The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
7A — Tuesday, September 8, 2015

LITERATURE COLUMN

To kill ‘Atticus

Finch’

By REBECCA LERNER

Daily Literature Columnist
“

I’ll say one thing for her
– she sure can write.” My
dad said to me, interrupting

my reading of Harper Lee’s “Go
Set A Watchman.” The recently
released novel, a chronological
sequel to Lee’s first book, was
actually written prior to her
iconic “To Kill A Mockingbird.

As it is for many Americans,

the story of Scout during her
transformative 10th summer
in Alabama is more than just a
book to me. One of my fondest
childhood memories is of listen-
ing with my brother to my father
reading “To Kill A Mockingbird”
in the summer when I was nine
years old. With my logical and
kind father, my teasing older
brother and my god awful haircut
that resembled Mary Badham’s
in the film adaption, I related to
Scout on a fundamental level. As
I grew older and had to study the
novel twice in high school, I con-
tinued to naively adore its charac-
ters. I proudly donned the “What
Would Atticus Do?” pin given to
everyone in my grade. When my
neighbor’s family named their
dog Atticus, I gave my whole-
hearted approval. Like Scout in
the novel, I put Atticus on a ped-
estal. But “Go Set A Watchman”
crushes that pedestal, putting
Atticus firmly on the ground as
the human being he is.

“Go Set A Watchman” begins

with the adult Scout, who now
goes by her given name Jean-
Louise, when she returns to
her hometown of Maycomb,
Alabama from her life in New
York City. At first she slips back
into her old town comfortably,
flirting with her high school
sweetheart, Henry Clinton,
and fighting with her Aunt

Alexandra. Her ease ends when
she finds out that Atticus, Jean-
Louise’s earliest model of integ-
rity and fairness, is a member of
a version of the Klu Klux Klan
called the Citizen’s Council.

The racial justifications that

Atticus gives Jean-Louise for his
behavior are incredibly uncom-
fortable. There’s no escaping it.
While he agrees with his liberal
daughter that black people are
human, he does not believe they
have the capacity for decision-
making or responsibility. It
seems unnatural to hear such
bigotry spew from the mouth
of the man who stood 20 years
earlier in front of his entire town
to defend Tom Robinson and
said “Gentlemen, if there’s one
slogan in this world I believe it is
this, equal rights for all, special
privileges for none.” When we
flash back to this moment with
a young Scout, the shock and
hurt that she experiences with
this revelation about her father
seems entirely legitimate.

And yet, the discovery about

Atticus does not inherently con-
tradict the beloved characters of
“To Kill A Mockingbird.” Atticus
is first and foremost a law-abid-
ing man, and his defense of Tom
Robinson was based on the fact
that Robinson was an innocent
man being accused of a crime
he did not commit. A clear dis-
tinction is made between Atti-
cus and more infamous White
Supremacists – Atticus would
never physically hurt someone
or break the law to uphold his
beliefs. His less violent form
of racism possibly comes as a
surprise, but does not come out
of nowhere. After living in the
deep South for 72 years, Atticus,
a straight white male with some
socio-economic power, does not
want to change a system that

favors himself and his offspring.
If this situation were applied to
anyone besides the most famous
seeker of justice in modern lit-
erature, the conclusion that in
these circumstances, this person
would subscribe to paternalistic
racism would not be eccentric.

But he’s not some random rac-

ist. And our connection to the
person that he was in the first
book is what fuels the fire of the
second. Like the rest of “Go Set
A Watchman,” the ties that it has
to the characters from “To Kill
A Mockingbird” prove to be it’s
shining moments of glory. The
narrator Jean-Louise, who in
the second novel has made the
switch from her wise beyond
her years first person voice to
a more stiff third person one,
comes to life when she dwells on
her childhood. Without the first
book, it would be too much to
expect readers to care about how
much Jean-Louise has changed,
or that she doesn’t speak to Dill,
or that Atticus is part of the citi-
zen’s council. “Go Set a Watch-
man” is a fine addition to its
predecessor, but would wobble if
it tried to stand on its own.

“To Kill A Mockingbird” has

its roots in “Go Set A Watch-
man.” An editor saw the passion
of the childhood scenes and
asked Harper Lee to write a
book twenty years earlier from
the point of the view of young
Scout. Without “Watchman”, we
wouldn’t have the entrancing
book that will make countless
young Americans actually enjoy
English class. It’s enjoyable to
read because even after not pen-
ning another book for over 40
years – Lee sure can write.

Lerner is The Michigan Daily’s

new literature columnist. You can

contact her at rebler@umich.edu.

