Slashdot Mirror
15 Minutes
It's a loss. The Net is a great source of information, but it's fragmented. TV news was once America's common ground, its universal Town Hall, primary source of information and context. In the 80s, more than 90 percent of all U.S. families regularly watched one of the three major evening newscasts. Today, the number has fallen below 20 per cent, and TV has become an electronic nightmare, degrading civic life more often than elevating it. As television has become ever more ratings-obsessed, the boundaries between what used to be called serious journalism and video entertainment packaged as news have blurred. "Burn and bleed" video is the new ethos of TV news: Ratings are king, not truth.
This corruption of Big Media propels 15 Minutes, which stars Robert DeNiro as New York City celebrity detective Eddie Fleming. DeNiro is almost automatically great at playing the New York City tough guy in any guise: psycho, villain, or lawman. Edward Burns plays his naive but moral sidekick Fire Marshal Jordy Warshaw, and Kelsey Grammar is TV news anchor Robert Hawkins, who will pay any price to get blood-and-guts video onto his news show.
The movie is entertaining, violent, intense, and wildly uneven, the plot weaving from brutal thriller to ironic comedy to savage social commentary. It never quite makes up its mind which it wants to be, so the effect is confusing and disorienting.The first third of the movie is riveting, the final third a stupider version of Dirty Harry.
The basic idea is that Emil and Oleg, two Eastern European sickos, come to the United States to track down a fellow thief who betrayed them. In short order, they find him and the bloodbath begins. They also get hold of a videocamera, which they use to record their grisly deeds. They are fascinated to learn from watching various TV talk and news shows that in the United States, no one is ever held responsible for anything he does, even committing the most heinous crimes. That discvoer from the world of daytime television that even callous murderers get off the hook by claiming victimhood themselves, their evasions helped along by slick lawyers and manipulable media. Emil and Oleg are particularly fascinated by one vicious killer who claims child abuse, gets off on an insanity plea, and ends up not only with a fat book and movie deal but on the cover of People.
Not only are media utterly corrupt in this bleak view of American life, so are law enforcement and the idea of justice itself. Emil and Oleg figure they're a cinch to sell a movie of their own gruesome videotaped crimes and get off through one of the many loopholes in the legal system. In a truth-is-stranger twist, mob lawyer Bruce Cutler, who represented John Gotti, plays himself in the film.
15 Minutes is over the top, its caricatures of almost everyone extreme and unreal. But it moves so rapidly, and is so arrestingly shot, that it isn't boring for a second, not even when it veers off into ludicrous plot turns.
The psychos go on a vicious rampage -- one of them introduces himself all over town as Frank Capra (the famous director) -- spurred on by a desire for fame and money, and by the belief (echoes of OJ) that they will beat a system that worships visibility and money as much as ours does. DeNiro and Burns also get swept up in the ravenous media machine, which they think they can use to their advantage.
Ultimately, media are an equal opportunity destroyer, the most vicious element in 15 Minutes, consuming everything. Grammar's anchorman, for instance, is a ratings-mad caricature of the sensational and immoral types who have infected TV news. Unfortunately, he's too much of a clunky stereotype to be interesting. Furthermore, like lots of other Hollywood movies, this one has no idea how to end, so it circles around improbably, and increasingly foolishly.
That's too bad, because it takes some of the sting out of an intense movie that takes on a deserving target everybody loves to hate, one that can't really be thumped often enough. For all the flaws in the script, this makes the movie worthwhile as well as fun to see, and likely to succeed. (The soundtrack is pretty great too.)
Well I don't know that I agree with that conclusion, although I would want to. I've seen some totally screwed up repulsive stuff channel surfing late at night on "Jerry Springer". And if I see it a few months later, it's worse.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Violence: Bad
Media: Bad
Justice System: Bad
Simple New York Cops Trying to do the Right Thing: Good
That may be paraphrasing the Salon review, but it seems true. Now that I know that, why should I see the movie?
Seriously, it seems very hypocritical, making a movie condemning violence in the media by... making a violent movie. It makes about as much sense as the apologists for Natural Born Killers. These movies don't teach you about violence's role in society, or foster ideas on how to fix the problems: they just rub you up against the violence for a while, getting you a little dirty.
