'The People v. O.J. Simpson' finale: How the show tackled race, the legal system

The 10-episode FX adaptation of the events surrounding the Simpson trial concluded on April 5.

Ray Mickshaw/FX/AP
'The People v. O.J. Simpson' stars Sarah Paulson (l.) and Sterling K. Brown (r.).

The FX series “The People v. O.J. Simpson,” which depicted the 1995 trial of Mr. Simpson, aired its finale on April 5, bringing the critically acclaimed series to an end. 

“Simpson” starred Cuba Gooding Jr. as the former athlete, while actors including Sarah Paulson, David Schwimmer, and John Travolta portrayed various members of the prosecution and the defense, respectively, who were involved in the trial. 

The series, which is the first in the “American Crime Story” franchise planned by executive producer Ryan Murphy of “American Horror Story,” drew critical acclaim from the start, with reviewers praising the way the show portrayed issues of law and race in America. 

According to critics, the series maintained this quality to the end, with the season finale bringing the 10 episodes of content to a creatively satisfying close.

The episode depicted the end of the case, including closing arguments and the verdict being delivered in the case against Simpson.

New York Times writer James Poniewozik wrote of the finale and the series as a whole, “What makes ‘The People v. O. J. Simpson’ great historical drama is that it’s not about something that happened once. It’s about things that matter now. (And I don’t mean the Kardashians.) By showing us the past, it allows us to see things in our present that we’re too certain of our rightness to notice. It lets us at least try to see the world as others see it, unclouded by the way we have always seen it.” 

Variety critic Maureen Ryan found the series as a whole “fantastic.”

“We already knew the verdict, which you would think would drain the season finale of ‘American Crime Story’ of tension and suspense,” Ms. Ryan wrote. “And you would be wrong. Confounding expectations has been this drama’s strong suit from the start…. the writers, cast and directors dug into the characters and circumstances in ways that made the narrative come alive in powerful ways.… The crisp, wonderfully modulated finale felt fresh, important and vital, not least because even though that trial is over – the reconstructed version of it, anyway – the unfinished business of race still dominates American life today.” 

And Spencer Kornhaber of The Atlantic wrote that the series challenges viewers who experienced the Simpson trial to see it in a new light. 

“The notion of the Simpson affair as a sordid and ignoble piece of history, at best a cautionary tale but mostly an embarrassment that should be forgotten, is commonly held,” Mr. Kornhaber wrote. “'American Crime Story: The People v. O.J. Simpson,’ on some level, rebukes it. For nearly every figure transformed by the media spectacle into caricature or villain, it countered with a complicated human being trying to do the right thing. Last night’s finale left open the question of whether there was a wider lesson to be learned, but it made very clear that there were wider forces at work to explain the not-guilty verdict that many people found baffling. It also made clear that those forces are still at work today, and that to disregard them is to miss how the world functions.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.