This movie has received far too much attention for "exposing" a "truth" that anyone with any sense would already have known--the War on Drugs is pointless. Why? Drug cartels can outspend any government by millions, if not billions. Why? Because they have plenty of customers who'll pay for their product, because it's cheap. Why? Because demand is high--and that's only the casual users. Then you have the addicts, who will pay any price at all, getting the money anyway possible--stealing from their parents or from a stranger on the street, depending on their resources. Of course, no one plans to be an addict--they just want to be a casual user. Why? Because using mood altering drugs is fun and feels great--until you're an addict. But why risk it, if you could become addicted? Because no one ever thinks it could happen to them. Why? Because only people who can't control it get addicted, and no one ever thinks they're not going to be able to control it. Besides, most people don't get addicted--and it feels great. So you've got a massive casual user market and a smaller addict market providing massive amounts of money and the combination means that no government ever is going to stand a chance.
Yet there are millions of people in the US who deny all this and think that going after the suppliers will "protect" our kids, who'll break the law, lie, cheat, steal, prostitute themselves, use their parents, do whatever it takes to get the drug of their choice. Thus proving, yet again, that People Are Stupid.
Still, if Traffic serves to convince a few of these moralistic putzes that they've got their head up their ass, more power to it. The film is brutally accurate about the futility of it all--not the errors, not the opportunities, but the pure economics of a very successful market.
While the film provides no ammo for the equally simplistic souls who delude themselves into thinking that legalization will solve the problem, it also doesn't provide a clearcut rebuff in the script, which will probably be viewed as a victory for their side.
But Traffic doesn't argue for treatment as the solution. It is one of the few films that accurately pegs addiction for what it is: physiological, probably genetic, and completely unrelated to unhappiness, immorality, or a need to rebel. (Many reviewers get this completely wrong, btw). The only treatment is unreliable, takes a shitload of a lot of work, won't prevent multiple relapses and won't "cure" most people in the first place. The movie also contains the best description of addiction I have ever heard, and that I believe is original to the movie: "Addiction is an allergy of the body and an obsession of the mind."
Such is the perverse world we live in that, while the film is overpraised for depicting what anyone with sense should already know, it receives next to none for its accurate and original analysis of addiction. Oh, well.
So much for my analysis of the various social interpretations of the film's import. What's left?
An exhilarating, exciting story that clearly doesn't think it's in a "message" movie, but a cool, gritty action picture that entwines three solid (if not perfect) stories to cover every aspect of the drug chain. The delusionaries in DC who spout rhetoric on the evils of coke while ordering another Scotch. The suburban rich brats in Cincinatti who prattle on about the meaning of life while taking another hit off the bong. The dealers at various points on the foodchain (country club chic, Miami Vice proteges, inner city boyz)--and the friends they make. The traitors, the sellouts, the "anonymous informants", who enable much of the futility by allowing everyone to pretend they've made progress by providing the fodder for media coverage of yet another drug bust. The cynical but professional officials and the underpaid cops on both sides of the border who live in constant danger and temptation interspersed by long periods of boredom, all for a cause that they know perfectly well is hopeless.
Spot-on performances by everyone involved. No star turns, no weak links, no bow to commercial necessity. Benicio del Toro is getting most of the raves and deserves them. It is a showy part only because he makes it so. Michael Douglas turns in what is apparently his second great performance of the year. Erika Christensen, as his teenage daughter who goes from fresh-faced overachiever to dreamy-eyed whore, is simply brilliant. Don Cheadle and Luiz Guzman score effortlessly as undercover partners--neither of these two gets nearly enough recognition for consistently outstanding work, btw. Smaller parts are equally well cast--Albert Finney, Benjamin Bratt, James Brolin, and Amy Irving are the most recognizable of the ones to mention, and whoever plays the daughter's boyfriend is exactly right Dennis Quaid is a sleaze, god love him. It's so nice to see him back.
Catherine Zeta Jones is quite good in a largely unbelievable part. I have read some reviews that consider her an innocent housewife and this is just silliness. But this interpretation is manageable for the clueless, and Soderbergh or the writer could have made that impossible with a few different choices.
In fact, the script is the weak link, despite a few kickass speeches. It's certainly well above average in many ways, but if you want to pick the movie apart, that's certainly where to start.
If I must quibble, there are a few story points that don't bear close examination. I agree with Ace about the film color--I don't hate it, but it's unnecessary.
Traffic doesn't end on a despairing note. Murderers might get busted for the right reasons, maybe this time treatment will work, and some small parts of Tijuana might be safe for baseball again. Or maybe not. No guarantees, but an entirely reasonable promise of hope.
If Soderbergh gets nominated for Brockovich instead of this, I may boycott the Oscars.
My pick for best film of the year.
