I’ve just got to start today’s column with a thank-you. The e-mails I have received over the past few days have been intelligent, insightful, and thought provoking. I’ve thrown out various topics, and you have come back with great responses. The debates between those of you who disagree about the merits of a certain film are always civil, and your opinions are always backed by well-thought-out arguments. I get a thrill seeing what you "regulars" to the column are going to say next. And I’m sure those who read Civilian Voices on a regular basis do as well.

If you haven’t submitted to Civilian Voices, or you’ve submitted before but your e-mail didn’t make its way into the column, please write. I try my best to include as many e-mails as possible, while still keeping the column somewhat streamlined. Everyone has something important to contribute to the discussion of movies, and today’s column is a shining example of that. Now, here’s Joe G., who thinks the Pearl Harbor trailer is a little, well, creepy...

"The Roosevelt makeup on Jon Voight in the Pearl Harbor trailer is the creepiest thing I’ve seen in theaters since that Michael Keaton snowman movie (well, the trailer for it anyway). It suggests that the guys making this picture had a lot more money than sense, a notion supported by reading the credits. Long ago I decided I had to see any movie that made more than $150M, just so I could keep abreast of the cultural zeitgeist, or whatever you want to call it. Owing to inflation and Home Alone movies, I’ve had to raise that figure to over $200M. So now I have to see The Grinch. It seems likely that I will have to see Pearl Harbor, but I’m hoping to dodge the bullet." -- Joe Greenia, Chicago

Go ahead and buy your ticket, Joe. My prediction is that people are going to eat up Pearl Harbor the same way they ate up the equally glossy and equally pricey Titanic. And move over, Leo, here comes Josh Hartnett. That’s my two cents. Here’s Corbin S. with his opinion of the Pearl Harbor trailer...

"A few thoughts on the Pearl Harbor trailer: It sure looks purty, bathed in that golden, magic-hour light and all, and the shot the follows the bomb from plane to target is pretty cool, but... Trying to invoke The Thin Red Line by using Han Zimmer’s music from said film? Come on, there’s just no comparing Terrence Malick, a master of profound and sublime subtlety, and Michael Bay, a master of over-the-top bombast. Nice try, however. Cuba Gooding Jr. Why? Josh Hartnett. Why? And finally, though I obviously haven’t seen the movie yet, something about the whole enterprise makes me weary; namely, the portrayal of the Japanese. I don’t know how the ‘enemy’ is going to be characterized, but I think it would be extremely irresponsible in this day and age to treat them as nothing more than faceless and motiveless aggressors. I hope that this isn’t the case, but given the pedigree of Bay and Bruckheimer, I’m not expecting balance and complexity." -- Corbin Saleken

Paul D. writes in to further defend his support of Steven Soderbergh’s Traffic. Reviews here at Civilian Voices, unlike the stellar ones being handed out by top critics, have been mixed. For every person who thought the film was perfect, there are others who found it less than engaging. In Tuesday’s edition, I printed Paul D.’s thoughts about those who don’t think the movie is great. Here is why he thinks some folks didn’t enjoy the film as much as he did. Take it away, Paul D....

"Okay, so maybe I went a little too far when I said people who think Traffic is less than great shouldn’t be allowed to see another movie again. But as a die-hard filmgoer, it is aggravating to hear people complain about the lack of good movies out there. Then Steven Soderbergh makes a complex film that is nothing short of brilliant, and people still aren’t happy. What do you want? If Traffic isn’t good enough, what is? And I don’t even know what to say to people who complain about the colors in it. People are going into Traffic looking for problems. It has won countless awards already and almost every major critic in America has embraced it, so now people have to go and see what all the fuss is about. Instead of enjoying it, they are picking it apart so they can disagree with critics. Speaking as a rational person and a movie lover, it just doesn’t get any better than Traffic. I wouldn’t be able to trust anyone who thinks otherwise." -- Paul Doro

Josh F. agrees with Paul’s assessment of Traffic and compares it to two other critically acclaimed films of 2000...