I'm all for entertainment movies, and I can even stand the occasional "Big Message" movie. But when Hollywood (Hollywood!) tries to preach to me (Pay it Forward, Traffic, etc.), I get a nasty feeling in my stomach. Maybe, it's because they are using high-minded concepts as a box-office draw.
I can see the board room meeting now: "Yeah, the self-rightous demographic, that's big. The violence-loving demographic, that's big too. And our research shows, even though they don't want to admit it, the two groups overlap quite a bit. Let's do it!"
Even if you don't care about whether or not you can legally reverse-engineer software, have some respect for those of who do.
Slashdot should take a stand and stop running movie reviews. Not only would this be ethical, but it would be less of JonKatz's terrible writing.
[posting anonymously because, yeah]
I think there are a number of reasons for this. Firstly, there are just too many channels available. Some promote this on the grounds of choice, but the problem, as I see it, is that there is only a finite amount of talent available to produce television, and so if you have a huge number of channels that talent is diluted. Also, American television stationstypically all produce the same sort of programmes - they all aim for certain market segments, but I do not see the need for many hundreds of channels.
Another problem is that with the lonely and underfunded exception of PBS, all the stations are commercial. They are all owned by one or another conglomerate or multinational, and so they have but one aim - to make money.
Here in the UK much admirable television is produced, mainly because there are few channels, and only 2 of the terrestrial channels can be said to be fully commercial, and even then they are heavily regulated. The BBC is funded by the television license, and is free to produce innovative and original programming, regardless of market constraints. ITV and Channel 5 have to exist in this reality, and compete with this by producing original programmes of their own.
If I were a dictator charged with improving American television, I would cut down the number of channels to 15 or so, start up an organisation similar to the BBC informed by the Reithian ethos and funded by licenses paid by the end consumer, and give it perhaps 6 of these channels. The remaining commercial channels would of course have to compete with this new entity by creating innovative programming.
This would also concentrate talent and money into a much smaller number of channels, and free these talents from the grinding demands of money and ratings. The quality of television would inevitably improve.
I know this is a pipe dream now, but really I think it would work wonders for the quality of American television.
--
This movie hits the nail on the head. The foreigners' idea of the media being a scapegoat through the race card (ahem, OJ, Puffy, etc >:)) has become so common in our society that we automaticlly look to the media for our opinions. And so we have Micky Mouse (via ABC) telling us all what to do and what to believe, how to feel, what's good and what's bad, who's to blame, etc, etc, etc.
A bit of irony, is that when you confront your generic Oprah-watching middle-American, they may even try to claim that they are a supporter of "fairness" in the justice system. Oh, but then they hear about how the latest school shooter liked Linkin Park (this happened, sorry but lost the link), and so it's off to congress to fight the good fight!
You know who to blame this on? Liberals. Everything has to be dummed down to the lowest common denominator of society, that the principal of Darwanism may as well be eliminated completely. YOU CAN'T SAVE EVERYBODY! Then there's the propogandists, your Al Sharptons and Jessie Jacksons, who make everything an issue of race. "Well, [whoever] did not murder that man, he was protecting himself from the lynching by some cracker!" or something like that. That's all you really have to do, and you'll be able to get away with murder (literally).
And then the judges and the jury, ah those poor souls, forced to decide another persons' fate. Well, those jury members are just like any other human, so if we get the media to pump compassionate bullshit everywhere for months on end, some of it can spill over and penetrate the people who are supposed to be neutral.
It's funny how "neutral" has become a subjective word.
--End of Rant--
--
--
#nohup cat
Without regard to what the media and society may say, you/we are 100% responsible for every act we perform in our lives. It makes no difference that your parewnts were bad to you when you were a child. It makes no difference that "It wasnt fair". At some point, the responsibility became yours to decide how YOU would respond to the situation, and if you chose to respond via a criminal act, then you chose to be a criminal and should recieve the punishment accorded anyone else for the same act. There is NO acceptable method for handing off your responsibility for your own actions, and people who attempt to do so, (as children are so apt to do), should recieve the same punative punishment (on top of the punishment for their crimes) as we give our children for attempting it. It was a 2 year sentence, but you just made it a 5 year sentence, or in capital cases, 90 days in the electric chair...
