•
Rating: Initially, I was somewhat skeptical about the choice to consistently maintain the presence of a narrating voice. For two reasons: on one hand because the character narrating is DEA agent Murphy, whose point of view is not particularly interesting; on the other hand, because a very intrusive narrating voice risks flattening and making the understanding of the events too easy. As I progressed through the episodes, I partially changed my judgment: Murphy's perspective evolves as the agent becomes increasingly cynical and willing to use violence. Moreover, the narrating voice becomes less intrusive, returning only at appropriate moments, when it's necessary to summarize or explain.
In the end, it's a fundamental narrative choice; one can aim for clarity or intrigue. However, given the type of story, historically attested and well-known, it seems sensible to focus on clarity to delve into and thoroughly explain the issues instead of attempting a surprise effect that would have been impossible from the outset unless for viewers totally unaware of Escobar's affairs.
Let's talk about him, the great looming monstrum of the series: Pablo Escobar is portrayed with skill by Wagner Moura. The acting is passionate, intense without being excessive or affected; the voice is hoarse, the walk burdened by overweight. In short, there's nothing to reproach Moura for. The only problem with the character is not due to any fault of his: in his gaze, there's a lack of that hint of evil charisma, which, for example, is seen in a snippet of archive footage in the opening credits, when the real Escobar appears.
The intention to mimic the features and attitudes of the famous drug lord emblemizes an almost documentary style: for instance, the actor playing Murphy, Boyd Holbrook, also bears a great resemblance to the real agent Murphy shown in the opening credits (the song, by the way, is beautiful). Additionally, there are several archive sequences that appear here and there during the episodes, reinforcing the close proximity to actual events. And then there's Horacio Carrillo, still based on the profile of Colonel Hugo Martinez. Everything in Narcos seems to have roots in real historical events. This, however, does not detract from the credibility of the television adaptation; the fiction version has its internal credibility and coherence, regardless of the historical truth of the contents.
There are many characters: some work well, like agent Peña played by the well-known Pedro Pascal, or President César Gaviria, magnificently represented in his political indecisions by the skilled Raúl Méndez. The various criminals of the Medellín cartel are characterized just enough; they are secondary characters but still remain memorable due to peculiar traits that stand out and also because the narrating voice repeatedly mentions their names. Some actors are not convincing: among them, those playing Tata Escobar and Pacho Herrera, but they are minor roles. Overall, the extensive cast is very well managed.
Among the merits of the series is certainly the choice to have the characters speak the actual language spoken in Colombia, Spanish. But it's not just that: there are also several moments of code switching, for instance by agent Murphy, or various dynamics based on language misunderstandings, or even requests for translation by English-speaking characters. In short, the "language issue" is a theme that frequently and interestingly returns; it brings to mind the splendid linguistic dynamics of Inglourious Basterds, with the necessary allowances obviously.
The series is very solid but also suffers from a couple of flaws that prevent it from reaching the same level as other serial productions. At times, there are low-cost choices, especially in action or violent sequences, that starkly contrast with the high quality of the narration. I think, for example, of the special forces raid on Escobar's Cathedral; the only notable moment in this regard is the dual pursuit of Peña and Murphy against two drug traffickers, with a good use of the camera on a Dolly track.
Lastly, the most regrettable flaw is perhaps the inability to identify a true protagonist with whom viewers can relate. It would be Murphy, but it's evident that Escobar overshadows him. But at the same time, Pablo cannot be the true protagonist because he has too many villain traits. All in all, this is not necessarily a flaw, it can also be seen as a feature of modernity. But, as we know, great stories often need great protagonists. And Pablo Emilio Escobar is too repugnant to be one. In this sense, the evil in Narcos is not at all intriguing, as it might have been in Breaking Bad; but we are talking about a completely different level.
7/10
Loading comments slowly
