Category: Responses

I’ve been sick these days, and since i have the movie in my computer, i watched it again. I just want to say that when i first watched it, i felt it was excellent, but after going through all the movies, i cann’t say that it’s outstanding, but it’s still good. Below is the comment i made when i first watched it:

Después miré la película Tráfico, creo que está es una de las películas más excellentes en la historia del cine de droga. Comparar está con otras películas que tienen la misma tema, Tráfico figura todos los aspectos acerca de droga, de la distribución al tráfico de droga, de la drogacción al drogadicto y de la anti-droga al dejar de la droga. Todos estos argumentos se representan en una manera parelela por tres cuentos por un montón de papeles, que no ninguna de las personas es el principal personaje, sino la única protagonista es la droga. Este punto lo hace notable.

Aunque el senario parece una cooperación entre las administraciones del control de drogas de los Estados Unidos y de México, en verdad el director establece una distinción entre las acciones del control de drogas de estos dos países. Generalmente, cuando se define el cine las imagenes y las posiciones del anti droga, lo que se refleja por la tema es que, para los Estados Unidos, muestra un papel positivo constante; pero en contraste, para México, sus personajes positivos que están en el lado del control de droga son más complicados y tienen más cambios entre la justicia y la maliginidad.

En primer lugar, hay un contraste notable entre el tono de color de fondo. En San Diego, el fondo es azul frío. Sin embargo en cada ciudad del México, es amarillo turbio que nos da una impresión sin desarollar y de sucio. Por lo tanto en el cine, México parece más pobre y su sociedad parece más desordenado.

En segundo lugar, la posición verdadero y potencial del representante del México gobierno, Capitán Salazar, es otro ejemplo que forma la total de impresión de debilidad de la sociedad de México. En la misma posición del trabajo, el jefe de la oficina del control de droga de los Estados Unidos, Robert, es un papel positivo contantemente, por lo menos no trabaja para cualquiera de los distribuidores del droga. Según unas informaciones, el papel de Capitán Salazar es creado de acuerdo con un capitán actual con misma situación en la historia del México, quien muestra la corrupción y el crimen que incrustados en la sociedad mexicano.

Por último, el papel del policía mexicano, Javier, es el personaje más complicado que experimenta un cambio del su sentimento para su trabajo. Como un personaje positivo, la posición de Javier hasta el lado de justicia y de maliginidad en cuanto al control de droga cambia cuando pasa el senario. Sin embargo para Montel y Ray, los policías americanos, sus imagenes son constantemente justos y brillantes. En pocas palabras, la retrata describe por el cine sobre el control de droga de México es más negativa y oscura.

In response to Alyssa: I also saw the bias the cinematography emphasized, as it showed Mexico as dirty and dingy, while California was saturated in color and seemed bright, crisp and romanticized. I also commented in my blog about the daughter’s friend because I think what he had to say was really honest. It seems that the people that are caught in the cross-fire of drug-use or drug selling are those that come from poorer backgrounds. Therefore to sell drugs seems like a good idea, especially if you have a huge demand for those drugs. All in all, I think the film is trying to make the point that anyone is liable to becoming involved.
In response to Elena: Obviously this film is biased and is taking the American’s point of view. Therefore, the point you make about the lack of organization the American police and DEA had in dealing with drugs and the chaotic nature of their “bust” is interesting. I did not even realize this until you mentioned it now. I think it is good to be perceptive about details such as these and not to become a passive spectator when watching Hollywood films that can act as vehicles for propaganda.