Its nice to see your article starts of with a totally false assumption. ...and everybody wants to be on a big or small screen. I for one do not. I am sure there are others. Keep up the good work Katz.
I'm so incredibly sick of hearing every review of what I call "movies with a message" being taken as preaching. Do you people have a guilty conscience or something? ESPECIALY for someone who didn't even see the movie, who are you to say that the producers and writers are trying to preach to us? They feel a certain way about an issue, they produce a movie that shows that issue in a bad light to illustrate their point. In the case of "15 minutes", which I just recently saw, this issue was essentially media corruption and sensationalism mixed in with a little "no one takes responsibility for their actions".
So, unless you're a reporter peddling sensationalized news or a pansy who won't take responsibility for themselves, how is this preaching? God forbid someone express their fucking opinion without it being aimed directly at you. Maybe I should make a friggin movie about how everyone who sees a movie thinks that movie is aimed directly at them and changing their views on the world.
Know something, if you think people are trying to preach to you through the movie industry, stay the fuck out of the theatres. Otherwise just sit back and enjoy a good movie. That's what it's there for.
I got a chance to meet writer/director John Herzfeld in an advance screening in boston a month ago. Apparently, he has been trying to release this movie for 8 years now - finally new line cinema has picked it up. I think it has a theme that many of you have missed, but would ring true with the slashdot crowd. How far are we willing to allow the media to go? How much invasion of privacy is too much? When the media begins to affect the outcome of events they report on, where is the boundary?
John Herzfeld described the movie as "a satire which he hopes never becomes true."
Incidentally, when he prescreened the movie all he wanted to do was allow the audience to ask him a few questions after the movie. No forms, no lengthy questionaires. He came across as a great guy. Maybe I am just star-struck but I thought the film had just as much substance (both themewise and plotwise) if not more than the Matrix.
One last thing.... WARNING PLOT SPOILER
#
The writer/director was repeatedly told not to kill Robert DeNiro's charachter, because he could possibly have a DeNiro/Burns franchise on his hands if the movie was successful. But he never wanted to ruin the integrity of the film's message. Of course this comes all from his mouth, so take it as you will.
In this country, nobody is responsible for anything he does,
Funny, coming from someone who blamed everyone but the shooters at Columbine.
In the 80s, more than 90 percent of all U.S. families regularly watched one of the three major evening newscasts. Today, the number has fallen below 20 per cent, and TV has become an electronic nightmare, degrading civic life more often than elevating it.
Here I go into my "why I don't watch broadcast TV anymore".
There's a large number of reasons why "the big three" aren't getting the same percentages as before. People are working longer hours and don't watch it on TV. Many turn to all-news channels (MSNBC/CNN/Fox (ecch) News) to get the news in one shot without all the BS that usually gets introducted.
I watch none of it. My news comes from Yahoo, a local newspaper, and NPR. Broadcast TV has, as I've grown older, become increasingly dumbed down. Maybe it's always been dumb and I just got smarter. Broadcast TV has always been for the lowest common denomonator, with programs aimed for people that don't know Alaska is a state and think that Bill Clinton is still president. Go watch your local Fox channel during prime time some night and tell me that is not the case. Fox is probably at the extreme end of this, but the other channels all have the same problems.
As evening news broadcasting drops because of these and other issues, (non-cable) broadcasters have to come up with new ways to get people to watch their channel. Then came OJ.
OJ's little publicity stunt with the white bronco and its associated ratings have made said broadcasters think that since ratings were high for OJ, all high-speed chases are important. Prime-time TV now has highlights of these chases going on.
Where will it end? I don't know. It's increasingly difficult to get true information. Everyone has their spin on events, and that spin is becoming larger and more erratic.
To save you the trouble, turns out the writer belongs to a group called the National Alliance...
