if they thought a not guilty verdict was too predictable or what. There didn't seem to be any reasoning behind it. I guess the point could be that people wouldn't know for sure if he did it or not, but I didn't see any fallout from that, so why bother? It's almost more tragic if there was a not guilty verdict. His family is ruined and he's still hooked on drugs. It seemed like there were a lot of good ideas but just not enough room to follow or think through on them all. 

There's too much taken collectively for the show to receive the gushing I was reading. I could have stopped watching, but I liked Stone and the cat and I wanted to see how Naz got off. But this was a C+ show at best. Not a waste of time, but after this week, it's probably going to fade away as I move on to the other shows I want to watch. 

[Superpole2000]

2 hours ago, ganesh said:

I think most of us here much have watched a different show than the rest of the world because people were gushing all over it on my FB feed.

Yeah, but we're used to Facebook extremism. If something isn't the absolute worst (and this show was definitely not that bad) then it is usually the absolute best. Few people would write "Watched a moderately above average TV show tonight," except on a TV forum such as this one.

• "Picked vinaigrette as my salad dressing today. The absolute best salad ever!"
• "Heard about a possible Wham! reunion concert. The absolute best band ever!"
• "Saw The Night Of finale. The absolute best TV show ever!"

Or perhaps I just cannot understand how anyone (outside of eczema sufferers and people who think they will be reincarnated as a cat) would give this show a glowing review. It was a fine show that did a lot of things well. The finale was quite strong, but the show lost points for some questionable plot points and an overall lack of entertaining content. They packed a lot into this one season, but a lot of it wasn't particularly entertaining. Some of it looked like scenes edited out of more exciting shows.

[The Hound Lives]

52 minutes ago, iMonrey said:

I'll have to disagree, Hound. I too was invested but not because the series as a whole was so well written and executed. I thought the pilot episode was compelling as hell, but the story lapsed into tiresome cliches and retreads of familiar TV tropes for the next six episodes. It was the pilot alone that kept me invested and kept me watching. I wanted to see how it ended. And it did redeem itself somewhat in the finale. I was satisfied with the way it ended, so there's that. I was able to walk away from it without having to say "I wasted eight weeks on this." But the middle six weeks did have an awful lot of wasted opportunity. The show never really lived up to its potential after crafting such a well constructed storyline in the first episode. 

And I think a lot of viewers will stick with a show if the pilot catches their attention, even if the show goes downhill afterwards. The fact that we knew this was going to be an eight-episode, limited series made it easier to stick with it. Not the great writing or the compelling characters, just the time limit and the promise of an end. 

On the other hand, had this show been presented as a first season of an ongoing story, I think a lot more viewers would have bailed early on.

I felt it was solid, even with the missed opportunities. I'm okay with them, though believe me I wanted more from those moments (the blood evidence, the family interaction, the community reaction). I understand your point though, seeing that it is a short season that had a strong premier episode to hook. Not much to lose to see it through. 
I personally think a strong start then a floundering mid-season would make more people turn a show off, than hang on but you are right. There was no harm not seeing this through because the end is in sight.  
I was one of those viewers who lost their mind at the first handful of episodes of "True Blood". I did see the whole first season through, then I got to episode 1 of Season 2 and realized no matter how crafty and different the story line was, the acting was some of the worst I have ever seen. So, maybe I will hang on for compelling performances over substance. 

I simply think a lot of viewers don't dissect every look, sigh or sign. They watch things unfold as presented, may question where things are going or where things went (like on GoT, wherethehellisGendry?!), but don't spend much time questioning these things because they would rather just enjoy what is given, not what's missing. I am usually that type of casual viewer, with a few exceptions over the years of shows/performances that have really grabbed me. I'm not surprised by the reactions at all and I feel the praise is deserved. Not a flawless production but I stand by my thought that it was pretty damn good. 

[Magic]

I enjoyed waiting each week to see the new episode so I give them that.

The cat was a fun and cute inclusion.

