Another movieless weekend for me. No, I haven’t lost faith in the cinema. Every once in a while, I find I actually have a life outside the movies. But I do have a full plate this week. Traffic, Shadow of the Vampire, and yes, even Cast Away are still on my to-do list. None of which has been described as great by the friends I trust to provide me with accurate reviews. But I’m actually glad to be going into these movies with somewhat lower expectations. I’ve started to learn that having high expectations for a film these days is the kiss of death. Case in point: I was particularly excited to see Gladiator over the summer, and I came out of the theater thinking that it was one of the worst films ever. I recently revisited the film on DVD and still felt it was very flawed, but I couldn’t remember why I’d thought it should rank on my Worst 10 List. Thinking about it, I realized it was because I had been so geared up for the most exciting and exhilarating filmgoing experience of my life. When it failed to live up to my ridiculously high expectations, I was crushed. So I guess that’s my New Year’s Movie Resolution. Don’t have high expectations for any movie. Ever. Go into every film thinking it will be average and, nine times out of ten, I won’t leave the theater disappointed. Come to think of it, that’s my grandmother’s advice on how to approach everything in life. I knew she was a smart ol’ broad.

Also sharing his New Year’s Movie Resolution is Iconoclast Matt...

"My main resolution is to go to my dollar theaters more. Several of them in my area closed down, thanks to chains declaring Chapter 11. But a couple have re-opened or converted. So I shall use them more often. You still see a movie on the big screen and, in some cases, with a better-than-average sound system. I also resolve to save the films I should see for ‘smashing rights’ (being able to say how bad a movie is because I’ve seen it) for either the aforementioned dollar theater or the privacy of my own home. Now, I only wish my digital cable would carry wide-screen, pay-per-view features. Or I should save my money for HDTV. Come to think of it, why would I want to see a movie when I know it’s going to be bad in the first place? Your friends are right to warn you about Traffic. It should have been two great separate films instead of the meshing of three short films. When Catherine Zeta-Jones or Benicio Del Toro are on screen, it’s riveting (if not entirely original). When Michael Douglas is on screen, you can catch a nap. And the tinting of the individual stories are no help. It’s almost a case of style over substance. But I will have no problem rooting for Mrs. Jones-Douglas for Best Supporting Actress or Steven Soderbergh for Best Director... for Erin Brockovich. May our 2001 be better than our 2000." -- Iconoclast Matt

After reading Matt’s review of Traffic, the always-vocal Paul D. will probably think Iconoclast Matt should resolve to quit moviegoing altogether. Here’s what he has to say to you Traffic critics...

"Anyone who thinks that Traffic is only good and not great should never be allowed to see another movie again." -- Paul Doro

Here are two more folks who won’t be allowed to accompany Paul D. to the movies...

"I went to see Traffic yesterday and have been musing about the experience. I sat there admiring the artistry: the acting, the direction, the cinematography were all that had been promised, and yet somehow I felt detached from the movie. I never lost myself in it. I even looked at my watch twice. Even the plot about the drug czar and his daughter, which should have been so moving, left me tearless. Perhaps it was the skipping among the three plots that kept me from losing myself in any one of them. Perhaps my admiration for the acting and direction kept me objective instead of subjective, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but it was interesting to me. I think Traffic is a better movie than Erin Brockovich, which I also admired, but I got more involved in the latter. But maybe it was just my mood, or the fact that there were some irritatingly noisy people near me. Who knows what accounts for one’s subjective experience of a movie? This must happen to real critics, too. Who knows what effects Kenneth Turan having a grumpy day might have on the bottom line of a given film! Still, I thought Traffic was a remarkable film, from an artistic point of view. It just didn’t move me." -- Carol O.

"It wasn’t long ago that I set out to the movie theater to experience what promised to be an enjoyable film, Traffic. It wasn’t long after that when I left the theater wondering how I ever got the idea in my head that Traffic was going to be an enjoyable film. Please don’t misunderstand, it isn’t a BAD movie. Traffic’s problem, in my opinion, is that it completely failed, completely, to portray any amount of realism, while at the same time keeping at least my attention. The central cause for this problem is trivial and probably wouldn’t bother most people. The farther north a scene is taking place (Washington, D.C.) the more vivid the colors are; the farther south a scene is taking place (Mexico) the more the film seems to be washed out. (California is a mid-ground, partially washed out.) I found this to be artistically creative, yet enormously distracting from what mediocre plot the movie had to offer. Do you guys agree that it’s distracting, or do you think it adds something necessary to the film? Once again, don’t get me wrong -- Traffic isn’t bad...but it isn’t good either. On a related note, I think the people at the Academy are going to love this movie. It tries to tell us something deep about our society and partially succeeds. Personally, and a couple of my friends have already disagreed with me, I believe that this film is similar to Seven. Nobody walks away from the movie in a good mood, but lots of people walk out respecting it for the manner in which the story was presented to the viewer. Basically, I really wanted to like this movie...but it just didn’t do it for me. Sorry for ranting. :)" --Justin W. Austin, Texas

Never apologize for ranting Justin W. That’s what Civilian Voices is here for. Seems we’ve got a handful of folks who just couldn’t give Traffic two thumbs-up. Maybe one, but not two. Paul D. and others who will probably be putting Traffic on their Top 10 lists, it’s your turn to respond. Why is Traffic great and not just good? I hope to see the film by the end of the week so I can pick a side in this debate as well.

Robert B. is up next with his views on the year in movies...