A very powerful film and entirely different from last week’s Three Amigos to say the least.
It truly does expose so much of the futility inherent in the “War on Drugs”.
As long as there is demand, there will be supply, and as long as there is no control over drug through legalization then there will be extreme measure taken resulting in the death of loved ones. The border crossing was almost humorous in how ineffective it was at stopping the flow of drugs, and for good reason with massive amounts of traffic passing through every day. At points the film verged on documentary, and achieved a further sense of realism through the handheld camerawork. Furthermore, the amount of unending levels of corruption within police and military in Mexico was unbelievable yet scary in its depiction. It’s hard to believe that this film was even made considering how slanderous it is regarding the american political system and the groups of leaders who talk talk talk but are ineffectual at doing anything.
Soderbergh bathes the two stories in different colour palettes evoking a simplicity towards the issue but at the same time quite the opposite. The futility of those who are trying to serve justice and the pain they endure (Don Cheadle’s character for instance) reminded me of the maddening plight for justice in Touch of Evil.
It would be interesting to hear a Mexican reading of this film as it seems to place Mexico in a less concerned state regarding drug trafficking, unaffected by it and also given up to the reality that is the trade.

I thought this was a really good film. It was completely biased towards the Americans, but it was still a good film nevertheless. The reason I’m saying it was biased towards the Americans is because the Mexican government and military seem to be corrupt up to the last person, and the only person that was not corrupt (Javier) is the one that actually gets to succeed, working for the US. It also raises the issue of the war on drugs being both on the street and on the home, its a war that needs to be fought on both sides. It was interesting to see judge Wakefield have to decide between his family and his country. I think the message of this film is that we first need to start with the war on drugs on an every day level and then move to the whole country. Teenagers need to be educated more and then the levels of demand can lower. That was actually a way that Mexico was portrayed negatively, I don’t know if their stand on demand is that one (“Drug addicts overdose, and then they die. One less to care about) but it was viewed under a very negative light. It is something horrible to say, but the US does not do anything to help them.
In relation to the portrayal of Mexico, we don’t get to see much of Mexico outside the law part, we see the criminals and the military, and even they work together to send drugs to the US. I think this gives a really negative message about Mexican law enforcement: no one in Mexico cares about the US, they just want to send gangs through. I think this is specially the mentality of the US right now, Obama has cut off free truck trade, not allowing as many trucks to pass the Mexican-US border. This is of couse as a measure to cut the amount of drugs that pass the border. Mexico is infuriated because this violates NAFTA and the peso has devalued, but the power that these drug lords have is incredible. El Chapo (Sinaloa cartel)recently made it to the forbes billionaire list, the Tijuana Cartel made 200 million dollars in 2000. I think that recently has been the first time the US has actually done something about Mexican cartels that have been increasing in size over the last 5 years. It is also the first time the secretary of state works with someone in the government, as we saw in the film, the Texan intelligence agency has no contact with the Mexican side.
There is a weird humanization of Mexicans though. They all seem to be connected to the world of illegal drugs, and yet they are humanized as to say that their economy depends on it. They all live from the profits, it is all connected in the US and in the Mexican border. I think what this film was trying to say, is that in the end, when it comes to drugs, there is no border. The Tijuana cartel can kill anyone in any side of the border. Yet there is this huge difference in the way people live, the yellow saturation shows a more degrated Mexico, while the US suburbs are shown in bright colors and in Golf courses. While Javier is in the desert, Helena was drinking watching her son playing Golf. In my opinion, everyone benefits economically, and everyone loses in the end. If the US wants to actually have a war on drugs, it needs to help Mexico distance itself from the economic dependence it has right now on illegal drugs. It also needs to realize that looking for the main guy won’t help, they have to destory the factories and the coca plantations. and the way to do it, according to this movie, is give the people a chance for change into betterment: money.

Hey everyone,
I just found this interesting article and photoset on the Mexican drug war which also have some strong similarities with the movie.