Ambitious ‘Narcos’

TV REVIEW

By MATT BARNAUSKAS

Daily Arts Writer

“Sometimes truth is stranger

than fiction,” “Narcos” ’s nar-
rator, DEA agent Steve Murphy
(Boyd
Hol-

brook,
“Run

All
Night”),

meditates.
“There’s a rea-
son
magical

realism
was

born in Colom-
bia. It’s a coun-
try
where

dreams and reality are conflated,
where in their heads people fly as
high as Icarus. But even magical
realism has its limits.”

Following the rise and rule

of infamous Colombian cocaine
kingpin Pablo Escobar (Wagner
Moura, “Elite Squad”), “Nar-
cos” crafts a sweeping narrative
of corruption and brutality that
spans nearly two decades. The
life of Escobar is simultaneously
alluring and repulsive. Filled
with wealth, sex and excess, the
lifestyle is reminiscent of the
gangsters on display in films
such as “Goodfellas,” a fantasy
of riches and dreams come true.
But, like its American counter-
part, “Narcos” displays the sick-
ening foundation that built this
empire and the toxic effect it has
on those involved, as Escobar
grows more brutal and paranoid
and violence becomes the only
answer.

On the other side of the law,

the American Murphy, his part-
ner Javier Peña (Pedro Pas-
cal, “Game of Thrones”) and
Colombian Colonel Horatio Car-
illo (Maurice Compte, “A Walk
Among the Tombstones”) are
tasked with taking down Esco-
bar. The trio is a mixed bag. Pas-
cal highlights the charisma he
had as Oberyn Martell in “Game
of Thrones” in his portrayal of
Peña, a smooth veteran who
knows that capturing Escobar
requires some extralegal means

as
bureaucracy
continuously

interferes. Carillo shares this
sentiment, but has the added
burden of calling the country
home and seeing it turn into a
battlefield.

Moura handles Escobar with

a deft performance that human-
izes the man but never glosses
over how monstrous he can be.
He gives money to the poor,
but later plagues his homeland
with car bombings so he can
get what he wants. Escobar is a
violent man but not a dumb one,
as Moura displays intelligence
behind every move. Nowhere
is this better on display than
Escobar’s introduction. Under
the direction of José Padilha
(the director of “Elite Squad”),
Moura as Escobar intimidates
several border guards into sub-
mission, blatantly displaying the
items he smuggles. The camera
lingers on Escobar as he casu-
ally brings up the names of the
soldiers, then the names of their
wives and children, giving them
the choice, “Plata o plomo,” (sil-
ver or lead). Shot in one take,
the scene is a chilling display of
control with Padilha, who is also
a producer for the series. The
standard for “Narcos” is estah-
blished early on by capturing
Columbia’s paradox of aesthetic
beauty against social suffering
and violence.

Murphy isn’t as effective.

Portrayed
with
a
southern

drawl by Holbrook, Murphy
is the new guy thrust into the
jungles and slums of Colombia.
Murphy’s story is one of initial
patriotism and disillusionment,
giving way to the realization
that “Good and bad, they’re
relative concepts.” Only when
Murphy plunges into the rabbit
hole of obsession with bring-
ing Escobar to justice does he
become
somewhat
interest-

ing. However, some unhinged
moments, like when he shoots
the tires of a frustrated cabbie,
still feel forced.

The most truly irritating

aspect of Murphy derives from
his near constant narration.
While occasionally offering a
clever or sobering observation,
“Narcos” ’s voiceover serves
mainly
as
an
information

dump, supplying facts about
Escobar’s
dynasty
or
plot

information. Considering the
scope of the series, it’s under-
standable that narration will
be used, but it’s so constant and
occasionally unnecessary in its
hand-holding that it becomes
an annoyance.

The beast that is the real life

story behind “Narcos” is hard to
tame, and though the show tries
its best to wrestle with as much
as it can, it sometimes loses its
grip. With reflections on Ameri-
can interventionism, the nature
of good and evil and the ineffec-
tive hypocrisy of bureaucracy
among its themes, “Narcos” has
a lot to say within its first 10 epi-
sodes, creating a balancing act
that alternatively soars and tum-
bles with the execution. The
show uses actual news footage
to inconsistently enforce these
ideas. At times the use drives
home the reality of the situation:
that truth is crazier than fiction.
However, at times it feels like a
blatant cost cutting measure,
considering the use of the Palace
of Justice siege, a pivotal event
is almost entirely stock footage.

“Narcos” may struggle at

times handling its ambition,
but it still delivers enough of
its initial promise – crafting a
fascinating portrayal of one of
history’s most brutal criminals
and the dark world surrounding
him.

B

Narcos

Season One

Netflix

‘Narcos’ is still

promising.