But Chandra, no.  There is no way someone good enough to stand out and get hired by some big name firm, who probably has wracked up a quarter million or more in student loans, is ever going to sacrifice their career and life on some client charged with murder she has hardly said 10 words to. In the earlier episodes, she and Stone were preparing their case without interacting with Naz at all.  And the kiss is one thing, but committing a federal crime by smuggling in drugs, no way.  And no way would a new lawyer hired by a hot shot firm be so incompetent to put the defendant on the stand, that was the worse of the things she did, but there were plenty of other times she was too incompetent to match the firm she was hired.  Now, if Stone had hired her, that would make more sense.

Andrea's entire backstory is another hole in this series.  We hardly learned a thing about her other than what we say in the first episode, except her financial status.  Nothing else at all about who she was and what she spent her time doing.  Hell someone had to know she had a boyfriend in that financial planner.  You would think she would throw it in her stepfather's face and he would bring it up to the police.  All those stab wounds bring up a potential crime of passion so he would have been under the microscope himself.   If we had learned any of her backstory from a police investigation it would be more obvious who could be real potential suspects, but to get none of her backstory in this supposedly well publicized case - it is another no way.

And what about the blood evidence???  Not on Naz, which seem obvious on the photos taken when he was arrested.  He obviously didn't shower from the smudged blood on his back and there wasn't enough blood on him otherwise.  But blood hardly enters trial discussion, especially from the defense. 

And Freddy doesn't make sense to me either.  How he got the CD of the Chandra/Naz kiss evidence to Stone or was it Box who gave it to Stone I couldn't follow that trail at all.  And what about the drug smuggling tape why not include it?  Or, do you think Freddy would even let Naz leave prison if he had a chance of keeping him there?  Hard for me to believe.

I think Gobi does manage to tie the glaring holes together better than the director did.

But, even though I ended up with a lot of questions, which don't deserve to be there, and I think the director/producers made some bad judgements with what to put in and what to ignore, I still enjoyed it overall and I like the hung jury ending and the DA not pushing her closing argument as much as she could have, showing perhaps she does still have a heart after seeing those photos of the financial guy from Box. 

But I have to say again, Gobi's version makes more sense, so there is that on the director/producer.

[Margherita Erdman]

1 hour ago, iMonrey said:

...I think a lot of viewers will stick with a show if the pilot catches their attention, even if the show goes downhill afterwards. The fact that we knew this was going to be an eight-episode, limited series made it easier to stick with it. Not the great writing or the compelling characters, just the time limit and the promise of an end. 

On the other hand, had this show been presented as a first season of an ongoing story, I think a lot more viewers would have bailed early on.

[Raises hand.]

1 hour ago, Irlandesa said:

It's based on a British series called Criminal Justice.  I haven't seen it but the story description tracks pretty closely to what we got with The Night Of. 

The capsule description will sound the same, the cast of characters is almost identical, and many details are shared, but now that The Night Of is done & dusted, my strong reaction is that the original shines much brighter (and not just because it's shot in harsh London light rather than dim noir tones). Equally well-acted, but no cat, far less eczema, maybe 99% fewer red herrings and dropped plotlines, and overall (in my opinion of course!) far better characterization and plotting, including approximately 100% less pretension.

Anyone who enjoyed this, or wanted to enjoy this, or thought they would enjoy this but didn't — I highly recommend seeking out the original.

[AuntiePam]

1 hour ago, Magic said:

And Freddy doesn't make sense to me either.  How he got the CD of the Chandra/Naz kiss evidence to Stone or was it Box who gave it to Stone I couldn't follow that trail at all.  And what about the drug smuggling tape why not include it?  Or, do you think Freddy would even let Naz leave prison if he had a chance of keeping him there?  Hard for me to believe.

One of the guards could have taken the CD to Stone's apartment.  Freddy probably didn't include the drug smuggling because he didn't want Chandra to go to jail -- he just wanted a mistrial for Naz. 

Re: Freddy wanting Naz to stay -- if Naz had been found Guilty, who's to say he'd stay at Rikers?  He might have been sent somewhere else.  Freddy was sad at losing Naz, but he didn't want to see Naz become more hardened.   

