Response to tino slb:
(btw, Medium suuuuuuuucks)
I’m not going to deny that I might have a certain attraction to beautiful Indian women that work as lawyers for petty criminals (what’s up Veena?), but that’s beside the point. The character has a law degree and license and is at the very least a paralegal (there aren’t really interns in the legal profession, and certainly not paid ones) in a very successful firm that’s bound to have an overwhelming amount of job aspirants. The errors she makes are ones that I was told were ABSOLUTE no-nos — when I was 15, doing mock-trial in high school. I didn’t even need to be told that you don’t engage in jailhouse makeout sessions with your client or smuggle him narcotics while he awaits trial, certainly not to get him ready for testimony. You don’t ask open-ended questions in cross-examination, nor questions which you do not know the answer to. I’m not a lawyer now and yet I remember learning these things. When I was 15. Doing fake trials. Fundamental stuff. Based on her on-screen performance, Chandra was pretty much the worst lawyer in the history of fiction.
Did I misread the character? Well, I never thought of her as a particularly gifted litigator (as many commentators did throughout the series) but I did assume she had some sort of basic ability to do her job. That myth was certainly dispelled in the final two or three episodes. Let’s examine how else she was characterized: empathetic and naive, telling Naz to reject the plea if he didn’t really kill Andrea. Okay, fair enough. Then what? Sensible enough accept Stone’s research and bring him on as an aide. Ambitious enough to take the case without much support from her employer. Emotional enough to get slammed drunk after her boyfriend dumps her and open enough to volunteer that information to Stone. Beyond that her character was wildly inconsistent. She’s not some glorified intern working between semesters at NYU. She a licensed attorney with no less than 7 years of schooling and enough time at a prestigious firm to be allowed to represent a client in a high-profile case (not something paralegals generally do). She had maybe 5 minutes of screen time with Naz before kissing him, most of which was spent in the presence of others with minimal communication between them; only her few seconds of advice regarding the plea bargain (which he did not follow) and a brief, somewhat creepy drunk dial. But we’re supposed to buy that she felt an irrepressible urge to suddenly kiss him? Based on what, those two interactions? Come on. If she were stable enough to get to where she was before his case, how do you explain her insensible self-destruction? You can’t if she’s a consistent character.
Chandra is only one example of the ridiculous and lazy inconsistencies throughout the final half of the series. Those inconsistencies invalidate the majority of whatever message the show’s makers were interested in sending. How can I trust their opinions to be accurate if their execution is flawed in such an amateurish manner? Basically, they didn’t know what the f___ they were doing. Did I misread something? Maybe I misread all the critics and commentators that wrote of this series being such an excellent work of art instead of a nicely wrapped piece of crap.
It’s crazy to me that you critics and commentators have such high praise for The Night Of and bitch about the second season of Mr. Robot, a superior show in every sense.