"As far as I’m concerned, Traffic is the best picture I’ve seen this year. Contrast it with any number of other movies released in 2000, and it becomes clear that Traffic soars above most all of them. Traffic is, essentially, a drug movie combined with a social drama, so I’ll be contrasting with two movies: a drug movie, Requiem for a Dream, and a social drama, Erin Brockovich. Let me say beforehand that I dislike both of those movies intensely. But anyway... Requiem for a Dream was a stupid, overwrought, Reefer Madness–style movie, a mean-spirited exercise in punishing a bunch of (mostly) unlikable characters for being stupid. Sure, Ellen Burstyn was heartbreaking at first, but by the end, her storyline became so ridiculous that it practically erased all the sympathy I had built up for her. I mentioned Reefer Madness because this is exactly that type of film: a movie that warns against drugs in such a cartoonish and silly way (don’t do heroin or your arm will fall off!!!) that it completely undercuts the potential power of the work. Requiem is a perfect example of a good idea that is killed by the pretentiousness of the director, technical skill done badly. Erin Brockovich. That movie is about as loathsome as they come. It is the Patch Adams of this year. It is a movie that attacks and tears down everyone else in the film, and all for the glorification, the deification, of Julia Roberts. Not even Roberts... Roberts’s breasts. It is well edited, well directed, well filmed. But the story is such garbage... There are no shadowy areas in this film. It is all a matter of what Erin Brockovich approves of and what she disapproves of. And all the testimonials from the victims of the water pollution? They are ultimately an intensely manipulative plot device. They become in this film only a context through which Erin Brockovich can become righteously enraged and show what a saint she is. Albert Finney was the only good part of this one. Now take Traffic. The visuals on this film are as inventive and skillful as either of the two films mentioned above (and yes, I’ll admit that some of the technical stuff on Requiem was impressive). Unlike Requiem for a Dream, Traffic doesn’t judge its characters. People are good, people are bad, but this movie correctly shows us that there aren’t usually such things as black-and-white, paint-by-numbers characters. Catherine Zeta-Jones undergoes a shocking transformation in this film, and yet you don’t see her as necessarily good or bad at any point. She’s just a person dealing with the situation she finds herself in. And almost every character in the movie is like that. These are fully formed characters, in other words, as opposed to loosely formed sketches, as in Requiem, or punching bags for the title character, as in Brockovich. Fittingly, Traffic’s narrative is as subtle as its characterization. The film resists going for the overwrought Hollywood Moments most of the time. And even in the handful of instances where the film does indulge in such a conceit, it does so in such a way as to make the moment conform to the nature of the film. That is to say, if you’re going to have a character break down and make a speech, in this movie, that speech is not going to be an eloquent discourse on the state of the world, but a tortured, searching statement that feels more truthful in the context of the film. Traffic is one of the only films released in 2000 to fuse art and entertainment into a nearly perfect package. I would say Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon was one. Gladiator was another. Traffic is the best of the three, the best of the year. Just to finish up, I realize greatness is in the eyes of the beholder, and if you like Brockovich or Requiem, that’s cool. I’m sure I’m not going to change any minds, but trying is what makes talking movies fun." -- Josh F.

Beth A. sides with Tuesday’s Civilian Voices contributor Carol O. about Traffic. She also gives us her take on the correlation between awards and box office...

"I have to agree with Carol O. on Traffic. While I very much admire Soderbergh’s filmmaking techniques, and the way he deftly interwove the three stories, I felt detached from the movie. I usually can lose myself in a movie, but this time I was never able to immerse. Don’t get me wrong, it was definitely ten times better than much else that I have seen this holiday season; it still did not move me as much as the critics. I don’t think that the Golden Globes, or the Oscars for that matter, really have much of an effect on box office these days. Rather, I think that box office has a direct influence on nominations and wins. Honestly, do you really think that Mel Gibson would have been nominated for What Women Want at the Globes if he were not as popular as he is with the moviegoing public? Part of this diatribe is spurred from Peter Travers’s take on the Globe nomination in the most recent edition of Rolling Stone, so I want to give credit where credit is due. Thanks for the space to write." -- Beth Ausband

Frequent contributor Woodge is back with his look at Traffic and a host of other topics...