[Gobi]

15 hours ago, The Hound Lives said:

Interesting thing I just caught on a re-watch. Andrea was murdered October 2014, correct? 
When Chandra went to buy the pills for Naz, the security camera on the street filmed it. The date was November 2015 (I believe). I am sure someone else mentioned this up thread but I was happy to get an idea of how long Naz has been at Riker's. 
This show really is about the smallest details. 

Good catch. It does make things more believable, especially Naz's transformation, if this took place over a year. My problem is that I never had a sense during the show as to how much time had passed. If asked, I would have guessed a few weeks, a couple of months. I'm all for subtle story telling, but expecting viewers to catch the time on a video to figure out how much time had gone by is a bit much. The change of seasons is quite noticeable in New York, and I never saw it here - not the scenery, the clothes, nothing. I was wondering how Dwayne was arrested, tried, and sent to prison in the short amount of time I was aware of, and before Naz's trial had even started.

[iMonrey]

Quote

Andrea's entire backstory is another hole in this series. 

And part of me wonders if there was a deliberate decision to leave some of the story for a second or even third season. There are different expectations on American television than on British TV. Our shows are much more driven by the market and any American station is going to want to squeeze every last cent they can get out of a show. So even something that is sold as a "limited series" is being produced by people who are thinking about money the whole time and how they can make more of it.

But beyond the missing pieces there were certainly missteps, and one of the biggest was probably portraying the crime as some kind of national media sensation with Nancy Grace all over the TV talking about it. That just didn't add up with anything else - the lack of crowds in and around the court house during the trial, the lack of media pounding on people's doors, the friends of the victim that should have been coming out of the woodwork to be on TV. 

I'm also assuming Naz could now make a fortune selling his story since this was such a national case. Right?? Where were all the news cameras when he was released from prison? Where's Nancy Grace now?

Edited August 30, 2016 by iMonrey

[ganesh]

10 minutes ago, Gobi said:

My problem is that I never had a sense during the show as to how much time had passed. If asked, I would have guessed a few weeks, a couple of months... I'm all for subtle story telling, but expecting viewers to catch the time on a video to figure out how much time had gone by is a bit much. 

Me too. It seemed like barely days. I missed the video. 

[kieyra]

Not to defend the way Chandra was written, but accused murderers do take the stand in their own defense. I mentioned yesterday I just got done following a long murder trial with a defendant who did just that (Mark Smich), and of course there are the narcissists like Jodi Arias. 

Mark Smich in particular had a very good lawyer and was very well-prepared. (It still didn't work--there was way too much evidence against him.)

Edited August 30, 2016 by kieyra

[stagmania]

I tend to be the exact opposite of some here-when a show is obviously high quality, I hold it to a higher standard, not a lower one. This show had all the makings of top tier television, completely stacked with amazing writers, directors, producers and actors, and yet the creators failed to bother with nailing down the basics of storytelling. Consistent characterization, pacing and temporal logic, cohesive plotting, following the rules of the established universe (i.e. maintaining some level of credible realism re: court procedure)-they played fast and loose with all of it, and it was a major distraction for me. I'm happy to engage with lofty themes and an ambitious message, but if you don't have the fundamentals in place, your high-minded ideas and emotional overtures are not going to land for me. I'll be too busy scratching my head at the eight nonsensical things that just happened to get swept away.

[BooBear]

6 hours ago, Neurochick said:

First, Naz didn't destroy his parent's lives.  That's the point of the show.  What happened to him could have happened to anybody. 

From my point of view it could only happen to an idiot who isn't careful. Now there probably are a lot of people out there like this but when they make their choices to throw caution to the wind, they need to deal with the entirely foreseeable consequences. What if Andrea had just had sex with him and then claimed rape? It was his choice to go with it with someone he didn't know and the results of his choice was his parents having to pay 55K and sell their house.  They sure didn't do anything wrong. Also his choice to steal his dad's cab.

