1 more review

1. ›Justice in leather gloves - American Crime Story: The People v O.J Simpson.@anaerwu2555d

   With a certain delay, I want to write about one of the best TV series I've seen for years - People v O.J Simpson. The series, which conquered the heart of American criticism some time ago, and when it landed on Netflix I watched it with pleasure.

   

   The case of O.J Simpson is at the same time an event from the recent past, but also a piece of history, both in the history of the media and American legislation. The fact of how great this matter was, best demonstrated by the fact that even a few years later, I was aware that this process was taking place. I remembered I saw Simpson's famous escape on the American highway and my father who explained to me that if Simpson escapes, he must be guilty. However, despite the fact that the whole thing functions quite well in a certain social memory, for example, for me most of its details were completely unknown. Above all, everything that happened outside of the cameras' eyes. The idea to make a series about the process, the result of which we all know too well, may seem doomed to some dramatic defeat. The question that can be asked is whether we will be able to watch the process of a person knowing that all accusations will prove to be wrong and the defense hit a huge disaster. Perhaps this is why the series so fascinates - because it manages in history with the obvious ending not only to maintain tension but above all to tell about something much more than just the process of double murder.

   It must be said that the series is a lens in which the problems of not only the American legal system but also the society itself are focused. Let's start with the law. Observing the preparations of the legions of lawyers hired by O.J Simpson shows how important in American law telling stories. The defense of a well-known American football player is primarily based on an attempt to create alternative stories, other than the one indicated by the evidence. It is a fascinating observation of this approach to the law, which focuses primarily on the enchantment of the jury. This, moreover, shows well how much American culture is rooted in searching for an alternative story, conspiracy theory, the most pleasant narrative for the listener. At the same time, we observe the best lawyers in the United States who are fighting not only for the good of their client but for their own ego. Each of them really tries to win something for himself - the star lawyer can not afford to lose because all his practice is based on prestige, the retired old boy wants to prove to himself and others that he is still in the competition, a black lawyer, a celebrity, fights for his postulates regarding the police and prosecutor's behavior towards black suspects to be heard by everyone.

   

   The O.J case is also a process which - in the series edition - beautifully shows how fragile the narration can be based even on the best evidence. The trial took place in the 90's where forensic science was already a very developed science and we were entering the area of ​​DNA research. But it does not change much if it can not sell the stories properly and ensure that the material evidence is properly treated. Looking at how the defense arguments are being undermined because of the way samples are stored, or questioning the whole method of collecting them, you can see that there is no such thing as an easy investigation and an easy process. The most moving scene - in the context of evidence is in which O.J Simpson tries on famous gloves found at the crime scene and in his home. Gloves do not match. But also the accused has no reason to try to put them on properly, the gloves were made of leather, and they could be shrunk because of a long time in the cold. There are a lot of theories but nothing beats the show, which is now taking place in front of the jury. This, in fact, gets in the series almost the entire separate episode, which shows how the prolonged process affected those in all random (though carefully selected people) who were ultimately to make a decision.

   

   However, while procedural issues are interesting, the series becomes really fascinating when it touches on social issues. It must be pointed out at once that it is masterful. Above all - the creator of the show, who has no doubts about the guilt of O.J but does not speak directly about his responsibility, every now and then ask us questions about the meaning of the racial thread in the process. O. J. Simpson was not an ordinary black criminal. He was a star living in a luxurious, mostly white, Los Angeles neighborhood. In a great house that showed his ambition to break out into the world of high society. So we have a man who is black on one side and his process takes place against the background of tensions between the police and black residents of the city (the series reminds us that there was little riots against this background), on the other there is nothing in common with the majority of black Americans. It does not change the fact that both lawyers and viewers have to ask themselves - did O.J skin color influence how the information was collected, how was it treated before the trial? There is a moment in the series when a jury is chosen and the lawyers are considering whether the fact that O.J Simpson had (and possibly murdered) a white wife will positively or negatively affect the opinions of black women who may resent him for choosing a wife from outside the environment. This perfectly shows how complicated the racial problem is. Especially that on both sides, both defense and accusation, we have black lawyers whose voice also often refers to racial issues.

   But it's not just about the color of a skin. The series also focuses on the issue of fame. On how important it was when arresting (the fact that no one stopped OJ Simpson when he escaped also from the fact that no one wanted to use violence against an extremely famous star), how he was treated by the media, people and even prison guards . This look which can not be ignored and which leads us out of the world of this single murder case and makes us ask ourselves - is it possible to judge a famous man at all, especially when every step is followed by the media. Anyway, it is interesting that the case of O.J Simpson is such a case to consider the celebrity, because in the background there appears his - then little known friend - Robert Kardashian, whose name later became a synonym of celebrity. It is worth noting that the trial itself was indeed one of the most watched and commented cases in US history, where lawyers sometimes cared more about informing the press than the other partner or the court itself. Besides, the series copes well with showing the influence of the media by reconstructing fragments of TV appearances, showing the covers of magazines and creating a vision of a spectacle taking place in front of all of America.

