Showing posts with label 1980s. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1980s. Show all posts

Saturday, 23 March 2019

Narcos: Mexico



There’s been a lot of debate around this and nobody can seem to agree.  Are we in or are we out?  Is Narcos: Mexico just another series of Narcos, or is it a different show entirely?  I didn’t even know if I was supposed to put a colon in the title between Narcos and Mexico.  However, I seem to be writing a separate one of these posts about it, so this is proof at last that’s not just a fourth series of one programme, but a fully-fledged boxset in its own right.  Sure, both exist in the same universe and both can stand alone, as you don’t need to have seen one to understand the other, but, if I’ve treated Fear The Walking Dead and The Walking Dead as independent entities, then we must be consistent here.


Truth be told I rolled straight into Narcos: Mexico after finishing Narcos – it was a logical progression and the Netflix algorithm was fairly insistent that because I watched Narcos I should watch Narcos: Mexico.  Confidently, I clicked to play was immediately devastated that the Colombian Spanish I had subconsciously learned from Narcos, however, didn’t allow much latent intelligibility with the Spanish on offer in Narcos Mexico (which, in case you can’t tell, is Mexican Spanish).  My linguistic geekiness was devastated and I was subsequently forced to pay much closer attention to the subtitles than I had been intending.  This issue was also compounded by one of the leading cast: Diego Luna.  Stepping into the Escobarian shoes of Wagner Moura as chief antagonist, Luna plays Félix Gallardo, the drugs kingpin whose rise and pursuit forms the main narrative arc of the drama. When I say play, I mean mumbles, as he violates his lines as if his mouth is full of muffin and he’s in a rush to get the words out before taking another massive bite.  Before knickers are got into twists, I should point out my longstanding fandom of Luna; coming across Y Tu Mamá También on DVD back in my student days, I vowed that his performance in this influential film would always see him endowed with my utmost respect.  I confess that Gael García Bernal has more fun in the film, and not just because he has a mullet, but the point I am making here is that everyone should see this film and that Luna is a god for being in it.


But yeah, his drugs czar lacks something.  Whereas Moura got to be all moody stares while seeming to revel in the bloodlust his career in narcotics required of him, Luna is dominated by furrowed, sweaty brows, exasperation at his staff and possessed of a mild imposter syndrome.  I’ll forgive this, though, as it’s a tough part to crack and a tougher act to follow (though the chronology actually precedes Narcos – confused emoji).  What we do have is a cracking set of US narcos hot on his trail, clearly undeterred by his poor diction (including an angrier Ken Cosgrove from Mad Men).  Our introduction to their world is delivered from the perspective of Kiki Camarena, played by the underrated Michael Peña.  Mostly wearing what appears to be one of the awful jackets from Sex Education, Camarena is quickly het up about the Guadalajara unit’s ineffectiveness in the face of the biggest marijuana farming enterprise ever seen.  But Camarena is ever resourceful and he don’t always play by the rules, brought to life thrillingly when he sneaks onto a bus transporting impoverished rural Mexicans to work at the cannabis plantation.  His disguise?  He messes his hair up, proving correct the assumption that poverty is often indicated by bad haircuts.


Providing the kind of hedonism that looks great on screen, we have Rafael Caro Quintero, Gallardo’s childhood friend and the mastermind behind the strain of weed that launches the whole operation.  A constant loose cannon of a threat to his pal’s business aims, he doubles the jeopardy at play in any illegal narcotics operation, not least with his very exciting dalliance with rich girl, Sofía.  These two revel in japes that make their eventual coming a cropper truly inevitable, providing excellent entertainment along the way.


Further complications come from Gallardo’s political entanglements, laying bare the rampant corruption that allows him to function in the first place.  With character traits as sinister as their suits are tacky, these men lurk constantly at his heels to exacerbate his stress at every turn.  Why anyone would choose such a career is beyond me.  You have loads of money, which is nice, but that only lasts until your violent murder, whereas a peaceful retirement must surely be a better, if impossible prospect.  Some of his perplexity was shared by me as a viewer though, as I unavoidably missed some of the subtitles explaining who specifically these chaps were, and ended up having to accept that men in bad suits dogging him at every turn were just par for the course.


I’ll conclude that Netflix is mostly right: if you liked Narcos, you’ll like Narcos: Mexico.  It is simply more of the same.  Heart-stopping drama is punctuated by the same standard tropes: stakeouts in period automobiles, tense cat-and-mouse near misses, cigarettes and moustaches.  The soundtrack is gunfire and Spanish swearwords.  The setting is sweaty dust and dusty sweat, though 1980s Guadalajara fails to excite the traveller in me as much as 1990s Colombia.  I couldn’t help wondering what the big idea was here: are we going to complete an encyclopaedic dramatization of every illegal substance oligarch South America has ever produced?  Either way, until Narcos: Uruguay is available for streaming, you can get your fix of that narco life with this show, but if true stories, class As, murders and Mexican sun are not crucial ingredients in your boxset viewing, then simply viewing Narcos (as in, Narcos: Original) is sufficient.