"Why are people saying this year was unmercifully bad for American cinema? It’s a drop-off from last year, but far better then 1998. Yeah, we had Saving Private Ryan and the charming-in-its-own-way There’s Something About Mary, but what else? Armageddon? Deep Impact? Zorro? The Siege? Godzilla?! The Avengers?!! Dead Man on Campus?!!! And those are just the movies I can remember (I had an old newspaper). And remember 1997, with Batman and Robin. I think any year with that atrocity deserves to be called the worst, even if Casablanca was released in the same year. What was good about this year was we could see the crap coming. Anyone who went into The Next Best Thing, Battlefield Earth, M:I-2, Big Momma’s House, Scary Movie, The Klumps, Blair Witch 2, The Grinch, and Charlie’s Angels expecting something amazing deserves to lose their eight bucks. (However, those who came out of The Patriot, The Perfect Storm, and What Lies Beneath disappointed have legitimate gripes.) We had glorious throw-backery in Gladiator, the everywoman appeal in Erin Brockovich, intelligent and fun sci-fi in X-Men, black-comic genius in Wonder Boys, unnerving depth in Quills, unprecedented pacing in Traffic, family fun at its best in Chicken Run, and the heartwarming retro-stylings of Almost Famous. One should also notice that when I line up my bad list, it comes out to quite a bigger total than my good list (even subtracting Battlefield Earth and The Next Best Thing). Hmmm. I think before people go shouting about the poor film quality of this 2000, they should put their money where their mouth is." -- Robert Bartlett

In the weekend edition of Civilian Voices, I brought up the topic of the relationship between Oscar and the box office. I believe niche films like Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and Oh Brother, Where Art Thou? benefit from nominations. Mark T. reminds us that Oscar doesn’t always bring big B.O....

"It seems that there is a misconception in Hollywood that bleeds over from the types of movies made to how they fare at the box office around Oscar time. Granted, a run at the Oscar CAN boost the dollars a movie takes in at the box office. But a win guarantees nothing. Having worked in a theater as a manager, I can recall the film Raging Bull, a critical favorite, winning Best Picture and being re-released. It was the second time the film had played in our theater and both times it did nothing. As for Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, I can’t wait to see it. But I doubt that that will be the same with most filmgoers. Having worked in a theater as well as a video store, I found that most of the American public does not enjoy nor accept having to read captions. It may be an ‘Archie Bunker’ mentality of ‘they all oughta speak our language’ or it just may be laziness on the part of the public. But the fact of the matter is that no matter how good a film, with subtitles, its chances of making major money are limited. Many will hope that they offer a dubbed version when it comes out on videotape. One final comment as to why these movies need that extra wait to be found by Oscar voters and the public alike. I have thoroughly enjoyed the movies made by the Coen Brothers. But at the same time, I realize that they are not mainstream movies that the public will fall all over itself to get to. Instead, they are the rare gems that true movie fans will enjoy. And they are also the types of films that the Oscar voters fall all over themselves to nominate. It seems that those involved have always wanted to prove that they are a legitimate art form to the point of ignoring any movie that made us laugh or made megabucks. Hey, just look at how many of the movies that have won Best Picture have been comedies. Perhaps the Academy should not take itself seriously. Just a thought." -- Mark Turner

Once again, I have to put in my two cents about Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. People who are scared of subtitles really shouldn’t shy away from this film. There is actually very little dialogue. CTHD uses moving images to tell its story. Much more so than it uses dialogue. What a novel idea! Okay, I’ll step off my CTHD soapbox, for now. Don’t make me get back up there, people.

Civilian Voices concludes with Russell D.’s take on Pearl Harbor and the lack of authenticity in movies...

"I completely agree with you about Pearl Harbor. It does not feel the least bit authentic. But it’s directed by Michael Bay, so how authentic can it be? I mean, this guy came from directing commercials and music videos, so all he really knows is exposition, not storytelling. Not to knock music-video director Spike Jonze. Nevertheless, Pearl Harbor is not the only film that I felt lacked authenticity. Saving Private Ryan, The Patriot, and The Cider House Rules are examples of recent films where things seemed manufactured and our feelings were manipulated to squeeze every last dollar out of our pockets. I wish audiences would embrace current films like Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, Love and Basketball, or even last year’s Mansfield Park (one film that Miramax should have campaigned for, not the godawful Cider House Rules), because those films reek of authenticity, and it remains with you for hours, days, and even a lifetime after viewing them." -- Russell Dumornay

All right, folks. It’s your turn to contribute. Do you think Golden Globe nominations are going to have or already have had an effect on the box office? Is Traffic great? Good? Bad? What do you think of the trailers and TV ads for AntiTrust? What recent films have felt authentic? Which ones felt like, you know, movies? How do you feel about Double Take and Save the Last Dance? Both center on characters who are forced to "act black" (a line taken from the Double Take trailer). Do these kinds of films promote negative stereotypes of African Americans, or is it just good, clean fun? I’d really like to hear your thoughts on this one. So send me an e-mail, won’t you?

 

Send your submissions to civilianvoices@roughcut.com

No purchase necessary. Void where prohibited. Must be age 16 or older to submit a story. Stories will be edited for length and content by representatives of Roughcut. Not all stories will appear online. By submitting this story you agree that Roughcut has the perpetual right to use the submitted story, in any and all media, without limitation, as Roughcut may determine in its sole discretion. You also acknowledge that you will not receive any monetary compensation for the use, if any, of your story.