National Alliance Goals
- White Living Space
- An Aryan Society
- A Responsible Government
- A New Educational System
- An Economic Policy Based on Racial Principles
(taken from web site)----------
Who knew that Nazis read Slashdot? Reading a little more on his web page, turns out the Holocaust never happened and that the Jews own all the media...
Sorry but we kicked your lying, insecure asses 50 years ago. Now let's get back to discussing some real issues here, OK? Not spreading the same old boring lies. Cuz, let's be frank -- if you want to really get people to listen, you've gotta update your image... Maybe talk about how Jews are really failed clones or how non-whites are really aliens from Saturn
Until then, leave the rest of us alone, OK? Oh, and yes, your penis *IS* smaller than everyone elses'... GET OVER IT...
I would have to say that explosives are the most abused technology in all of history.
Poke around http://www.deadtroll.com/troll/index2.html and look for the fifth and final show (they got their butts canned,) from Three Dead Trolls in a Baggie.
Its in the same vein as the really funny scene in the movie Room with a View.
But they raised a really valid pont. On TV, you can show somebody getting blown away, but not getting blown. I know which one I'd rather somebody do to me.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
That's enough, Jon, OK? It's fine when they have any fucking relevance at all, but don't you see these "issue films" are manufactured for this purpose? The hint of controversy starts conversations among those who rarely think, creating buzz for the film.
You once said you'd quit whatever your last job was because the ethics of it got to you. Doesn't it bother you to be your own boss and still just phone it in? Wouldn't you like to write something a little more relevant and meaningful than we could find in Rolling Stone or some other worthless hype machine?
I know you got burned in here with the few technical articles you tried, and frankly I've heard enough about what we all had to suffer through in HS, but I never supported people blocking your stories or getting on you for anything you put up here before. Seriously, though, I cringe everytime I see one of these movie stories by you. They're just weak.
-jpowers
-jpowers
But is there anything they wouldn't put on television, no matter how gruesome or sensational? John Herzfeld's 15 Minutes takes on Big Media and America's corruption by celebrity and money, and answers that question with a No.
Actually, there is, at least for now, though I tend to think it will happen soon enough, given America's appetite for "reality" TV:
Live Death Penalty
IIRC, in the late 80's this was debated to be done on some person who was up for the death penalty, to be executed in short time. I don't remember the manner of the execution, but I think it was to be lethal injection. At any rate, talks actually went real far into doing a pay-per-view thing, where the subscribers could watch the execution. They got the "condemmed" to sign paperwork and everything. However, all this caused such an uproar that it was cancelled, and the individual was executed in a more "normal" fashion.
I remember that a TV movie came out later, that was fiction, about a death row individual getting the electric chair live on TV (pay-per-view) in a stadium (with live seat tickets being expensive, but greatly in demand), and how a reporter uncovered evidence that he was innocent, but didn't manage to save the individual in time (because of viewers lust for "blood" - thus the execution, in fiction, of an innocent man).
I don't remember this too well. I appologize, hopefully someone can back me up.
I for one would not want to see such a thing, and wouldn't pay money to see it. I honestly wonder though at the sanity of a society that, so bent on satiating the apetite for violence with reality TV and such (movies, etc), are loath to see the final consequence of such actions - the mortal death of another human being.
Perhaps it is the lack of a reminder that we all can die, will die, and may die at the hands of another individual, that drives the lack of respect and responsibilty in American society?
Worldcom - Generation Duh!
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Lesson #4: Bowie J. Poag is a dumbass.
Mandy Moore butt-nekkid. Her and Christina Aguilera--together. Ooooh yeah...I'm waiting.
If somebody was murdered on video, Alien, do you think it would eventually make its way onto tv. I saw a show on Fox last week that showed cops run down bycars while making traffic stops..collected from videocams in police cars..
jonkatz@slashdot.org
Problem is, there are no laws legislating for morality In fact, our constitution expressly forbids us to respect any religion.
While not a bible-bashing fundamentalist, I can still see how America would be a much better place if all the less intelligent people (not slashdot readers, but the trailer trash you see on Springer) were forced to conform to a moral code (the bible is as good as any for want of a better choice).