Enjoy

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/03/mexicos_drug_war.html
http://matadorpulse.com/whats-going-on-in-juarez-mexico/

This movie was a great one to watch. As well as other movies we have watched in class, it showed the take on an issue by the Mexican and American side. It was great that real life organizations were used to describe problems in society in relation to drugs. Important points about the drug control problem were made, like saying how catching an important person in drug traffic does not really solve any problem of drugs, since people are going to be able to obtain the drugs anyway. It just causes more problems regarding deaths and gangs. Also as someone said, the media and the people only want to see bloody headlines and news, not mattering whether the actual problem is solved in any scale. Many points which have been present for a long time were also touched, like the corruption and failure of the justice system. The border is a really complicated place to work with since no one really trusts the other side of the border, and if they do there is always some type of betrayal or many things are hidden. The female role is important here too. They are depicted as ambitious,and are while sometimes treated badly, they have a great influence on men. For example, the drug zhar’s wife gave his husband insight into how their daughter should be more important than his job. She made him realize that the greater problem is the one made to the families, and these are the ones who should take care of the problem because the government cannot really do anything to stop individual heavy consumption of drugs. Ayala’s wife was very ambitious and managed to find ways to keep things going instead of just falling into not having anything. Seems like women had an important role here, which also shows the this shift in society over the years as we see this film that is more recent. The depiction of Mexico I think was very accurate. I found it good that they showed the difference between different cities in Mexico, and not try to portray all of it the same way. I found really interesting the shot of the border where Americans could go into Mexico so easily, while the line of cars to go into thee states from Mexico was huge and so much security was present. The reasons for this is quite obvious however it was an interesting image to watch.

What I noticed most about this film, and perhaps one of the few things which I didn’t like about it, was the cinematography in the sense of its colour. I know there must be a division of which kind of formula was used in each setting etc, but it was still rather strange.
In sticking to Mexican representation though, I really did think it did a good job. The character of the general was done very well as he hid his corruption behind a “humanitarian” heart. Like the corruption one sees so rampant in South America, Salazar is able to fool everyone into thinking he is a good cop working for the good of the people. In connection with this character, I also notice that the people of Mexico nonetheless revere him even after he has been exposed as a criminal. This shows to me the respect people of developing countries have for anyone in power, just as long as it may positively reflect on them aswell. Example would be the guards allowing for his suicide.
Benicio Del Toro’s character, even though only one of the multiple strains of discourse, had the gfreatest impact on me. He showed a man who by his own means alone is trying to better his country, and when he tries to overreach his abilities by working with Salazar, he is quick to realize that he must go back to his true profession as police officer, rather than a fraudulent “man of the people”. I think in the end his character and that of the african american cop are the winners of the conflicting action, but yet I find that del Toro’s character shows that Mexico is more inclined to cfight the war on drugs. It seems that the drug problem goes much depper and is much more hidden in the American side of the border.

I have seen Traffic previously, but for some reason I don’t remember having such a difficult time watching it, as I had this time. The subject matter is also very relevant especially today with the drug wars taking place right over the border. I think the film is trying to show how many walks of life are affected by just the demand and supply of drugs. My parents live directly across the border in Arizona and the amount of violence reported is phenomenal. During my time spent in the state of Michoacan, Mexico, many of the kidnappings and violence that took place were surrounded around drugs. What I find especially interesting is the fact that doing any sort of illegal drug recreationally is incredibly taboo amongst the youth there. Rather it seems that families who are poor get caught in the cross-fire because there are very few jobs in the state and so they believe this will help them get by. The demand from the U.S. for drugs is what fuels this fire and Mexico is simply the country that takes the blame because many of the drugs pass through the country from South America, the supplier. When Topher Grace- Seth explains to Michael Douglas the money surrounding drugs, he represents many of the young teens who eventually find themselves corrupted by violence. As the article talked about the border “is in a constant state of transition” (130). It is especially interesting how the border has taken on its own characteristics and given rise to representations used in popular culture. Knowing this, the film is very politically charged and in some ways becomes influential as a carrier of biased knowledge. The article also explains that with the praise of the movie surrounding border “traffic” comes the “hierarchial positioning of the United States” (131) especially with the introduction of new border patrol programs.
There were parts of Traffic, when “Mexico” was filmed taking on a grainy, yellow-tinted, but dream-like state. At moments I thought I was watching a completely different film because of this effect and I question the director’s and cinematographer’s motivations or reasons behind this choice. It seemed to be tied to corruption and violence, tying then, Mexico to a negative representation. In contrast to my realization about Mexico and their use of drugs, the article implies that “Mexico’s lawlessness is directly linked to the moral decay of the family on the U.S. side” (139). Frighteningly, many audience members a part of the U.S. may believe this and as a result fulfill their already pre-conceived conceptions about Mexico. Even Salazar, the federal in charge of Mexico’s border is behind the corruption and therefore, we see no hope for morality among the Mexicans.