   

   It should be noted that the series does not put the center of attention on O.J - it's even a supporting character. The closest to the main character is Marcia Clark performing on behalf of "People". A skilled lawyer, during her divorce process, must not only go through the most difficult process in her life but also resist everyday sexism. The series saves no one - we managed to perfectly show such everyday, seemingly small, but still perceptible sexism that surrounds the heroine. A great scenes are about the heroine's hairstyle - criticized in the press, her boss suggests that she should change her hairstyle and finally she has no way out. She must look good in front of the jury. But the hairstyle will be criticized on the first pages of newspapers the next day. At the same time the series shows us that Marcia really was a competent person, entangled in a matter that in such an atmosphere probably could not easily be won. Besides, the series does not lose sight of the issue of violence against women - recalls that ultimately in this great media case it was about killing a woman, most likely by a jealous former husband. In general, the series is good at reminding us that there are victims, which should be much more important than the popular O.J. Interestingly, the creators of the show decided to play a moral thread within this legal series - Marcia and Christopher Darden - the second of the prosecution lawyers had something to each other (as we know from their memories). The series nicely plays their relationship - not the relationship reminding that life was also going outside the courtroom.

   

   Here is probably a good time to write two words about the cast. I do not remember when I saw a better TV series. Seriously, this is in an actors aspect acting real masterpiece, which proves that even a weaker an actor can found his way if he has a good material. The phenomenal Sarah Paulson comes to the fore. Actress known i.e. from American Horror Story is one of those TV actresses who rarely plays poorly, and most often perfectly. Here, in the role of Marcia Clark, she probably creates one of the most interesting female characters we have recently seen on television. If I was to say what kind of characters I am looking for, I would probably point out to Marcia, who is a female figure on the one hand, in the sense that the series raises the issue of sexism and how being a woman in the world - then - primarily male, was important for how it was treated. But at the same time it is neither a strong female figure nor a character played only in the context of gender. It's just a good and multidimensional written heroine. Sterling K. Brown as the aforementioned Christopher Darden is also excellent, and here the actor perfectly played the dilemmas of a young prosecutor who does not know whether his career has just gained momentum due to his skills or skin color. I was pleasantly surprised to see how well John Travolta plays here, for which the role of lawyer for celebrities - Robert Shapiro. Travolta turned out to be quite an unexpectedly ideal actor in the role of a hero whose ego should have a separate business card but which can be surprisingly effective. It seems that the role of life here was played by Ross from Friends or David Schwimmer as Robert Kardashian - one of the few protagonists of this series, for whom Simpson's case has a personal dimension (they were friends) and the answer to the question who killed has more moral than legal. At the end I have to say that although Cuba Gooding Jr. works well in the role of O.J, however, it is one of the weaker roles in the series. Perhaps because the creators probably do not like their hero. Of course, there are not all of the actors we find in the series - which has a truly phenomenal cast aside - but those who made a particular impression on me.

   

   I would like to say that I could give a more than a dozen praises to the show. I would point out how well the production show like time has passed - so that the viewer has a clear sense that the characters are at the end of the process for many months other than they were at the beginning. The series has a well thought-through internal structure, ten episodes (including the first two lasting one and a half hours) were thought so that when the viewer could start to get bored with the repetitiveness of certain motifs, he gets a completely different perspective. Here, first of all, the section about the jury is the foremost - it perfectly complements our vision of what was happening during the trial. The creators also refrained from excessive didacticism. The process ultimately turns out to be to some extent the defeat of all those interested, while those who are the most disadvantaged do not receive any redress. When in the last episode, the family of murdered Simpson's wife asks "What now?" We realize how little justice can do to the painful fact that someone is gone and nothing will bring him back to life. It is worth adding that this is a production that could be a good introduction to knowledge not so much about the American legal system but about American society in which class, race, gender and origin are mixed so intensely that it is difficult to say who is the wrongdoing and who is the aggrieved.

   

   The People v O.J Simpson is the first season of the anthology series American Crime Story. It's hard to say whether the next (about the killing of Versace) will achieve similar success. Probably not because nothing arouses in the history of American processes such emotions as the Simpson case. Especially since recently recalled in the series and the documentary (Oscar-winning), it shows that certain phenomena in American society can be observed for years and not much changes here. Riots in the streets of Los Angeles in the 90s and the riots in recent years have had the same background - police brutality against black urban residents, while the lack of confidence in the police in the black community. This is a problem that has been consuming American society for a long time and in the context of information about the drastic inequality of judgments falling on white and black criminals (differences in sentences are enormous even if the same offense has been committed) questions the entire internal integration of society. With the specificity of the process in the American system, the term "justice" seems ironic. No less turning to this subject and the enthusiastic reception of the series also by the audience shows that there is a sense in the society that production also says something about the present.

   At the end I would recommend you - if you have not watched the show yet - do not rush too much. I mean, this is not a series to watch all episodes at once. Quite the opposite - it can definitely work against its disadvantage. Breaking up the episodes in time is a good idea, especially since then it's harder to get bored with the subject and you can pay more attention to how perfect is this production and how well it breaks down some accents without leaving any argument and no perspective on the beaten track. This is a series about a whole mosaic of human attitudes, motivations and beliefs. And at the same time - production as if in a certain opposition to what happened up to the very end does not give us a definite answer. Although we see whose side the filmmakers are standing, we must, like the new jury, answer the question whether we were dealing only with a brilliant abuse of the rules of the trial, unprepared accusation or social pressure. Ultimately, however, the whole season asks a more pressing question - is justice possible in such a world at all. And here the answer seems not only a bit more unambiguous but also disturbingly current.

   #review #series #tv #blog #culture

   ▲Upvote

   ReplyPermalink·Open on PeakD ↗·Linked from existing Hive post

   💬 Show comments