Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 16:38:47 +0800
From: Jon Stratton <rstratto-AT-cc.curtin.edu.au>
Subject: Traffic (the film) -- again


   Hi All,
     a few weeks ago now there was a discussion about certain aspects of
Traffic. At that time I hadn't seen the film. I now have, and must say that
I am amazed that it has been reviewed so well -- or, perhaps, not amazed at
all :) . That is, imho, the film seems to utilize just about every
conservative cliche about drugs. It mediates these through a semi-verite
style which legitimates the film's claims to be 'saying it how it is'. 
    If I may, I'd like to run through a few examples of what I mean. Let me
start with something pointed out by the friend with whom I went. There are
no significant female characters in this film. They are all constructed as
wives/daughters of the male protagonists. If we think of the film in terms
of ensemble, then the female characters are all basically support cast.
Consequently, the film creates an image of homosociality within which drugs
are 'men's business'. Indeed, this aspect of the film can be understood as a
version of Steve Neale's 'Masculinity as Spectacle' argument in that two of
the male characters are tortured and a number murdered which helps us men
from becoming too involved with the characters. Or, to say something
different, the film reproduces patriarchy in the guise of a claim to be
realistic. 
   While on the subject of torture, the assassin character, who, in my
reading of the film is gay -- it appears that Javier and his buddie capture
him after Javier's buddie chats him up -- is set up in classic Hollywood
fashion as the 'homo psycho'. Was it the James Bond film Moonraker that had
the pair of homo psychos? Such a construction does nothing for gays. (The
narrative gaps in the film, which do such a good job of reinforcing the
verite feel are also useful for 'hiding' some of the more unpalatable
ideological moments. Not quite what Macheray meant by determining absences
but, heh, they work much the same way! :) )
   Then there are the scenes showing the (upper)-middle class kids doing
drugs. This, imho!, is straight out of the High School Confidential genre of
school-kid drug use. That is, there is the suggestion that one drug leads to
another; also that kids simply 'enjoy' drugs. The only motivation that is
given is the claim that Carolyn has a dysfunctional family -- mother herself
with a drug background who can't/won't discipline her child, and a father
who is absent as much as possible and who needs a drink before he can sit
down to dinner with his family. This account of 'juvenile delinquency' has
been around in films since Rebel Without A Cause. 
   And then there's the poco stuff. Mexico as a place where the system is
riddled with crooked cops and bribery. However, it seems that the US has a
system that is struggling bravely with too little funding and a legal system
that is hamstrung because it 'obeys the rules', but cops and a system that
is fundamentally honest. The US, then, is a beacon of moral order in a world
of corruption. This, of course, is symbolised in the use of colour for the
US scenes and the brown monochrome of the Mexico scenes. 
   And the very American race stuff. Good whites running the country while
African-Americans push drugs and Hispanics do the menial work. My memory of
the ghetto scene is of African-Americans hanging out on the street, none
seemed to be going to or from work. We only see middle class kids getting
drugs. What a morality tale for this class! And that Carolyn, how quickly
she learns how to whore! Btw, where did she find that white punter in the
ghetto neighbourhood? I suppose that showing her with another
African-American would have been too much for the target audience to take!
What a downhill slide. As for her selling herself to the dealer for a hit,
well, a scene more calculated, and filmed in such a way as, to make white,
middle class Americans uncomfortable I can't easily imagine. Especially when
you remember that she had her arms outspread, crucifixion style. 
   And then there was the penultimate scene in the addicts anonymous
meeting. Michael Douglas' character speaking for his wife and himself, and
not being there, as I hoped to admit that he was an alocholic and was
joining his daughter in attempting to kick the addiction, but, rather,
making a mom and apple-pie staement about how he and his wife were there for
their daughter. 
   Perhaps the less said about Javier squealing on his buddie so that he can
get a baseball ground for the town the better. 
    All in all, a deeply conservative film in the clothing of a left-wing
critique of the 'war-on-drugs' rhetoric. No wonder it has done so well with
critics and at the box office.
all, of course, imho. ... Or have I got the whole thing wrong?
Jon 



     --- from list postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---