One aspect of this movie that I found interesting occurred in the first couple of scenes. There is a definite contrast in the level of organization between the Americans and Mexicans. In a way, it seemed ironic. The Mexican cops knew where the drugs were going to be even though it was a simple drop in the middle of the desert. The Mexican army also knew what was happening and were very precise and disciplined in how they intercepted the police. The Americans, on the other hand, had a much more complex and high tech way of trying to stop the drug smuggler, but the DEA and police ended up getting in each other’s way because they had no communication between themselves. Their drug bust ended up in a chaotic gunfight and chase, and the smuggler nearly got away. In the Mexican scene, guns were drawn but never fired. Their bust was more controlled, which is opposite of what you would expect from the Mexican side.
I liked how this movie was contrasting to the other movies that we’ve seen in this class where the sections are split up and generally (mainly at first) the two countries were separate instead of like in The Wild Bunch where we were mainly evaluating the Americans physically in Mexico.
All of the Americans in the movie are upper class Americans, even the kids are rich – rich and drug addicts. But it wasn’t like a common theme where Americans are rich and Mexicans are poor because the movie showed both rich and poor Mexicans.
In a lot of the parts in the US that had something to do with Michael Douglas and his family, the screen was blue and everything in Mexico had a gold/bronze screen. Why? Maybe it’s partly to make the different sections even more contrasting and easily distinguishable?
Michael Douglas’ character is as concerned with helping drug users as he is with stopping drugs, perhaps because of his daughter’s drug problem. He ends up talking to the General, and asks him about Mexico’s treatment of addiction and his answer is that when they overdose, there’s one less person to worry about. This is another example of how Mexico and the US contrast in this movie.

This is my second watching Traffic and like the first time I really enjoyed it. What I find to be really interesting is the many different stories going on at the same time; you have all different sides of the drug trafficking problem being brought to light. The film deals with issues of cross border drug smuggling, the dilemmas facing the justice system and the end results of the people affected by the drugs. It provides an insight on the aspect of the justice system and fighting crime to the rehabilitation and counseling of drug users. On the one side you have the law enforcement agency in Mexico having to deal with corrupt police and army officials. Because the police earn less wages they resort to making some extra on the side with ‘entrepreneurial activities” as Benicio Del Torro had said in one if his scenes. Benicio’s character struggles with his conscience of being involved with corruption and upholding the law. And on the other side you have the main stories going on with the judicial aspect and their priority to tackle the drug problem. They have to deal with fact that they are dealing with very creative and resourceful criminals that know that the law can end up siding with them. You have the US police who do the ground work to enforce these laws as they take down the drug dealers. They show the struggles they deal with to bring these criminals to justice as they put their lives on the line only to see that their work was in vain as they are let off. You also have the drug dealers themselves with their families living like one of our neighbors and how they deal with this lifestyle. And ultimately you have the end users and their struggles; in this case the drug czars own family. It shows the ugly side of the issue of drug use and how it breaks down a person and a family. Ultimately one of the film’s messages comes down as Mexico being the origin of the problems in the US and that they are the only ones that suffer which isn’t true. The movie fails to show that the people in Mexico (and in other countries for that matter) are also affected by these problems and suffer the same reality occurring in any place where drugs are readily available.