Now you can argue that people should be allowed to throw caution to the wind without such consequences but I don't agree. And I would imagine that is exactly why criminal justice will never change and exactly why no one will get too upset about any of what this story points out as the "sad horror."  Because usually careful cautious people do not put themselves in the position of going with a stranger, taking drugs, and having sex with someone they don't know at all.. and that is socially something we want to discourage.  So the writers of this show and the BBC "criminal justice" can state this thesis like it is a crying shame, and, it is, but I see it as I hope someone sees it and thinks twice when a pretty stranger gets into his cab. Rather than we have to march on congress and demand change.

54 minutes ago, kieyra said:

Not to defend the way Chandra was written, but accused murderers do take the stand in their own defense.

I would be less critical if Chandra didn't have to smuggle her client drugs to get him into shape to take the stand. That she should have known was a major red flag that this thing could -- and likely would --go sideways.  If you have a strong client who will do well on the stand, it is a risk but a calculated one. But Naz didn't seem like he had a ton to offer more than most and seemed to have a strong potential to mess up.

[clb1016]

2 hours ago, Margherita Erdman said:

The capsule description will sound the same, the cast of characters is almost identical, and many details are shared, but now that The Night Of is done & dusted, my strong reaction is that the original shines much brighter (and not just because it's shot in harsh London light rather than dim noir tones). Equally well-acted, but no cat, far less eczema, maybe 99% fewer red herrings and dropped plotlines, and overall (in my opinion of course!) far better characterization and plotting, including approximately 100% less pretension.

Anyone who enjoyed this, or wanted to enjoy this, or thought they would enjoy this but didn't — I highly recommend seeking out the original.

And the original (which I have not seen) ran only 5 eps.  That's one thing the Brits do better than we Yanks.  If they're doing a limited series, they use as many hours as they need--no more, no less.  They don't start with the idea of X number of hours which then requires a lot of filler (e.g., eczema support meetings).

[Ellaria]

1 hour ago, stagmania said:

I tend to be the exact opposite of some here-when a show is obviously high quality, I hold it to a higher standard, not a lower one. This show had all the makings of top tier television, completely stacked with amazing writers, directors, producers and actors, and yet the creators failed to bother with nailing down the basics of storytelling. Consistent characterization, pacing and temporal logic, cohesive plotting, following the rules of the established universe (i.e. maintaining some level of credible realism re: court procedure)-they played fast and loose with all of it, and it was a major distraction for me. I'm happy to engage with lofty themes and an ambitious message, but if you don't have the fundamentals in place, your high-minded ideas and emotional overtures are not going to land for me. I'll be too busy scratching my head at the eight nonsensical things that just happened to get swept away.

Well said. Nothing for me to disagree with.

My biggest complaint about the show was its tendency towards excess. Andrea was stabbed 22 times and it was an extremely bloody crime scene. Why make that creative choice? To imply a "crazed" killer? As a result, I was fixated on the "no blood on Naz" issue while no one on the show seemed to notice. Two or three stab wounds would still equate to a horrible crime but would not create as horrible a crime scene.

How many tattoos did Naz need to get in order to drive home the point that "prison is changing him?" Why make the Financial Planner a serial abuser/killer? He could simply have been an angry, jilted boyfriend.  Why mention a chain of custody issue early on and never revisit it? And Chandra...honestly, I can accept the vagina-drug-smuggling before I can accept the kiss.

Of course, some of these choices were made to dramatize the story. But when you add drama for the purpose of shock/horror/etc, it often creates conflicts with the story that you are trying to tell.

[stagmania]

15 minutes ago, Ellaria Sand said:

Of course, some of these choices were made to dramatize the story. But when you add drama for the purpose of shock/horror/etc, it often creates conflicts with the story that you are trying to tell.

That's exactly how I feel about the out of nowhere revelations about Naz's history. If the idea is that the criminal justice system is fundamentally toxic and they're trying to demonstrate that through showing how easily a few months in Rikers can change an essentially innocent man, what exactly is the logic behind these random reveals that Naz was actually shady and violent all along? There's isn't any, beyond the desire to shock and keep the audience guessing about his guilt. There were other ways to make the trial suspenseful without going there. The way they did it completely steps on the point they're trying to make.

