|
 t's
always risky figuring out the "meaning" behind Academy Award winners.
Two years ago, when it looked like Saving
Private
Ryan was going to sweep everything, there were premature assessments
that this meant Hollywood was willing to turn away from its knee-jerk
liberal moral relativism and champion American heroism. But then,
there was the split decision: Ryan director Steven Spielberg
won Best Director, but Shakespeare In Love won Best Picture.
What were we supposed to think? That it takes one man to conceptualize
what war can do to both family and nation — but love is the
essential spark for the creative force? That seemed to be Hollywood's
message in 1999.
There was a similar split decision this year. Fortunately for this
writer, he had seen both movies (as well as parts of Erin Brockovich).
Once again, a guy named Steven — Soderbergh, this time —
won as Best Director, for Traffic. This was a significant
achievement since he was competing against, among others, himself
for directing Brockovich. Oscar®-watchers had predicted that
the Soderbergh vote would split and he would be left out in the
cold. (By the way, don't you get the feeling that Julia Roberts's
recent temper tantrum about George W. Bush was done with a mind
to cinch her Best Actress win? Starring in a movie of a "brave"
heroine defeating evil corporate interests who were "poisoning"
local residents was not enough. Gotta take on the evil Republican
administration.)
He wasn't but the big prize nonetheless went to Gladiator.
It wouldn't exactly be accurate to say that the dichotomy this time
was as simple as "love" vs. "war." In a real sense, both movies
were about wars of different types. Who can truly say which is the
most "personal"? After all Russell Crowe's Maximus loses his entire
family and attempts to put his life back together — as well
as Rome. He only partly succeeds.
Michael Douglas is not exactly the "star" of Traffic —
it is a director and script-driven movie. But, the broader "war"
comes into U.S. drug czar Robert Wakefield's home in a very cathartic
manner. His ultimate sacrifice may not be as final as Maximus's,
but it is life shattering nonetheless.
Of the two big movies, Traffic was the most compelling for
this writer personally. In recent months, my own feelings on the
drug war now amount to "skepticism." But it is a skepticism spread
on all sides. The argument that the drug war has been a failure
and exacted too great a price on the nation's civil liberties is
strong. On the other hand, this columnist has also seen the damage
that legal substances and activities have done (alcohol and gambling,
to name two). Is it in society's best interests to allow even more
substances into the "market"? Or are there way too many variables
to take such a risk? Thus I find myself skeptical of the claims
of both the doves and the hawks in the war on drugs.
Traffic succeeds in one sense by not completely stacking
the deck against the warriors. This is most definitely not a pro-drugs
movie. However, it does suffer from a typical Hollywood blemish.
Kudos go to conservative writer Danielle Crittenden for pointing
this out: Even in movies where there is objectively an interesting
overall storyline and a provocative idea, anti-conservative or "family
values" biases manage to creep in. Crittenden wonders, why is it
always the conservative that has to come across as a hypocrite in
Hollywood films? In last year's Best Picture winner, American
Beauty, the anti-gay, anti-drug, multiple gun-owner neighbor
is discovered to have a dark "other side."
In Traffic, the U.S. drug czar is seen in one of the opening
scenes as a hard-core anti-drug moralist. He's also inherently clueless
that his daughter is getting strung out on various drugs. Finally,
it's also clear that there is a basic equivalence made between illegal
drugs and legal substances such as alcohol ("to take the edge off,"
Douglas's character says in an argument with his wife). Thus does
the conservative/"family values" hypocrite or apostate has become
a cliché in Hollywood films.
Given that, considering the relative strengths of Traffic
and Gladiator, two good movies, perhaps the awards were doled
out appropriately. Perhaps, the moral told in Gladiator is
more timeless than the ambiguous politics of Traffic. Make
no mistake, Traffic is a political movie &3151; and a good
one. It can be termed accurately an anti-drug, anti-war on drugs
film. But it is more part of this particular time, and concerned
with contemporary politics. The values that Gladiator champions,
however — loyalty, patriotism, family, courage, manhood —
are eternal. Given the moral relativism of contemporary time (which
can be shrewdly alluded to as similar to Rome's), it's good for
those values to be celebrated in the current era.
Of course, Hollywood being what it is, one must avoid over-praising.
Really, when all is said and done, you know that's exactly what
those celebrities want. Part of being a celebrity is being lauded
for always doing the right thing. Which is one reason why Bill Clinton
should replace Jack Valenti as head of the Motion Pictures Association
of America. They were made for one another. But that's another story.
|