I thought “Traffic” was a pretty decent movie. It tried to do a lot with one topic, and in some ways, it really executed its point well, and in others, because it was trying to do so much, it glossed over getting into any sort of depth with any one character or plot line. This made it harder to be as much about human relationships, and just went with its theme more than anything else.
The first half seemed stronger than the second to me. The set up was pretty strong, and the less it had to do with the specific relationships, the better it was. When we first saw the government official trying to follow through with his war on drugs, it was all pretty believable and the plot line drew the audience in.
Some parts that I thought were less realistic and that drew me out of the plot line were when Catherine Zeta Jones, after not having any idea whatsoever that her husband was a drug lord, suddenly was offering a “Mexican” (Benjamin whatever is hardly Latino) bribe and trying to get cops killed when the base for her character was that she had no idea about any of the illegal dealings of her husband.
The teenage girl with drug issues was way too over the top. This can be a tendency with American movies, the default mode is to go way over the top, ie a teenage girl from a repressed conservative background starts doing crack every time we see her and prostituting herself. I liked the idea of the irony of the daughter of a purveyor of the war on drugs being a girl who does drugs, as that’s a common aspect of adolescence. But I thought that her being so over the top was not only unrealistic, but also equated drug use with turning into a crackhead prostitute, which is most often not the case.
Benicio del Torro I thought was one of the strongest characters and strongest actors. I liked his plot line, because it truly emphasized how corrupt the Mexican government and law enforcement is, which is a very topical concept right now, as Mexico is currently on the verge of being completely run by drug lords. In that respect, this was a very timely movie to watch.

This was probably one of my favourites this term. Thinking about it, it was pretty similar to Touch of Evil: US and Mexican authorities attempting to solve a problem, corruption, etc.
This movie provides many interesting perspectives on the drug war. We are able to witness the ruthless violence involved in the distribution cartels in Tijuana, the effects of its consumption in the US, and how authorities approach it and deal with it. I find that this makes Traffic an important movie, as the drug war is a major issue in this time at the US. It asks the audience to decided which approach and policy is best in dealing with drug issues, especially with the huge market between Mexico and the US. I enjoyed having a more holistic picture of the drug trade, in comparison to a movie like Requiem for a Dream where there is a strong focus on the users. But although the film proposes that the audience consider approaches to drug policy, I think it is indirectly condemning the war on drugs.
This movie condemns the war on drugs not in an extremely direct fashion, but simply by showing aspects of the drug trade. What the audience is left with is: relentless violence and murders, corruption at the highest level, easy availability of drugs to teenagers (even the daughter of the US drug czar, quite a powerful statement). She claims that she doesn’t drink much because it’s easier for someone her age to get drugs. The witness the two American cops are protecting makes us realize this shortly before his death, too. He makes the cops feel absurd about their positions since no matter what they do, the drugs will still be available. The daughter’s friend also tells the drug czar that it’s economically impossible for the drug cartels to stop: with 300%+ markups as a result of the drugs illegality it’s extremely easy for people to make big money. In the end, we see a conservative drug czar being open to listening, and possibly changing his mind. It’s a nice approach, though, as the film isn’t “preaching”.
Definitely an interesting look at the relations between the US and Mexico, too.