[Milburn Stone]

Just wanted to clarify...When I say I had complete follow-you-anywhere trust in Price and Zaillian (confidence which they justified), it's not because of their "pedigree," impressive though it is. It's because of the incredibly compelling characters they created in Stone, Naz, Box, and Helen; the way they drew me in to Naz's dilemma from the get-go; their complete control of tonality; and more. Sufficient to make me say, "It's your show--you do what you want with it and I'm there."

Their past credits had no bearing on this show's ability to have its way with me.

[ganesh]

10 minutes ago, stagmania said:

...what exactly is the logic behind these random reveals that Naz was actually shady and violent all along? There's isn't any, beyond the desire to shock and keep the audience guessing about his guilt.

That's the answer to the question right there. The problem is, it didn't affect me at all. I was like "so?" Both incidents happened a decade ago or so and nothing since. And selling adderall seems fairly tame. The whole argument with the pills was some bizarre rant by the DA about how Naz marked up the price. 

[iMonrey]

Quote

 And selling adderall seems fairly tame. The whole argument with the pills was some bizarre rant by the DA about how Naz marked up the price. 

That was odd. The way she kept emphasizing the enormous profit he made by selling amphetamines seemed to suggest the greater crime was the profit rather than the selling itself - as though if he had sold them at cost he would have been considered benevolent in doing so. 

[ganesh]

She could have been fishing to get the witness ticked enough to throw Naz under the bus for maybe something else bad that he did that no one knew about. That's total speculation though since I didn't see any motivation by the DA for the whole thing.

[candall]

1 hour ago, iMonrey said:

That was odd. The way she kept emphasizing the enormous profit he made by selling amphetamines seemed to suggest the greater crime was the profit rather than the selling itself - as though if he had sold them at cost he would have been considered benevolent in doing so. 

$10 a pop didn't seem out of line to me, LOL.  "Well, Mrs. Weiss, as business majors, we've been taught that you charge what the market will bear."

 

I thought one of the best small details was that Stone is no longer the "No Fee 'Til You're Free" guy.  $250 up front, cash only. 

 

I think I've watched that cat pad across the screen and meow, punctuating the last haunting notes from Roberta Flack, about 14 times.  Very nice.

[kieyra]

For what it's worth, I've been filling the summer TV slump with the first season of American Crime (the Felicity Huffman one) on Netflix. I was shocked when I just googled to verify the name and discovered it's a network show. Seems really well done so far. If you're looking for more "crime" fix I can recommend it, and it's filling in a lot of the beats that seemed to be missing in The Night Of. Also has Timothy Hutton and W. Earl Brown (the latter of which is probably why I assumed it was a cable show). 

[PepperMonkey]

This show wasn't perfect; so few of them are. For me, though, this show WAS John Stone. And his cat.

Naz didn't affect me at all; wasn't invested in him, didn't care he "hardened" in prison, didn't see him selling Adderall as criminal activity. DID think his actions contributed to the ruination - if you want to call it that - of his parents' lives. Of course he did not do it intentionally, but he did take his dad's cab and do all the other stupid stuff which led to him being in this predicament. Sadly, I WANTED to feel empathy for Naz, but he did not engender that in me.

I also didn't feel bad about Chandra. This is an intelligent woman who made stupid mistakes that she HAD to know were on "film." She's just lucky, as some have said also, that it was the kiss and not the drug exchange that reared its ugly head.

Edited August 31, 2016 by PepperMonkey

[FozzyBear]

3 hours ago, ganesh said:

She could have been fishing to get the witness ticked enough to throw Naz under the bus for maybe something else bad that he did that no one knew about. That's total speculation though since I didn't see any motivation by the DA for the whole thing.