This would quickly change our society from a 'me-first' dollar-driven one, into something far more civilised where what you are like as a person is more important than whether you have the latest 1.5GHz Pentium 4 or what car you drive.
What do others think ?
Once again Slashdot tries to emulate salon.com, which probably isn't wise considering salon's stock value
News for Nerds. Stuff that matters. How movie reviews of non-geek movies fit into that I dunno. I can see reviews of Planet of the Apes, StarWars, Lord of the Rings. But the last half dozen movie reviews of katz's makes me think he'd be better writing for a movie site.
I'm not saying his reviews are bad, just they don't belong here. He could probably make more money at msnbc or movies.go.com or another such place. If he was good enough he could make it on cnn.
This movie shows how far we can go with violence and "reality television", but Series 7 goes much farther. It's a movie wherein the "reality show" involves not just voting someone off the island, but killing them. The movie opens with a pregnant mother unhearteningly shooting someone in a convenience store and continuing full throttle throughout the rest of the flick. It's gory, a bit underhanded (it's from USA pictures, so you know the content is just asking for trouble) but frighteningly profound.
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.
We both liked it, more so myself than her.
It was at times slightly distubing, very graphic and sensatonalistic (on purpose).
I liked it because it told a good story covered a lot of ground and does talk about something ignored in media: media themselves. I disagree that the movie was very dumb. Sure it had its problems, the last 1/3 was very unbalanced and keep bouncing all over the place, however the use of comedy throught the film made it accessable to my girl friend who otherwise would have found it too intense.
All in all I'd say it was a decent movie, definitely worth a rental, but if your board or love movies go for the theater.
Also, make sure you stay for an extra minute or so as the credits start to get a little extra closure.
--
From: Aaron "PooF" Matthews
It is, without question, hypocritical of AOL/Time-Warner's New Line Cinema to be posing as moral media guardians..On the other hand, who has any illusions about the motives or morals of Hollywood?
jonkatz@slashdot.org
I'm not sure what Americans make of TV..they see it as entertainment, I suspect..I don't know that liberals get all the blame here..they sure get a lot..I'd say the corporatization of media gets few points..When big, profit driven companies get into this, they only hae one motive or goal..profits, and they own most American media now..
jonkatz@slashdot.org
if you look at the reality shows on Fox and cable, I'd say there are no limits where this trend can go, constitutionally or otherwise.. But the question the movie asks also, is will we every reach a point where people will stop watching..Murders are often shown on TV, along with shootings and violent crime, accidents etc. As long as people will watch, they'll make it. I don't think we're close to the limit. Unfortunately, the movie's owners..Time Warner..don't have a great claim to high moral ground here.
jonkatz@slashdot.org
Didn't Paddy Chayefsky already make this movie?
This next song is very sad. Please clap along. -- Robin Zander
In this forum, nobody is responsible for anything he posts, and everybody wants to be on a big or small thread, a reality helped along by scheming trolls, unscrupulous /. moderators and a linux-numbed readership.
But is there anything they wouldn't put on Slashdot, no matter how gruesome or sensational?
John Katz' review of 15 Minutes takes on karma whores and Slashdot's corruption with illiteracy and stupidity, and answers that question with a No.
---
Desperation is a stinky cologne
My wife and I were wondering as we laughed at moments that the director hoped would be poignant and grimaced at moments intended to be funny "Can anyone like this mindless drivel?" Apparently people can, and there are a number of them here.
The flaw in this movie are far too numerous to completely count, but let's start with a few of the big ones:
1. Why the heck is a fire marshall, who never even saw the big-shot teevee cop (because he doesn't own a teevee, and without a teevee probably doesn't read People magazine) suddenly the guys best friend after they've been together a total of about four hours over the course of two days?
2. Double Jeapordy doesn't mean that court has to stand idly by while obvious mistrials are left standing. Come on Hollywood! This was much worse in the case of the movie of that name, but to put forth (without refutation, in both instances) that this fatal flaw exists in our legal system is irresponsible.