This was probably one of my favourites this term. Thinking about it, it was pretty similar to Touch of Evil: US and Mexican authorities attempting to solve a problem, corruption, etc.
This movie provides many interesting perspectives on the drug war. We are able to witness the ruthless violence involved in the distribution cartels in Tijuana, the effects of its consumption in the US, and how authorities approach it and deal with it. I find that this makes Traffic an important movie, as the drug war is a major issue in this time at the US. It asks the audience to decided which approach and policy is best in dealing with drug issues, especially with the huge market between Mexico and the US. I enjoyed having a more holistic picture of the drug trade, in comparison to a movie like Requiem for a Dream where there is a strong focus on the users. But although the film proposes that the audience consider approaches to drug policy, I think it is indirectly condemning the war on drugs.
This movie condemns the war on drugs not in an extremely direct fashion, but simply by showing aspects of the drug trade. What the audience is left with is: relentless violence and murders, corruption at the highest level, easy availability of drugs to teenagers (even the daughter of the US drug czar, quite a powerful statement). She claims that she doesn’t drink much because it’s easier for someone her age to get drugs. The witness the two American cops are protecting makes us realize this shortly before his death, too. He makes the cops feel absurd about their positions since no matter what they do, the drugs will still be available. The daughter’s friend also tells the drug czar that it’s economically impossible for the drug cartels to stop: with 300%+ markups as a result of the drugs illegality it’s extremely easy for people to make big money. In the end, we see a conservative drug czar being open to listening, and possibly changing his mind. It’s a nice approach, though, as the film isn’t “preaching”.
Definitely an interesting look at the relations between the US and Mexico, too.

I do not agree with a lot of the comments made in the article “You are Alright, but …”. For example when the author says that the sex scene between the black american and Caroline dehumanizes him because his face is not shown. I think that the way the shot was done adds to the dramatic feel of the situation. To me this movie did a good job at portraying ethnicity without falling into an argument about racism and without falling into stereotypes. I think that Traffic was trying to be realistic. Truth is that there is inequality between people from different color and different cultural backgrounds in the United States and therefore It was more coherent with reality to put a white male in a high rank position in the American government than any other person even if this adds on the Hollywood portray of white male Americans. However, one think I do agree with Shaw is that white Americans were not portrayed as drug dealers only as drug victims. I did not like that because the movie should try to represent reality from every possible perspective and not just from economic hierarchy.

Another think I did not like about the article is the critique about the colors used to represent Mexico and USA. I think that any color used by the director would have been criticized and references would b young to argue for any meaning. I think that the director wanted the viewer to know were the scenes were happening without a context. For example in the last scene when Javier is watching the kids play baseball we know he is in Mexico because of the sepia-yellowish color of the image.

I like the movie because it tried to represent the complexity of the dynamics of drug trafficking and because it showed some powerful images like the car explosion, the death of Manolo and the cocaine-toy. The dialogues were also powerful, the speech of Ruiz about how the police is working for the drug dealers was really good at showing the flaws of the war on drugs. The last words of Roberto’s speech and his conversation with the person in charge of the intelligence building in the border raised many questions about the real head of the cartel’s and the point of a war on drugs. What I did not like was that the movie was not direct, it carried no specific message. I can see people going to the theater, liking the stories and getting overwhelmed for an hour but forgetting about it because it does not suggest anything. On one hand Ruiz and the two cops and Robert ‘s stories seems to suggest that the war on drugs is useless. On the other hand, Javier’s story romanticizes the DEA and the police. From his story line one can conclude that more police like him is all that is needed to end drug trafficking.

My favorite part was the one played by Elen (Zeta-Jones) because it seem honest to me. I believe that a lot of people involved on drugs do it out of selfishness and indifference for justice but not because they are evil like Salazar or Flores.

About the representation of Mexico I think that some of the characters were depicted as modern versions of Pancho Villa or bandits. Salazar was just weird and creepy as well as Flores. Even Javier and Manolo had a weird unpleasant tone of voice and very slow dramatic pitch. I think the scene with the stolen car and the English-speaking couple was unnecessary and all it did was to make Tijuana look really bad. There were two scenes were Mexico/USA meta-converged. First when Robert is driving on the highway and the blue and the yellow mix to form green and another when Robert looks with the binoculars towards Mexico. I think that these two scenes put Mexico at the same level of USA is that both countries suffer from the consequences of the same problem but USA is more diligent and willing to fight the problem, at least in the movie.

Also the shots above Mexico city were a good way to show what I interpreted as the visit to a place that has nothing to do with the smuggling that happens in the border and that is not interested on it but is the center of attention because of the president and the administrative bodies that reside there. In other words in the movie Mexico was constructed as a country with divided interests .