Traffic 2000
I caught this on DVD well after its release. I had heard that it was a statement on the futility of the drug war. I think that depends on your current view of the drug war and the movie does a decent job of not taking sides.
That said, it is definitely manipulative in choosing to tell the story how it does. By portraying the only drug users in the movie as rich white kids it ignores larger issues. Having the drug kingpin being an American living comfortably in California isn’t that realistic either. I just don’t think there’s that kind of centralization of the drug trade. And US finances are easy enough to track that I don’t think you could make more than a few million without facing charges of tax evasion.
The parents of the rich white girl are completely hopeless. It’s an oversimplification to show such oblivious parents. The daughter is doing very serious drugs and they’re talking about grounding her. And still give her money and let her hang out with the friends she was busted with? Give me a break. There may be people that clueless, but I don’t think high school students represent a big part of drug traffic. Saying that it’s easier for kids to buy drugs (esp. heroin and cocaine) than alcohol seems to have been accepted as the truth by many reviewers, but I didn’t have to go into the worst part of town, deal with people who might kill me, and rent an hourly flophouse to get booze as a kid. I just had friends who were either legal or had fake IDs like everyone else.
I also have a hard time believing that if there was an attempt on the life of a key witness, killing one cop, that they would leave the witness in the same hotel, and not double or triple the guard let alone not even replace the dead cop. I can’t imagine there have been that many witnesses killed while under police protection. So I think that was manipulative as well and was key in showing the futility of putting drug lords on trial.
Still, I thought the stories themselves were good for what they were: stories. The way the different stories were filmed was a great technique and Soderburg was certainly deserving of Best Director.
Acting performances were all good to great. The two american cops were very well played, and of course Benicio del Toro was excellent. Outside of those performances much of the rest of the dialog was very forced to bring up issues and points of view that didn’t always fit. The witness was awfully preachy for a drug lord as was the rich white kid from That 70’s Show. Not many people have that much conviction in what they’re doing when it is so obviously wrong.
Still, I don’t think people’s opinions of the drug war should be influenced by this movie anymore than their opinions of industry should be influenced by Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. The issue is very complicated and to say that the drug war is futile since it hasn’t stopped the drug trade is similar to saying that taking 20 years to paint the Golden Gate bridge is futile since they just start all over again when they finish.
I don’t have a problem giving this movie high marks, but I can’t give it any additional points for it being “profound” since I don’t think Hollywood is capable of presenting the subtleties of the truth required to be profound. In that sense, this movie suffered as other political movies like Primary Colors and Wag the Dog which were likewise mistaken for having something profound to say.
I’ll give it an A- for being a great movie that presents many different sides of a similar story.
Owned on: Digital