The Night Of (new HBO show)

After I posted my last post it began to dawn on me, this series was full of characters making wrong/bad choices and then forcing themselves to face those bad choices.

**Naz ** is FULL of bad choices in this series, and ironically a bad choice of joining Freddy’s crew actually may have saved his life at Rikers but leaves him drug addicted.

Helen Weiss, her bad choice was to ignore gaping holes in the evidence and go full steam ahead figuring that this case was a slam dunk. It wasn’t until her summation that she realized she was wrong

Sgt. Box chose to go the easy way, with his last case before retirement, and assume the first suspect was the guilty man. It wasn’t until later that he dug in and did the real detective work.

Chandra, well, we’ve already discussed all her bad choices, and I still think she made them so she could advance her career in the firm.

Jack Stone, his worst choice, oddly enough, may have been to get rid of the cat.

I think the writers could have come up with plot points that would have explained the smuggling. If they showed her looking at her $200k student loan bill, her boss pressuring her to win or else she’s fired, and her traditional parents saying she needs to come home and get married, then I could understand her taking the risk. But they only showed her as a typical new attorney with no special reasons to smuggle, so we’re left with trying to understand why someone like that would risk it all.

Can someone point me to an episode that features the guy who did it, because I didn’t know who he was at all.

They really fucked with us in this last episode. Despite having gotten a cortizone shot, taking the powder AND still having the cat, his eczema flared up worse than ever and didn’t go away. Stress blows.

Well we really don’t know he did it. He certainly could have. But Naz still could have in a blackout also. I don’t remember the episode but her financial advisor is in one of the middle episodes trying to cast suspicion on the step dad.

I remember now, thank you.

The prosecution witness testified that Naz could have cut his hand on the knife in the course of the murder…but they never presented DNA evidence backing that up, did they? And the defense never pointed out the absence of Naz’s blood on the knife. I guess this is a plot hole, rather than a flaw in the prosecution’s case.

What drug were they smoking – crack, or heroin?

Agreed that the kiss was a clumsy device to get John to present the closing argument.

Pleasantly surprised that Naz was still alive at the closing credits. I figured he’d get knifed on his way out, or O.D.

I am curious about the drug too. Heroin makes more sense because that gives Chandra a reason to smuggle it in (sort of)–to ward off withdrawal.

But it appeared to be crack in most scenes.

Do we know his DNA wasn’t on the knife? If they never said one way or the either, it easily could have been. He cut his hand breaking the window to get back inside, then something like 30 seconds later he picked up the knife with his bleeding hand.

If his DNA was on the knife, the prosecution would have pointed it out – it bolstered the testimony of the ME who said the cut on Naz’s hand came from the knife.

If it wasn’t on the knife, the defense would have pointed it out.

Oh, right, duh, now I get your meaning. Valid point.

His DNA *was *on the knife, he picked it up after he cut his hand breaking the window. I don’t remember if we saw that mentioned during the trial or not, but it’s not a plot hole. We obviously didn’t see every moment of the trial and we already *know *his blood is on the knife.

What she smuggled in was pills, no mistaking it. I just watched the scene again and the baggie had tablets in it, not rocks, not powder.

Naz in more familiar guise:

Stand Up For Bastards

I finally got around to seeing this and thought I’d add a few thoughts.

Judging by their reactions, I’m pretty sure they were smoking heroin. Both Freddy and Naz appeared to nod off immediately afterwards. Crack would cause the opposite. I thought the pills smuggled in by Chondra were methadone because she went to a clinic, but I guess they could have been opiates. Who knows? Ambiguity was the name of the game with this show.

James Gandolfini filmed the pilot for the show before he died. I hope they show that someday.

One of the things I really liked about this series was the portrayal of the people working in the NYC criminal justice system. The cops, prosecutors and corrections officers looked like the real thing. No sexy DA’s or dashing detectives, thank God. If it turned out that the actor who played Box was a real cop moonlighting as an actor, I’d believe.

Turturro was terrific, as was Riz Ahmed. Really, they all were good.

One of the best pieces of advice a law professor gave me is “If someone has to go to jail, make sure it is your client.”

IOW, don’t get so caught up in the idea of winning that you break the law so your client stays out of jail.

Coincidentally, Detective Box (Bill Camp) was also in Jason Bourne.

I’m surprised you’re the only one in this thread who noticed. I’m pretty sure his appearance is meant to be a cameo; I didn’t even see his name in the credits. Since his character is an unnamed NYPD detective, I’d like to imagine that he’s simply reprising his role as James Martinez on NYPD Blue. :slight_smile:

Question, one thing I was not clear on in second episode.

Scene where Turturro lawyer is in alleyway with transvestite/crossdressing male hooker, earlier seen under arrest at police station with Naz…
what was the actual transaction?
Money also seemed to change hands both directions…in this scene, it was made clear as mud what was going on, imo.
Is lawyer merely collecting payment for legal services?

I thought he mostly acted as a Public Defender ?

Only other kind of transaction i can think of that takes place in an alley with an individual like that, is weirdo sex, or dope.
Surely lawyer is not there for either of those things.

Is that right? so the much-mentioned 'Riker’s Island" in NYPD Blue, is only a remand centre, not a penitentiary ? Or it is both, in separate sections?