Y tu Luna también: Pan y circo: Season 2, Episode 2 – “Democracy in Crisis” (2021)

This is a topic that’s felt depressingly familiar in the U.S. in recent years, and it’s been troubling to see the rise of far-right parties in numerous countries around the world. This episode examines the threat to democracy globally but, naturally, focuses specifically on the political situation in Mexico.

Here are some highlights from the dinner discussion:

• Over Zoom, Diego Luna speaks to a Chilean politician about the landscape there, both in the present and under Pinochet’s regime – After discussing the strong tendency of leaders to cling to/amass more power, she says, “That’s why institutions matter. Because they have to remain stronger than whoever’s in power.”
• A political analyst argues that Mexico’s current political system isn’t actually a democracy – “What’s incredible is that democracy isn’t possible in a society that lives in fear. If there’s fear, you can call it many things, but it’s not democracy.”
• The general secretary for Mexico’s Morena party agrees with that – “We assume we already live in a democracy. But, just under the surface, there are many undemocratic elements in most decision-making processes from the past decades.”
• A member of the National Indigenous Council focuses on political organizers who’ve been murdered in Mexico – “A country that kills people working for democracy makes you wonder what kind of democracy we’re building.”
• For all of the country’s political struggles, the general secretary hasn’t given up hope – “I’m optimistic. I think Mexico’s at a point where the new isn’t born and the old hasn’t died. That’s where we have a great opportunity. We can either reinvent the old political culture or build a new one.”
• The political analyst argues that, in building democracy, they shouldn’t let the perfect become the enemy of the good – “Good outcomes aren’t guaranteed! The expectation that democracy will give us a perfect government is a lack of understanding of the nature of humanity. Our imperfection means we can only remedy problems, not solve them with an ideal government.”
• Another Zoom guest, a journalist, recalls President López Obrador’s promise to make Mexico safer. It was a promise that led many people to vote for him, but he’s since ignored those words – The journalist repeats the president’s earlier claim, saying, “We have to stress this. Soldiers belong in barracks, not streets.”
•  A Chilean scholar and activist, participating over Zoom, examines how the end of Pinochet’s regime led into the country’s current political struggles – “The democracy that came after the dictatorship was so corrupted that it created a leadership crisis.”

This is certainly another issue that resonates deeply with Diego Luna. In his opening voiceover, he says, “It seems democracy is one step away from breaking down, waiting for the next dictator to put an end to it.” He highlights the number of candidates in the current election who’ve been murdered, and he talks over Zoom with participants in Chile to give greater context to the situation in Mexico while also broadening the conversation to include other parts of Latin America. At the same time, he continues to feel hopeful about the possibilities of the future—he tells the guests, “It’s great to feel a part of change, part of the construction of a new reality and the transformation of an environment. That makes you want to live in it.”

And as always, I like his interactions in the kitchen. Instead of assisting the main chef this time around, he takes the lead on the meal, getting help from professionals but doing a lot of the cooking himself. He discusses democracy with the chef who’s helping him. When the chef says that absolute power is needed in his work, Luna suggests the emendation, “The kitchen isn’t democratic, but hunger is.” And I enjoy a little moment when Luna tastes one of the spicier ingredients. The chef warns him, “It’s hot. Be brave!” A few seconds later, Luna chokes a little as he admits, “…I was trying to look cool.” Amid heavy subject matter, it’s nice to get these moments of levity.

Joel Fry-days: Haunting of the Queen Mary (2023)

*Premise spoilers*

I wasn’t a fan of this one. Part of it, I’m sure, is just that I’m not a big horror person in general, but I’m pretty sure it’s also true that this isn’t a very good horror movie. Definitely confusing in places, and its construction leaves me feeling kind of disconnected from the main characters. 

Anne Calder and her ex(?) Patrick come to the Queen Mary with a pitch for a new writing project about the ship’s history and ghost stories. While they’re there, something happens to their son Lukas during a haunted tour. When Anne and Patrick return to the ship, despite warnings from the creepy security guard who calls himself the captain, they’re after something much more important than their project.

I’ll start by saying that I didn’t completely dislike the film. The film jumps between the present day and 1938, and the flashbacks feature some interesting characters—I especially enjoy a sequence between a starstruck young girl and Fred Astaire, both passengers on the fateful voyage. There are some surprising moments of humor—a scene where Anne is scrabbling for purchase as she’s choked by a ghost is intercut with a scene of Patrick straining to reach up into a vending machine, with parallel shots of their hands. I also like that Lukas has dwarfism and, while there are allusions to teasing/trouble fitting in at a new school, it’s not really a “thing” in the story. There isn’t a plot reason for Lukas to have dwarfism, he just does. 

Okay, when I say this is a confusing movie, I’m giving it full leeway for shadowy horror-movie logic. Those elements of the film actually do get decently explained over time, largely thanks to its many jumps between the present day and 1938, when a number of grisly murders happened aboard the ship. Even if it takes quite a while, we eventually find out what happened with the murders and how it ties to the present-day hauntings. Whether it makes sense is still up for grabs, but I do get what they’re going for.

What’s far less clear is the story of the main characters and their reactions to the creepy events unfolding. Let’s start with the relationship dynamics. Anne and Patrick might be exes, or separated, or together but just drifting apart. When he refers to Lukas as their son, she draws a hard line and insists, “My son,” even though Lukas calls Patrick “Dad”—while Patrick isn’t Lukas’s biological father, that’s clearly the position he’s held in Lukas’s life, and whatever’s going on between Anne and Patrick, it feels disingenuous of her to deny that. Anne is resistant to Patrick’s desire to reconcile and settle down together, calling it too “permanent” and telling him, “I just don’t believe in marriage,” but they all have the same last name. So are they married or not? I really don’t know what’s going on with them.