I thought she was trying to illustrate that Nas wasn't just a collage kid who shared a few pills with a friend during finals. He was a drug dealer. She was trying to show he was just as much of a drug dealer as someone like Freddie and capable of the same reckless behavior as any other criminal. It was to anweser the whole "why would a nice kid commit such a randomly violent crime". Because he wasn't a nice kid. He was a violent drug dealer.

I'm not saying I agree with the logic, but I think that was the point.

[ganesh]

That was a poor argument if that was the motivation.

[Milburn Stone]

I think a case can be made that the revelation of Naz's violent middle-school past wasn't about creating doubt in the audience as much as it was about making the audience anticipate how fucked Naz would be when Helen trotted that out before the jury--as she undoubtedly would (and did). That's why Stone hated hearing it from the coach. It didn't make him conclude Naz was the killer; but he knew how bad it would look, how much more difficult it would be for the defense to portray Naz as an innocent victim of the wheels of justice. Just like with the drug dealing. It's not about whether a kid who sells Adderall for $10 a pop is logically also a violent killer. It's about what impression that makes on a jury, whether it pushes them one step closer--irrationally--to being able to accept Naz as a killer.

It's like Stone said. (I think it was Stone. Or did I just hear it somewhere else recently?) "You know what the definition of reasonable doubt is? There isn't one." Reasonable doubt of guilt is whatever a juror's gut tells him it is. That's why jurors make the big bucks. ;)

Edited August 31, 2016 by Milburn Stone

[WaltersHair]

Quote

I don't think bringing up obvious and glaring missteps is too critical. They were giving it way too much of a pass. 

Yes this. And though I was critical of the series, I did think it was good and it pulled me in from the first episode.

However, I also judge a series on how likely I am to go back at some point and re-watch it to see what I missed or just for the entertainment value. I'm probably not going to re-watch this series even if it shows up on Netflix.

Would I watch this showrunner again? Yes, definitely.

[stagmania]

8 hours ago, Milburn Stone said:

I think a case can be made that the revelation of Naz's violent middle-school past wasn't about creating doubt in the audience as much as it was about making the audience anticipate how fucked Naz would be when Helen trotted that out before the jury--as she undoubtedly would (and did).

But that's my point-the purpose of it was to create suspense about the outcome, whether that means doubting Naz or anticipating that the jury will. In order to do that, they stepped on their own theme and made Naz's characterization even more opaque.

[EyesGlazed]

Chiming in with random reactions:  

- I think "waiting for the cat to cross the frame" and "finally the cat crossed the frame" are on their way to becoming a TV critic metaphor for the salvation of a character or plot.  Like "jumping the shark" for a series or idea that's crossed over into parody.

- As many others have observed, the acting was stellar and was the making of this show.  I'm doing a special shout-out to Jeannie Berlin who played Helen the prosecutor.  Instead of the usual Law-and-Order-style dewy 28 year old, we got a realistic, world-weary middle-aged woman who is also a skilled professional.  (And who is ethically challenged and finally realizes it.)  The character and the actress were excellent.  Yes, I agree that a lot of the trial stuff was not true to life, but the compelling parts of the action allowed me to overlook that.

- I puzzled over the show's need to destroy Chandra.  What happened to her seemed out of character and out of proportion to what she deserved.  Then I thought that perhaps she is meant to be the professional equivalent of Naz:  a bright young person with a good heart and potential, and flaws, who gets chewed up and spit out by the system.

- There were weird and interesting inconsistencies up till the end.  Did anyone notice that on cross, Naz says that after he woke up in the kitchen, he walked to Andrea's bedroom "to get dressed".  Then the camera switches to Stone's face.  Then back to Naz.  Naz was already dressed when he woke up in the kitchen.  Was this supposed to cast more doubt on whether Naz was remembering correctly/telling the truth?

[justjen]

On ‎8‎/‎28‎/‎2016 at 11:05 PM, bagatelle said:

Kudos to those who speculated it would be the financial planner.

Being right has never felt more disappointing. But then I guess the end of this show was the truest to what real life would be like?

