The debate over Traffic continues. And still, I’m unable to contribute. I promise to see it before next Tuesday’s edition so that I, too, can get into the fray. And considering I won’t be lining up for any of this weekend’s new releases (OK, maybe Thirteen Days), I should have plenty of time to catch up on all the 2000 movies I missed. But enough about me, let’s get to your emails. JJ starts us off with his opinion of Traffic…

"It's stunningly well made. The color-coded cinematography is an effective device to help the audience keep its bearings during frequent changes of location. Jump cuts keep things moving along without being unduly distracting. The acting couldn't be improved upon (the higher profile cast members deserve all the praise they're getting, and they're matched by the relatively unsung Topher Grace, Erika Cristensen, Miguel Ferrer and Tomas Milian). To me, there's only one real problem with the film, and it may have been unavoidable. There can be no satisfying resolution to the story, given the nature of the subject matter. Therefore, the small victories awarded to some of the characters ring a bit hollow. Still, this may be the very thing that snags the film a Best Picture nomination. As with Erin Brockovich, Soderbergh has once again found imaginative ways to enliven familiar material. Traffic is one of the few films of 2000 that I can imagine sitting through more than once. Right now, I consider it a 9 out of 10, but might well bring it up or down a notch upon subsequent viewings. -- JJ

Zac F. sides with JJ…

"Traffic, for me, was the best film experience I've had since Almost Famous last September. All three storylines for me were riveting and the performances spectacular, especially Benicio Del Toro and Catherine Zeta-Jones. The cinematography was brilliant. I loved the different looks given to each of the storylines. Overall, the movie is a thought-provoking look at the drug war that we are fighting and the problems we face in fighting it." -- Zac F.

But Deci makes a compelling argument that Traffic is a little bit like Al Gore…

"Here's my own rant and rave about Traffic, which I say is the Al Gore of film in 2000. I wasn't moved by this film, or that impressed. Further, and I realize I'll be flamed from here to eternity for this, I just don't see where Soderbergh maintains this rep as some great auteur. Maybe years ago. No more. But first, the specific problems I have with Traffic. Ken Turan was right to call it a bit melodramatic and akin to ‘... an updated version of ‘Marijuana: The Weed With Roots in Hell.’ His phrase about how Traffic is ‘...a little like seeing a version of The Insider that thought it politic to waffle on whether cigarettes were a danger to your health’ is spot on. Here's my first problem with this film: it is based on a British TV series. It had to be shorter to have any reasonable running-time. But it feels like what it is: the ‘condensed version’ of a longer story -- and more to the point, it's not Soderbergh's idea, but someone else's idea set in a different geographical framework. And not a very novel idea either: the drug trade is hugely profitable and drugs and money taint all they touch. It's a very ‘of the moment’film, to borrow a style-mag term, but does it make Soderbergh a genius? Second problem: It's too cold. It SAYS that it's about something important. It IS about something important. I feel I SHOULD admire it, but I don't feel much about it, which I think is a fatal flaw, HOWEVER important the subject and HOWEVER technically good. It's the Al Gore of movies: it's technically ‘well-qualified’ in many ways so you feel like you have to say, yeah, OK, I support it, I have to when it's so ‘well-qualified.’ But you do it like many Gore backers cast their votes: without any strong feeling. I don't have to leave the theater sobbing, but if a movie doesn't make me feel anything, I might just as well be reading the Surgeon General's latest report on drug addiction. Now, back to Soderbergh-as-genius. What was his last film? Erin Brockovich: an utterly conventional star vehicle for Julia Roberts, a thoroughly seasoned pro with "just enough" range who has spent so much time in front of the camera that she can be directed by almost anyone. With her attached, this movie could have been made by any fairly competent director. What is Soderbergh's next effort? Apparently, a remake of Oceans Eleven. It's nice that he admires good old films, but where's the originality here, any more than it was original to remake Psycho? (Aside to the NY Times: Do not write, even in jest, about remaking Casablanca. If you publish a comment like that, it can take on a life of its own. Before you know it, some ****head in LA is saying ‘Word!’ and reaching for his cell phone.) Let's go back a bit: The Limey and Out of Sight. Crime dramas, polished, stylish, and accomplished but again, not unique or earth-shattering. You have to go back to the mid-90s at least for genuinely original stuff from this guy. What's edgy in Traffic? A handheld camera and different color schemes for different locales. I think Soderbergh has been living off an ‘edgy auteur’ rep for some years now. The stories in Traffic never really meld together for me, and yes, I was paying attention and no, I am not stupid. Further, Catherine Zeta-Jones didn't work for me, any more than Meg Ryan worked in Proof of Life. Both are gorgeous movie stars who should know their limitations -- and if they don't, people who do the casting should. If people think it's admirable that a film discusses the futility of the drug war, I agree. But if this gets Best Picture, it'll be one of those things about which, in five years, people say ‘Huh?’ Because like all ‘of the moment’ events, its time will pass and it will seem dated. As to whether award nominations boost box office, that seems like one of those pieces of conventional wisdom that is not very wise. They don't appear to have done much for, say, The Insider, which drew critical raves but sold few tickets. That film only got an audience of any size around summer 2000, by which time it was already on VHS. There was a specific reason for this belated surge of interest, and his name isn't Oscar. A film that gets award nominations, after all, usually gets good reviews (indications of quality) on initial release. So the ticket sale depends on these ‘seals of quality’ rather than being ‘a thrill ride’ or having great S/FX or hot names or being part of a franchise (e.g. Star Wars). If reviews that said ‘it's good’ didn't get people in initially, I don't see why nominations months later that say, again, ‘it's good’ will change things. A film that doesn't click at first usually doesn't succeed on second try, by which time it feels old and more of a video view than a trip-to-the-cinema-and-$8 affair. Here's a case where first impressions really do last. " -- Deci in NYC

 

PAGE TWO: Hollywood's version of "Acting Black"

 

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.