Over the last decade or so there has been a glut of content about Pablo Escobar and the Columbian drug trade. Books, documentaries, Tv and Film dramas have all covered the subject, sometimes in forensic detail. So, for another documentary to be made and to spark any sort of interest it would have to be something quite special or it would just drown in the ever-expanding sea of content.
Killing Escobar does that. it tells the story of an attempt to assassinate the drug lord in 1989. Hired by the rival Calle cartel, a group of mercenaries, led by Scotsman Peter McAleese, planned and executed the request. That they were not successful is neither here nor there in terms of the story being told.
The documentary mainly uses tried and tested techniques to tell the story. There are talking heads interviews with the principals from the mercenaries, the Calle cartel, the US authorities and the Medellin cartel. Each interview is used to move the story forward in some way. Initially, this is to give the viewer a brief background to the situation that was Columbian drug trafficking in the early Eighties. It is a clever way of introducing the various elements and a handy reminder for those who have some knowledge of the time.
In addition, there are reconstructions of certain key events which are used to very good effect to enhance the interviews. One reconstruction focuses on the events just after the assassination attempt. The film starts with Peter crawling through the jungle accompanied by a voice-over. The film returns to this situation several times after this and is in effect used as a device for constructing various chapters of the film. This allows the story to jump between the build-up to the attempt and the background of Peter McAleese.
The focus of the film is on Peter himself. His interviews drive the narrative. He comes across as being very personable, considering he was a gun for hire in most of the major conflicts from the nineteen seventies onwards. He is quite frank regarding what he did and in no way tries to explain it away with excuses. His background in post-war Glasgow is examined in depth. His father played a major role in his young life by not actually being around too much. He was a hard man and a lot of Peter’s behaviour stems from this relationship. Peter was a young man prone to anger and found the military life was a way to focus and control this. He was very good at his job and after leaving the army found that he couldn’t cope with ordinary life and turned to mercenary work. All of this gives the picture of a certain type of person, one who is focused organised and very good at his job.
The one thing that makes this film stand out is the use of actual footage from the time. One of the leaders of the mercenaries owned a video camera and used it to record all sorts of detail about the time. The fact that he was able to do this around such people speaks volumes about the trust that they had in each other as a team. What they were doing was not illegal but certainly frowned upon by Governments, so to see these men training and talking freely about what they do is actually quite remarkable. The video and the multitude of still images used gives a real flavour of what was involved in the setup and just what was at stake.
The only time the documentary strikes a slightly sour note is in the later life of Peter. He is at pains to note that he was raised as a catholic and it was to that religion he returned when the fighting came to an end. The film didn’t need this element as it wasn’t really necessary to include any sort of redemption arc to the story. Obviously, it is important to Peter but it didn’t quite fit with the rest of the narrative. I suspect it was included at his request. It is also worth noting that this job was noted as being the turning point for Peter and it is indicated in the film that this was the point that his life changed. It is in the credit sequence at the end that it is noted that although not ever in the frontline, he did in fact work as a ‘security consultant’ in a couple of conflicts after that. it kind of puts a dent in what he said towards the end of the film and is more than a little confusing as to why the statement was included. Full disclosure I suppose.
Killing Escobar is a film that deals with another aspect of the already crowded life of the Columbian drug king. It manages to steer away from re-telling the very well known tales of his life and instead brings a rather interesting story to life.
- Moviescramble podcast – Ep 76: Hit Man and The Killer - November 18, 2024
- Moviescramble podcast – Deleted scenes Ep 75 - November 18, 2024
- Hugh Bonneville surprises young patients at Glasgow’s Royal Hospital for Children for MediCinema Screening of Paddington in Peru - November 7, 2024
