Crime

Standard Of Review: ‘Undercover’ Falls Apart In Its Second Half

Sophie Okonedo and Adrian Lester are fantastic, even when the show around them is not.

undercover-bbc-americaWith increasing frequency in 2016, I seem to critique a show or film by saying: “good performances, poor narrative.” For example, I recently felt that way about Westworld, a show containing impeccable acting but head-scratching plot points. And that is definitely how I feel about the second half of the BBC America legal miniseries Undercover: stars Sophie Okonedo and Adrian Lester are fantastic, even when the show around them is not (this review will focus on, and contain spoilers for, the final three episodes of the miniseries).

As the plot of Undercover becomes more complicated in its second half, the writing suffers, with characters making decisions that are either unexplained or downright nonsensical. For example, after Maya Cobbina’s friend Julia Redhead (side note: who named that character?) catches Maya’s husband Nick Johnson kissing his former fellow undercover officer Abigail Strickland, Nick lies to Maya and says he has been having an affair, instead of telling her the truth about being an undercover cop. In doing so, Nick invents a very complicated story about his relationship with Abigail that obviously does not hold up under scrutiny by an inquisitive attorney like Maya. The only reason that a smart person like Nick would make such a foolish decision is because otherwise there would be no story left for Undercover to tell.

Maya is not immune from poor decision-making. After Nick develops a clever and carefully crafted plan to entrap former security service officer Paul Brightman, Maya almost ruins it by bafflingly directing her entire family – including her developmentally disabled son – to run carelessly into the woods in an attempt to save Nick against a dangerous, gun-toting villain. In the least surprising twist of the century, Maya and Nick’s son is shot. On the scale of quality fictional parents (ten being Eric and Tami Taylor from Friday Night Lights and one being any parent who takes his or her child on a vacation to Westworld), I rate Maya about a 2.5.

As I mentioned above, despite their characters’ poor decision-making, Okonedo and Lester are both fantastic throughout the show. Okonedo is perfect in the scene in which she breaks down crying after finally discovering Nick’s secret. And Lester expertly portrays Nick’s difficulty in holding his life together under the weight of so many lies.

I also continued to be unimpressed by the villains in the story, the higher-ups who orchestrated the cover up of Michael Antwi’s murder in 1996 and are putting pressure on Nick in 2016 to prevent Maya from finding out the truth. The show only makes a half-hearted attempt to illustrate their motivations, and I never quite understood why they are going to such great lengths, including cold-blooded murder, to perpetuate the coverup.

Undercover fails in its depiction of the fallout from Rudy Jones’s botched execution. In the opening three episodes, I gave Undercover a pass for not explaining how Maya, an English lawyer, was practicing law in Louisiana, but this error became more glaring as the series went on and Maya makes arguments in Louisiana state court and ultimately in the United States Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court scenes are especially egregious. After the Louisiana state court judge decrees that Rudy shall be executed within forty-eight hours, in that time the United States Supreme Court somehow convenes a full oral argument regarding Rudy’s execution. The oral argument scene contains a fictional Supreme Court, with one justice apparently named “Scarrow.” I have seen numerous films and shows containing a fictional president, but for some reason a fictional Supreme Court just feels wrong, especially because the Court is such a minor aspect of the story.

Maya argues to the justices that the death penalty itself is cruel and unusual punishment, and to support her argument, Rudy himself testifies in front of the Supreme Court about the horrors of his original, botched execution. In response to this testimony, one of the justices decrees to her colleagues that the death penalty is indeed cruel and unusual punishment, and next thing we know, Maya is celebrating her victory (Rudy is presumably still in prison for the rest of his life, a fact the show conveniently ignores).

I understand that Undercover is an English production. If I were writing a show about English law, I would probably make egregious errors (and I would definitely play up the wigs). But this Supreme Court scene is so laughably bad that it severely detracts from the show. I have made this observation before, but sometimes a writer or director of legal entertainment really needs to show a proposed legal scene to an actual practicing lawyer before going into production.

This is unfortunate, because Dennis Haysbert nails the scene at the Supreme Court in which he breaks down and tearfully explains the horrors of lethal injection. Haysbert’s small role in Undercover is somewhat surprising given his stature; he basically has one scene in the first episode and one scene in the last episode and spends the rest of the time in a coma. Casting directors of the world need to cast him in a more substantial role soon.

Undercover is a miniseries, so this will be the last time I will write about it. That is, unless Justice Scarrow gets his own spinoff. I would be totally in on that show.

Earlier: Standard Of Review: BBC America’s ‘Undercover’ Blends Legal And Family Intrigue


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.