Frequently, while watching the HBO miniseries The Night Of, I feel like Detective Dennis Box as he absentmindedly stares at the golf course that he was supposed to enjoy so much during his retirement. Like Detective Box, something was nagging at me. I really did like The Night Of, particularly the excellent premiere episode, but I kept wondering why I did not like the show more, particularly in light of its rapturous reviews. The “series finale,” which aired this past Sunday, was a microcosm of my feelings on the show as a whole; there was a lot to like, but certain aspects left me scratching my head (this column will contain major spoilers through the finale).
To illustrate my point, I am going to analyze some the main characters, starting with Chandra Kapoor (Amara Karan), who has been a lightning rod for criticism of The Night Of, particularly that her poor decisionmaking almost singlehandedly lost Naz’s case. I had less of a problem with Chandra than others, because I recognize that she is young and inexperienced. Given her age and the size of her office at her law firm, I am assuming that Chandra has not been practicing for very many years. She has probably never first-chaired a case before, let alone a newsworthy murder trial. I am a mid-level litigation associate, and the thought of first-chairing a trial, particularly one without any support from my firm, is slightly terrifying. Yes, we can play Monday-morning quarterback and talk about all the objections Chandra should have made but did not. But how many lawyers of Chandra’s experience level – without previous courtroom experience – would have been effusively objecting?
Furthermore, while she is not the smoothest examiner (please don’t play a drinking game in which you drink every time she asks a compound question), Chandra does effectively cast reasonable doubt by pointing out all the suspects that Box should have investigated but did not. And Chandra barely gets any support from John Stone.
How Legisway Helps In-House Teams Manage All Legal Matters In One Trusted Place
Operate with AI driven insights, legal intake, unified content and modular scalability to transform efficiency and clarity.
However, my defense of Chandra will not extend to her decision to put Naz on the stand or her kiss with Naz. The show does not explain why Chandra thought that Naz testifying (particularly given the fact that he was obviously on drugs) was a good idea. Moreover, The Night Of did not properly lay the groundwork for the kiss. I find it extremely difficult to believe that someone as seemingly smart as Chandra would make such a mistake; she should have known that there were cameras that would have captured the kiss. This seemed like a plot point that existed solely to have Judge Roth (played by Glenn Fleshler, filling out his “Standard of Review” Bingo card by appearing in The Night Of as well as playing Axe’s attorney Orrich Bach on Billions) kick Chandra off the case, allowing John to give his rousing closing argument.
John Stone definitely grew on me as the season wore on. As I have written about previously, I felt like the only person at the beginning of the season who did not enjoy John Turturro’s performance. I thought that Turturro was too cartoonish, particularly when he was interacting with the various criminals at the police precinct and initially speaking with Naz. But Turturro’s performance improved towards the second half of the season as John became more quiet and prone to weariness. And while the stirring closing argument is a cliché, it works in the finale, particularly because John had never previously spoken during the case and he was suffering from a horrible allergy (it was nice to have the allergy subplot pay off, but I still feel the show spent way too much time on it in previous weeks).
John’s storylines also mirrored Naz’s. John’s kafkaesque struggle to find a doctor that will cure his eczema parallels the hellish world in which Naz finds himself after his arrest. John’s allergic reaction in this week’s finale means that both he and Naz are both constantly stared at. And John’s place as an outcast in the legal community (I still find it difficult to believe that Alison Crowe would say that John is not a real lawyer in open court) is analogous to Naz’s initial discomfort in prison before he falls in with Freddy’s crew. However, some of these parallels worked better than others; the moment in which John explicitly compares himself to Naz in the finale felt a little too on the nose.
I did not have many issues with prosecutor Helen Weiss (Jeannie Berlin). Indeed, she was prominently involved in perhaps the strongest scene from the finale. After serving as one of the lead witnesses against Naz, Detective Box begins to have doubts that he has arrested the right suspect. Despite his retirement, Box fastidiously works the case and eventually becomes convinced that Andrea was killed by her financial advisor Ray Halle. But after presenting the case against Ray to Helen in painstaking detail, Helen dismisses Box and curtly states that she has more on Naz than on Ray. This scene is a stinging critique of the justice system; Helen is clearly making a calculation in her head about the possibility that the state has charged the wrong suspect versus the fallout of dropping the charges mid-trial. And while she has not gotten many accolades, Jeannie Berlin has been excellent as the calm, professional Helen (Berlin has one of the most interesting IMDB pages I have seen; after having a successful career in the 1970s, she has only two credits between 1976 and 2011).
Transform Legal Reasoning Into Business-Ready Results With General AI
Protégé™ General AI is fundamentally changing how legal professionals use AI in their everyday practice.
Naz’s transformation during his time at Rikers Island is a powerful arc. Assuming Naz is actually innocent, Naz goes from a wrongfully incarcerated, naive college student to a cold-blooded criminal who aids and abets fellow inmate Freddy in an actual murder. Riz Ahmed’s performance throughout is fantastic, as he very convincingly plays both sides of Naz’s transformation. Further, Ahmed absolutely nails the scene in which he breaks down on the witness stand in the face of Helen’s cool but effective cross, admitting that he did not know whether he or not he killed Andrea.
For better or for worse, any discussion of Naz necessarily dovetails with a discussion of whether or not he is guilty of murdering Andrea. And The Night Of made the interesting decision to not provide a definitive answer to that question. The show strongly hints that Ray is the killer, but we do not know for sure, particularly in light of Naz’s admission that even he does not know whether or not he killed her. On one hand, I like this tactic because it illustrates how elusive the truth can be; given that I decry legal shows that wrap things up too neatly, I have to appreciate shows that do not. On the other hand, several of the later episodes of The Night Of actually did feel like a garden-variety procedural, with Chandra and John painstakingly investigating various suspects, who all had their story to tell. Thus, I almost felt like it was a cheat to spend so much time on that investigation for it to not definitively pay off.
Unfortunately, I will not be able to struggle with my feelings about The Night Of any more, as HBO intends The Night Of just to be a one-off miniseries. That has not stopped speculation about a possible second season, and I will join in the speculation next week. And while I may have some misgivings about The Night Of now, I guarantee that I will really miss the show in the fall when I am faced with the other shows that I will have to review.
Earlier: Standard Of Review: The Night Before The Week Starts, Watch HBO Miniseries ‘The Night Of’
Standard Of Review: Evaluating The Attorneys Of ‘The Night Of’
Beyond Biglaw: Lessons From ‘The Night Of’ (Part 1)
Beyond Biglaw: Lessons From ‘The Night Of’ (Part 2)
Harry Graff is a litigation associate at a firm, but he spends days wishing that he was writing about film, television, literature, and pop culture instead of writing briefs. If there is a law-related movie, television show, book, or any other form of media that you would like Harry Graff to discuss, he can be reached at [email protected]. Be sure to follow Harry Graff on Twitter at @harrygraff19.