3. I appreciate that the media is an easy and sometimes valid target, which has created a culture of media-obsession, panic-driving media (I like how Kelsey Grammar said 'If it bleeds, it leads' as thought that was a novel idea)... HOWEVER. This topic has been done to death, starting with Network, and then the violence-creation/violence-reporting link was done much better in Natural Born Killers. What does this movie add to the story and the (far too blatant) morality tale? An arson investigator and an escort service.
4. Were the rose petals on the ground around the dying DiNero necessary? No. They were absurd - like all of the symbols in this movie they were far too blatant. It was as though the movie was being as LCD (not the display) as the media that it was harping on - but without the self-awareness to validate it.
There are a lot of other movies. I give it 2/10, because it is still possible for the movie to be worse, but they'd have to work at it.
Didn't anyone else hate this movie?
CM
I saw 15 Minutes just last night.
There were a few things I felt needed a little polishing -- for example, when Eddie instantly linked the slashes on the wall in the hotel bathroom with the broken-tipped knife. Things like that would probably take time to figure out, and there were several occurances of that sort of thing.
I disagreed with Eddie's fate, but it was a refreshing change from the good-guys-never-die (coughBondcough) theme so prevalent in Hollywood these days.
Also, the fact that the fire marshal (his name escapes me at the moment) didn't wuss out at the end was very satisfying indeed. The guy probably would have rotted in jail anyway as a result of Oleg's tape, but it was nice to see a little an-eye-for-an-eye.
If you haven't seen it, I recommend it heartily. Overall, I enjoyed it -- warts and all.
--
What is more troublesome than the kinds of errors I list above, however, is the general terrible writing online. Even supposed professionals -- Jon Katz springs immediately to mind -- frequently post long-winded, repetitive, confused pieces which, in the worst cases, contradict themselves. Frequently, the rhetorical flourish is deployed at the expense of clear, well-reasoned paragraphs designed to lead the reader inexorably from premise to conclusion. There is little worse in the world than prose dressed up in empty jargon, useless "well-that's-the-way-I-feel" rants, and irrelevant paragraphs. Words mean things, and it isn't enough just to type some in, if one wants to write something that will convince, or edify, or even describe.
The whole textFeed the need: Digitaladdiction.net
It's just that they used a sensationalistic approach that invalidates whatever message they were going to send. They are as guilty as the people they portray. I agree with you that it shouldn't be put down as preaching.
It should be put down as hypocrisy.
Go ahead, enjoy the movie, but don't pretend you are going to leave the movie and more enlightened or less depressed about the sorry state of attention-grabbing weasels on TV who successfully pander to the basest instincts of a gullible public. Just know that you are no different than people who watch Jerry Springer.
'Traffic' is a good example of a failed attempt at a message movie. The message is skewed and dishonest, trading fact for emotional impact. Hollywood has a blurred sense of perception, so they really should not be our eyes, ears, or conscience.
I would much prefer a documentary that tries to be unbiased and journalistically honest than a completely sensationalized rip-off of an already anxiety-provoking situation.
No, I won't plunk down any money on this one. Don't need to see it as I already saw the trailer a few times. My point: as long as ratings are the producer's bottom line and his primary reason for making a movie(this will be forever), you will never get an enlightened viewpoint. Not from "15 Minutes", not from "Traffic", but maybe "13 Days", maybe "Gattaca", maybe "2001". These movies, IMO, have at least a germ of independent artistic vision. The other two are ratings-grabbers in the guise of 'important message movies'.
SDMI: Finally! Music that won't rip or burn! Brought to you by the fine folks at RIAA.
Hehe, they blow up a building on my street in the movie. I got to see them film it, and maybe i was even caught in the crowd of extras. I guess I'll have to go see it.
-- these are only opinions and they might not be mine.
I agree, to a point........these types of movies do evoke a cynical reaction in me, but in the end I support anything that inspires people to think differently. I haven't seen the movie, so I'm not sure if it even accomplishes that, but consider Rage Against the Machine as an example. They spoke out against plenty of issues, a few of which dealth with the greed and control of companies like the very record label they worked for. Many would defend them (and maybe this movie) by saying that if the allegations in their lyrics are even partially true, then the only way to get their message out would be to become part of what they hate; how many people would know of RATM or their politics had they not signed with one of the (few) major record labels? And on the same note as my first sentence, how many young people now pay attention to important issues (specifically politics), only because they were inspired by a rock band?
