The Night Of HBO- Page 3

[Stage Door Sally]

Posted: 8/30/16 at 2:42pm

Some plot devices were not good or believable. The kiss... no way. And why did she have to be written stupid in so many ways...?  Bah to that. 

Box and the prosecutor going after the new suspect - right. How will that look in the press...  "So, we admit we were dead wrong about the first guy, we didn't do our investigation properly and came up with new evidence we should have had if we had done our jobs. So sorry we went to trial and wasted your time. Now this new guy - HE DID IT, believe us...." Yeah, that happens all the time.

The acting throughout was first rate and that kept me going to the end. Not a weak link. Riz Ahmed sold it. Innocence lost never to be regained. Turturro's closing argument - masterful. Michael C. Williams, Jeannie Berlin, truly great. And just enough Fisher Stevens to put a smile on my face. Thank f'ing gawd the cat survived. 

 

 

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 8/30/16 at 4:09pm

Duplicate message.

Updated On: 8/30/16 at 04:09 PM

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 8/30/16 at 4:19pm

Agree that the kiss made no sense.  Nor did Chandra's buying and bringing Naz drugs, which made even less sense as it was framed as something she had to do to get Naz to testify, a quid pro quo - completely unbelievable.

It also made no sense that Helen would not have fulfilled her constitutional and ethical obligations to notify the defense that Ray, who had committed a very similar assault, had a relationship with Andrea, may well have stolen $300,000.00 from him, had what clearly appears to have been an argument with her on the night of the murder, and lied about going and remaining home after that when he in fact left home to be very near Andrea's home at the time of the murder.

Not because some prosecutors don't do very improper things.  Not because some defense lawyers don't sometimes do very stupid and or improper things, or that no defense attorney ever gets sexually involved with his or her clients (John's involvements with his hooker clients were much more believable).  But because these two women were presented to us as capable, likable, smart, very professional lawyers.  The script forced us to try to believe they would do things that were completely out of character for them and in circumstances which (unlike the circumstances of John sleeping with his client) simply defied all belief.

Moreover, if Helen had actually believed so much in Naz's guilt that she would have shirked her responsibilities of notifying the defense about the mountain of evidence against Ray - highly out of character for her to begin with, in addition to being unlawful -  then she would certainly not have so quickly declined to prosecute for retrial immediately after the jury came back deadlocked.

Having said all of that, the series did many things  well, some of them exceptionally well.

Updated On: 8/31/16 at 04:19 PM

[Stage Door Sally]

Posted: 9/1/16 at 11:41am

We aren't the only ones upset that the writers turned Chandra stupid:

http://www.vulture.com/2016/09/chastain-banks-are-mad-about-the-night-of.html?mid=facebook_vulture

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 9/1/16 at 12:07pm

Very interesting, Sally.  I especially like the line "We assume Chastain and Banks have made plans to debrief further over brunch, because there's nothing like shared indignation at prestige TV to mark the start of a beautiful friendship."  Agreed!  i'm finding this quite bonding myself - lol.


But it wasn't just that the series failed Chandra miserably.  It also failed Helen miserably.  It's great that the storyline gave John redemption, but it's galling that it did so at the expense of both his co-counsel and his adversary, and in forced, specious and transparently out-of-character ways.

Updated On: 9/1/16 at 12:07 PM

[Stage Door Sally]

Posted: 9/1/16 at 12:23pm

I totally agree. The women got the short end of the ethics stick big time. Rather sad.