Monday, January 9, 2017

INAUTHENTICITY AND WHO GIVES A DAMN RANT





      First, if not a disclaimer, at least a mea culpa. I’ve been a Richard Price fan for many decades, having read The Wanderers upon its original release in 1974. Thus, the criticism I offer now is born of disappointment, not closely-held malice. The Night Of, Price’s relatively recent HBO miniseries, so fails any standard of authenticity, I suspect that its creators held their viewers in literal contempt. I could begin with the two zhlubs (superb actors both) cast as prosecutor and defense attorney. Their like is not to be found in a New York City courtroom. And that’s especially true of prosecutors assigned to high-profile murder trials. These trials, by the way, are not conducted in what appears to be the back room of a Long Island City warehouse. Price had to know this.

      Most commonly, in works of this type, we know if the accused is guilty. Not here. The allure of The Night Of rests on our not being sure. We want to believe in Nasir Khan’s innocence, but the evidence compiled by the prosecution is so overwhelming that his first lawyer recommends he accept a deal. He’ll plead guilty to the crime of manslaughter and pass the next fifteen years in a maximum-security prison. Price works this theme to the very end. Even when the prosecution, after a hung jury, declines to re-try Naz, we’re still not sure that he’s innocent. (Just as an aside, Price’s A.D.A makes this decision a few minutes after the jury returns. No prosecutor has this power. In a high-profile murder case, the District Attorney would make the final decision after weighing all the political implications.)

     Here’s the bad news. Naz’s guilt or innocence should have been established at the time of his arrest. The victim was stabbed more than twenty times. Each time a bloody knife rises and falls, drops of blood are released. These drops, when they strike any surface, including Naz’s body and clothing, leave distinctive patterns that can easily be determined by forensic examiners. Did these patterns appear on Naz’s body and clothing? The defendant’s clothing was bagged at the time of his arrest, examination being the whole point, yet somehow the condition of his shirt and pants, his shoes and socks, wasn’t raised at his trial, not by the prosecution or the defense. There’s no wiggle room here. Andrea’s killer could no more avoid the blood thrown off by the rising and falling knife than the bed and the walls. If drops of Andrea’s blood were found on Naz’s clothes or body, he would certainly be guilty. If not, he would be as certainly innocent. The issue should have been determined, as I said, at the time of Naz’s arrest.


     I’m used to a very low level in authenticity from broadcast television. The courtroom procedure in Law and Order, for example, bore no resemblance to the procedure in a New York courtroom. In fact, it was only slightly more authentic than the flying forensics in a typical CSI episode. But that’s cool. As I’ve already said, my expectations, when it comes to broadcast television, are minimal at best. I expected more, however, from HBO, and especially from Ricard Price. I find his performance disappointing, of course, but not as disappointing as the terrific ratings this show garnered on websites like Rotten Tomatoes. I read many of the reviews posted on Rotten Tomatoes, enough to be sure their authors hadn’t spotted this very obvious hole in The Night Of’s plot. Did Price and his partner, Steven Zaillian, cynically exploit viewer ignorance?  Maybe I’m being too harsh. Maybe not. But Richard Price has put more than four decades of his life into the crime-and-punishment game. He could not have missed something as obviously important as the defendant’s body and clothing. The omission had to be deliberate. More the shame in that.

No comments:

Post a Comment