My all time british favorite "the secret life of machines" has been off the air for years here (and isn't avaliable on videotape to my knowledge). It even won a cable ace award.
This isn't to say I'm immune from the lure of futurama, simpsons, UCB, voyager and earth final conflict (althugh some have been sucking latley:).
Free Techno/Jazz/DNB/MI Music by guys obsessed with monkeys!
Here is CBC's take on the movie.
--
How do you figure, boss-man?
Yep, TV is dead. Unfortunately the net is now suffering the same fate. TV has lots of channels with "nothing on" and the web is now full of url's with no content but paid advertising. Thank goodness there are a few sites that still have content. It's just getting harder to find thru all that static. Even though the web is bad, the TV is worse, so I don't use the TV much anymore.
The truth shall set you free!
Hi, Two Words...
One of the bigger parts of that movie that had great emotional impact but small factual basis was the fact that the daughter of the drug czar went from valedictorian to crack whore in a matter of days. Strong impact, but how far is that from 'Reefer Madness'? (this has been said before)
As for the story of the corrupt general, and the responsible drug-dealer father/husband, the avenging but innocent wife who arranges the murder of the snitch, the good-hearted Mexican cop who bargains with the Machiavellian Gringos for a new baseball field 'for the children', c'mon, really.
Either these things did actually happen in which case a documentary that presented these facts in an unbiased light would have had incredible impact on us, or...
...they were all made up and as such are a fiction in which case the message of the movie is "here's how the drug problem Could be... albeit on another planet."
Don't get me wrong: Interesting story. Bad parables. Fun watching. Please don't take a whole lot of this to heart. Don't say "My God! Can't we stop this madness? Look, young mothers are being forced to arrange hits on cons due to this terrible terrible drug war!"
It has nothing to do with reality unless you can show me the drug czar's daughter, the Beverly Hills dealer and his savvy wife, the general who's death was faked.
See, no one has to take responsibility here. If it's 'just a story' in part A, it can't be 'deep, insightful truth' in part B, 'cuz we can't tell which is which.
Write back and tell me if this made sense to you. Hope so.
SDMI: Finally! Music that won't rip or burn! Brought to you by the fine folks at RIAA.
I thought you were talking about napster users there for a second. (ducks)
Smart people can and do get into drugs. Sometimes the throw away quite a bit. Trust me if you don't know, but that part of the plot is not that unrealistic. I've known some people like her.
Your "matter of days" interpretation is a bit tenuous. I don't recall her problem being portrayed in suck a short period. Rather, the time period seemed to be unspecified, and when we meet the daughter, she seemed to have an already established drug habit. We just have the fortune of catching her when she gets in to the harder stuff.
Also, her drug of choice was heroin, not crack (you got the whore part right, though).
This part of your response amazes me - do you not understand fiction - of course they are made it up. No plot element that you object to is that unrealistic, and every element brings something interesting to light about the drug war whether that specific element really happened or not.
If you are interested in real data and anectodes I would say first, don't go to the movies, and second, there is plenty out there for you to examine that suggests the drug war is an ineffectual money pit. (e.g. examine US federal prison population statistics).
In summary, I'm deeply disappointed that someonce could dismis this movie so easily out of reasons that boil down to "it's only fiction". Of course it is only fiction. All fiction is connected to reality in some way, and the important ideas this movie presented about the drug war are very connected indeed. I.E. how do americans feel about a war on drugs, when the opposition in that war is people we love, family and friends? How do americans feel about the war on drugs, when they realize that the war helps a certain power structure fueled by corruption, deceipt, and profiteering on both sides? That every victory in the drug war is quickly followed by a new defeat as the power vacuum is filled by a new "entreprenuer"? Etc, further insight is left as an exercise for the enlightened viewer.
What? I don't think it was that bad true it was a little unexpected but it's not like they left you hanging with out any clue of what was going on.
Buzz Off