When it comes to their reactions to the ghosts/what’s going on with Lukas, the characters are greatly hampered by a narrative structure that deliberately holds back information to the audience for the sake of dramatic reveals later on. While I don’t mind the 1938 flashbacks, we also return several times to a flashback with Anne, Lukas, and Patrick in the present day. Again, we see this scene nonlinearly so the film can deliver twists, but it obscures what they do and don’t already know. This means that, when Anne and Patrick are on the Queen Mary, their responses often feel underwhelming. For a big chunk of the film, they don’t display much urgency, partly because it has yet to be revealed that they already knew some of this stuff going in. And if they’re not all that freaked out or confused a lot of the time, why should I be?

Naturally, this has an impact on the central performances. As Anne, Alice Eve often comes across as muted and detached, even though she’s a mother who’s had something creepy and distressing happen to her son. Unless she’s being actively chased/attacked by ghosts, she rarely has much of a reaction.

I’ll get to Patrick’s side of that coin in a minute. First, I quickly want to mention some of the other cast. I recognized Lenny Rush, who plays Lukas, from Ncuti Gatwa’s first season of Doctor Who, where he briefly played a young genius working for UNIT. The only other familiar face for me was Angus Wright, a British Hey It’s That Guy! that I’ve seen in lots of different things. Because he plays one of the 1938 characters, Wright doesn’t share any scenes with Joel Fry, but he was in Bank of Dave as Hugh’s boss.

All right, now let’s talk about Joel Fry as Patrick. Like Eve, he’s hamstrung because the film holds back just how much he does or doesn’t know about all the haunted stuff, so his reactions often feel too low-key for what’s happening. He also takes the brunt of the confusing relationship dynamics. We learn that Patrick has conceived this writing project in the hope that doing it together will help him and Anne patch things up. “You and Lukas would come home,” he explains. “We’d be family again.” He’s incredibly focused on this and repeatedly brings it up in moments where there are plainly bigger fish to fry. And yet, for all that he obviously loves Lukas and wants to be with him, he doesn’t seem at all bothered that Lukas briefly goes missing on his watch while they’re on the tour together, insisting to Anne, “We found him, no big deal.”

It all adds up to a lot of internal inconsistency, despite Fry’s efforts to make it all work. There are a few good things here, but it’s an uphill battle. I like how plainly delighted Patrick is to see Anne and Lukas when they first arrive at the Queen Mary. I like his quiet resolve to help Anne when they go back, even though he takes Anne’s distance from him to mean he isn’t “enough” for her. And I really like a scene later in the movie where Patrick and the creepy security guard/“captain” encounter each other in the midst of all the haunted goings-on.

Accent Watch

Generic American. As with American Sweatshop, it’s not outright bad but definitely sounds a bit iffy throughout.

Recommend?

In General – No. There are some interesting ideas here and it could’ve had potential, but the end result is too jumbled and sloppy

Joel Fry – Not a must. It’s a decent-sized role and he’s all right, but the script lets him down. He’s been much better in other things.

Warnings

Violence, disturbing imagery, language, drinking/smoking, and thematic elements (including suicide.)

Other Doctor Lives: W1A: 2024 Comic Relief (2024)

While W1A did a short special over Zoom in 2020, David Tennant wasn’t a part of that one, so we’re jumping ahead to this Comic Relief bit from a couple years ago. Although, when I was looking for this, I found out that there’s a new new spinoff with Ian and Siobhan, and Tennant narrates that one too. Not sure if I’m going to jump right into that show or if I’ll take another short break from this franchise. I guess you’ll find out next week!

It’s Sir Lenny Henry’s last year hosting Comic Relief, and Ian, Tracey, and Siobhan have invited him over to the BBC offices to say farewell, showering him with thanks and telling him how irreplaceable he is. Unfortunately, Lenny shows up late to the meeting, causing it to overrun with the people auditioning to replace him as host.

It’s an 11-minute sketch with essentially one main joke: that BBC doesn’t think Lenny Henry is nearly as “irreplaceable” as they claim. A host of British celebrities pop in and out of the meeting room, most of whom are people I don’t recognize. There are some amusing bits. One guy auditions as one of Lenny’s old characters, and Lenny gripes that another shouldn’t get the job because he’s already in everything—to prove his point, he switches on the TV, where the guy is hosting The Weakest Link. And this bit, from the start of the meeting, made me smile:

IAN: “After nearly 30 years of Comic Relief…” 

LENNY: “Actually, it’s nearly 40.” 

IAN: “Gosh, is it really?” 

At which point, of course, Ian takes the farewell card they got Lenny and writes a heavy “4” over the “3.”

As with the previous Comic Relief special, there’s only a smidge of David Tennant here, mainly just a quick intro at the start of the sketch. I liked, ““It’s Friday, and somewhere—in wherever the BBC is now—some senior executives have gathered together.”

Okay, last thoughts on the David Tennant portion of W1A!

Accent Watch

Scottish.

Recommend?

In General – A soft maybe. It’s amusing, but it gets too repetitive for me.

David Tennant – Not necessarily. While he does a nice job, it’s not really worth it to watch just for Tennant if you’re not otherwise interested in the show.

Warnings

Language, drinking/smoking, and mild thematic elements.