"I rarely agree with Paul D., but I have to make an exception regarding Traffic. It IS great. I think it should become part of the nation’s high school curriculum too. Steven Soderbergh is fast becoming one of my favorite directors. It seems that everyone acting in one of his movies turns in a slam-bang performance. For instance, I never thought that Michael Douglas or Julia Roberts were all that great, but after Traffic and Erin Brockovich respectively, I find I have to revise my opinions. And I still think Out of Sight is an underrated classic. As for the trailers for AntiTrust... jeez. Isn’t the Tim Robbins-Bill Gates likeness a little too obvious? Movies centered around computer people often go quickly to video. Anyone remember Hackers? I predict the same fate for this one (unless I’ve misjudged the audience for Ryan Phillippe movies). Authentic films? You Can Count On Me takes the cake. It should make everyone’s must-see list. I’d also mention Wonder Boys in terms of authenticity. On the other side of the spectrum, you don’t need to look much further than anything associated with Jerry Bruckheimer. As for Double Take and other movies of its ilk, seeing the trailers makes me wonder if black people cringe (along with everyone else) at the awful stereotyping going on there. But what do I know? On the other hand, Save the Last Dance looks sweet. Not my kind of movie, but it looks harmless and fun for the demographic it’s aimed at. But again, what do I know?" -- Woodge

Interestingly enough, I received two e-mails soon after I received Woodge’s that both use the word "cringe" to describe their author’s response to seeing stereotypes on screen. Leonard Lewis has this to say about movies like Double Take...

"I’m black and I cringe when I hear the term ‘act black,’ because it is used invariably to suggest that a black person who displays some degree of articulateness, modesty, intelligence (or heaven forbid, conservatism) is ‘acting white.’ How sad it is that popular culture has bought into the notion that being black is defined by possessing equal parts of buffoonery and crudeness, with healthy dashes of laziness and stupidity thrown in as a bonus. I’ve seen the trailer for Double Take, and thanks, but I’ll pass. Even if the film turns out to be an indictment of the ‘acting black’ notion, its studio has chosen to ‘sell’ that image. I’m not buying." -- Leonard Lewis

"Whatever acting black may be, I hope the powers-that-be in Hollywood do not believe that the characters portrayed in Save the Last Dance and Double Take are typical African Americans. When I see trailers for movies like these, I cringe because it seems Hollywood feels that the only way to make more from the masses on films with African Americans as the central characters is to make them look like complete a**es. Films like Love Jones and Eve’s Bayou do not bother me, because these films represent storytelling at its best. The fact that the characters are black does not hit you until later. Nevertheless, films like Player’s Club, New Jack City, or Foxy Brown don’t bother me either, because the characters are caricatures of African Americans. I find those films satirical and hilarious. Now with Save the Last Dance and Double Take, these films can be added to a list of films that are racist, demeaning, emasculating, and, overall, disrespectful, but I’m not surprised about the former being produced by MTV. MTV has been ‘pimping’ African American for years. Anyway, my wish for this year and for the future is that Hollywood embrace storytelling, not mockery." -- Russell Dumornay

Do you agree with Russell that Hollywood seems to believe that the only way to get the masses to see a film with an African American lead is to make him or her a buffoon? Or, are we being too sensitive? Are films like Double Take just good, clean fun? How does Hollywood’s portrayal of African Americans in the films it heavily promotes -- Rush Hour, Nutty Professor, Big Momma’s House, Double Take, etc. -- affect the box office of smaller films with African Americans in the lead roles? Do white audiences shy away from serious films with black leads because they think they won’t relate? How much influence does Hollywood have on our perceptions of members of different races? Send me an e-mail with your thoughts on the matter, 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.