[Milburn Stone]

33 minutes ago, stagmania said:

But that's my point-the purpose of it was to create suspense about the outcome, whether that means doubting Naz or anticipating that the jury will. In order to do that, they stepped on their own theme and made Naz's characterization even more opaque.

I see what you're saying. But rather than making his character more opaque, didn't the revelation serve to help us understand that his character was more complicated than we first thought? That he wasn't a 2-dimensional "nice kid, practically a virgin" but more a 3-dimensional actual person with dark and light in his character?

[candall]

8 minutes ago, Milburn Stone said:

I see what you're saying. But rather than making his character more opaque, didn't the revelation serve to help us understand that his character was more complicated than we first thought? That he wasn't a 2-dimensional "nice kid, practically a virgin" but more a 3-dimensional actual person with dark and light in his character?

Agree, and adding:  for purposes of show tension, I think they wanted to make us all wonder how far the revelations were going to go.  Start off with a sympathetic young guy who gets caught in a snowballing avalanche of trouble, smudge up his character a little bit with this, then that--and then what's coming next?  His prom date woke up roofied and disheveled?

It was entirely possible one of the many themes in the show was going to be "hasty first impressions."  No way to know they were going to come down on the side of "trust your gut" instead.

[candall]

8 minutes ago, Milburn Stone said:

I see what you're saying. But rather than making his character more opaque, didn't the revelation serve to help us understand that his character was more complicated than we first thought? That he wasn't a 2-dimensional "nice kid, practically a virgin" but more a 3-dimensional actual person with dark and light in his character?

Agree, and adding:  for purposes of show tension, I think they wanted to make us all wonder how far the revelations were going to go.  Start off with a sympathetic young guy who gets caught in a snowballing avalanche of trouble, smudge up his character a little bit with this, then that--and then what's coming next?  His prom date woke up roofied and disheveled?

It was entirely possible one of the many themes in the show was going to be "hasty first impressions."  No way to know they were going to come down on the side of "trust your gut" instead.

[stagmania]

1 hour ago, Milburn Stone said:

I see what you're saying. But rather than making his character more opaque, didn't the revelation serve to help us understand that his character was more complicated than we first thought? That he wasn't a 2-dimensional "nice kid, practically a virgin" but more a 3-dimensional actual person with dark and light in his character?

Absolutely. I'm not advocating for overly simplistic characters in general, only pointing out that these revelations about Naz worked counter to their theme (that was underlined in Stone's closing argument), and that they could have been more thoughtful in fleshing out his characterization. Also, I'd be inclined to give them more credit for making him complicated if they ever bothered to examine these parts of his history beyond using them as shocking reveals. We never got any sense of how Naz felt about any of it or how it fit into the larger picture of his life or self-conception.

29 minutes ago, candall said:

It was entirely possible one of the many themes in the show was going to be "hasty first impressions."  No way to know they were going to come down on the side of "trust your gut" instead.

But the writers should know and understand what their overarching message is and take care not to undermine it. 

[Milburn Stone]

9 minutes ago, stagmania said:

But the writers should know and understand what their overarching message is and take care not to undermine it. 

IMO, the writer and director achieved their aims, in many shades of dark with occasional light for contrast. I don't think they were out to deliver a message. I think they were out to deliver an experience--an experience of the criminal justice system as it exists today. And boy, did I have that experience.

(And while you're not advocating slavish devotion to an overarching message, slavish devotion to an overarching message results in didacticism, not drama.)

[Neurochick]

I just think some people thought the show was great and some didn't.  Just because person A didn't like it doesn't make them  wrong, and just because person B thought it was great doesn't make them wrong.

[stagmania]

3 minutes ago, Milburn Stone said:

IMO, the writer and director achieved their aims, in many shades of dark with occasional light for contrast. I don't think they were out to deliver a message. I think they were out to deliver an experience--an experience of the criminal justice system as it exists today. And boy, did I have that experience.

I think the message was pretty explicitly and elegantly laid out in Stone's closing argument. We'll just have to agree to disagree on how well the rest of the show supported it.