Sunday, 17 June 2018

Wild Wild Country

If you hover over a show for too long on Netflix, the trailer automatically starts playing before you know what you’ve done with your fat fingers.  If it’s something they’ve bought in, you get an odd array of clips with some incongruous music.  However, Netflix’s own shows have lovingly crafted pieces that leave you in no doubt that your life is now not worth living till you’ve seen every series of the programme in question.  This was how I felt about Wild Wild Country after its sudden appearance in the Recently Added menu.  It had conflict, mystery and maybe some nudity – and it really happened.  On it went, along with a million other things, to the watchlist.  Then, someone at work went and described it as unmissable.  Being easily swayed, it got bumped up the list.  I’ve now sat through all six episodes (just over an hour long each) and now I can write down what I thought about it in this silly little blog.  Let’s read on.  Everyone.  Please.


If, like me, you’re a mid-eighties baby, you might not have heard of the Rajneeshees.  This is the name for followers of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, an Indian spiritual leader whose approach to meditation and rolling around naked with pals and strangers garnered him an international set of followers.  They’re easy to spot in the documentary as they only wear clothes in shades of red, though some daringly branch out into purples, pinks and oranges.  His movement carries on to this day with books, communes and meditation retreats, but back in the early eighties, the organisation acquired land in rural Oregon to found, build and run a whole utopian city based on his teachings.  Now, the only bit of Oregon I’ve been to is Portland, a very liberal city with posters for vegan breastfeeding in its hipster grocery stores, but parts of the state are more conservative and rural.  And they don’t seem to like red clothes.  Thus Wild Wild Country opens by taking us on the journey of how Rajneesh’s movement came to be and how the neighbours responded when thousands of it followers rocked up in smalltown USA.

From then on, we weave our way through a whiplash-inducing storyline of the conflict between the government and the Rajneeshees.  Should they be allowed to overrun the nearby town of Antelope in order to dominate local elections?  Is it ok to build a city in the middle of disused land if you don’t have all the planning permissions?  What do you expect retired conservatives to think about a group of people who have an open-minded (and maybe open-legged) policy to marriage?  The neighbourly love soon runs out, with both sides hunkering down to outstay the other.  But this is very much the beauty of the documentary: you’ll change sides over and over again.  Like Making A Murderer, you’ll never be certain who’s wrong and who’s right.  Part of this comes down to not knowing which side is worse than the other, especially as things get more and more curious with weapons hoarding and alleged food poisoning attacks.  The narrative deliberately creates sympathy with one faction before taking it away and placing it with the other.


This is because the key contributors to the piece are those that lived through it most closely.  Events are told through the eyes of devoted Rajneeshees who themselves rose to the ranks of the organisation’s leadership.  Ma Anand Sheela today comes across like the cheeky grandma who tells it like it is at family events, but in her youth she was a bouffanted hardcase.  As Bhagwan’s personal secretary, she defended her people with devotion.  Despite admiring her fluency in English, you can really enjoy her use of idioms where she skips out the odd the or a, masking the real danger she posed with a bit of cuteness.  It’s through Jane Stork (Ma Shanti Bhadra) and Philip Toelkes (Swami Prem Niren) that you really get a palpable sense of the movement’s power over the individual.  Perhaps these core players’ experiences could have been complemented with perspectives from more incidental contemporaries.  Reams of stock footage show the thousands of followers – who were they and what are they doing now?  In particular, what of the street people who were bussed in from US cities to boost numbers?

Either way, there is a lot of footage of them.  These people seemed to film everything that the news cameras weren’t already covering.  Imagine how annoying their Instagram accounts would be today!  I was incredulous that so much footage could exist of something I’ve never heard of, (but then I’ve never watched Sky Sports and I’m told there’s literally non-stop team ball action on there), and I suspect that some of it has been made to look older to fit in with the sinister tone the documentary sets throughout (almost everything has a distortion line near the top), but plenty of it is a bit creepy in its own right, and not just because of the ill-advised eighties haircuts.

Most creepily portrayed is Bhagwan himself.  He only has himself to blame: he almost never blinks, he matches an array of tinsel-like woolly hats with Star Trek-esque tunics and he insists on sitting on this reclining throne with his legs crossed, making him look like someone’s dad watching daytime telly.  His sleepy and heavily accented speech (his Ts are drawn out more than you’d expect) emphasises the effect.  Either way, it’s clear he had a profound effect on his followers’ lives.  As someone who was born and raised heathen, I’ve never understood the need for organised religion.  If you can’t work out right and wrong for yourself, then there’s really no hope.  Deep.


But, after all, these people obviously needed something in their lives that he provided.  A lot of them really did have bad haircuts, so we can easily imagine the suffering.  Therefore, I urge you, take the journey with this show.  While the narrative avoids some specifics, such as exact dates and times, and numbers of followers and inhabitants, it does artfully cover the movement’s rise to be a focus for international news.  Rather than one individual crisis and crescendo, there are multiple steps in this horrid saga.  When it’s all over, you’ll feel both vindication and sympathy.  Sometimes real life can create the strangest boxset of all.