2000: The Year that the General Became a Slave, Became a Gladiator, and Rescued a Nation from Stupid Tree-Flying Movies

Ah the year 2000. The turn of the century. I'm Benjamin Buttoning myself as I go on my escapade because I remember when a lot of these films came out and how different my perception of them would've been at the time. Well it's an interesting year for films. The winner is a freaking awesome film which may or may not have deserved the award (actually maybe not from an objective standing point, but it's hard for me to say that because it's one of my favorites). There's also a so-so film, an excellent film, a magical film, and a piece of crap. And none of that was in the order I list them, nor do I feel like changing it.

The magical film is Chocolat. The title by itself makes you want to puke because it sounds all French and gross. I love Alex Trebek but when he whips out the French it's not cool. Even Jack Bauer speaking French would be a bit nauseating. But the movie is awesome. Before I watched it, my mother described it to me as: "like Mary Poppins for grown-ups" and I couldn't think of a better way to describe it. There's no deep, philosophical meaning. Just good, old-fashioned "moral of the story" storytelling. But it's done in such a refreshing and magical way that I loved every minute of it. And Johnny Depp is in it. So it's automatically awesome. The basic plot is that a woman with a knack for deducing everyone's favorite kind of chocolate comes into town in a Mary Poppins esque manner and concordantly frees them from their bonds of normalcy and societal restraint. She shakes up the established order in a heavily religious French town and is perceived by some as an interloper, but by most as a hero who gave the town the breath of life it so desperately needed. The ensemble cast is great all the way around, and features some pretty hefty names (some of whom weren't quite as hefty back then, so props to the filmmakers for using them). It's never really explained how a lot of the things in the film happen, but nor should they be. As a big fan (bordering and even surpassing the level of obsession) of TV's Lost, I know that some things are better left unsaid. As the producers of that show pointed out: "if George Lucas had said where the Force comes from, it's not nearly as interesting anymore." So this movie doesn't bother to explain the more mystical aspects of the film, it just wants you to feel the emotions and go on the journey with the characters. Enhancing all of this is Rachel Portman's outstanding score. I had never heard of her before, but she writes some really good music. She lost to the composer who did the movie I hate that I'll mention in a second, which twists that knife even deeper in my soul. But back to being positive: it's also nice to have watched a movie I can recommend to basically anybody because as much as I love films like Mystic River, I wouldn't go around recommending it for fear of inducing mass-depression.

The movie that's a piece of crap gives me mass-depression because I thought it was going to be awesome. I was dragged to it when it was in theaters and so was a good friend of mine, I think because my dad didn't want to sit through the torture alone. We were told it was going to be a sweet martial arts movie with lots of fighting. Lies! Or perhaps: misleads! The movie is Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and it reminds me of a sketch I saw on Monty Python. Not in a good way. The sketch involves a fake foreign film that entirely consists of a head of cabbage on a stool, and then fake critics come on and rave about it. That's how this movie makes me feel. Because though The Matrix has one of the first truly original storylines in a long time while blending Eastern philosophy, Western religion, and awesome fight scenes (which are crazy but explained by the fact that they take place in a computer world) it would have been laughed out of the Academy. And yet, when a movie has a pretty unoriginal storyline and preposterous fight scenes (that have no explanation for how ridiculous they are) it is lauded by the Academy. And why? Because it's foreign. And you have to "understand and appreciate other cultures." Well, I do. When it's not crap. The movie Hero has similarly crazy fight scenes, but it's also a tall tale so it makes sense. That movie is awesome. In fact, any crazy Asian movie with crazy fight scenes can be forgiven when they have a slapstick tone (as many of them do). But when it's trying to be serious and has fight scenes thrown in that involve people floating on treetops, that's just dumb. And since everyone in the movie clearly has superhuman abilities, why is it that at the end of the movie the girl has to ride the world's slowest mule in order to get the antidote to save the dude? Why didn't she just call Pegasus down to fly her there? Or the Phoenix? I'm of course being facetious (mostly) but seriously though, I can't even believe that it was nominated for Best Picture. That's what really upsets me here. If I watched the movie again, I'd probably enjoy it more but still have issues with it. It doesn't take a genius like me to figure out what went on here, but it does take a cynic like me to say it out loud. Basically, the "Best Foreign Language Film" award was brand new this year, and I think this movie was supposed to be the figurehead for foreign films. Because it's Asian enough to be foreign, but not quite as nutty as some of the other movies of its type (and thus it doesn't fit in with itself, which I don't like). So it's a Westernized version of an Asian martial arts film. It was never going to win Best Picture, just make people aware of films of its type. But since it's not actually representative of films of its type, the Academy is doing what they accuse people like me of doing: not being tuned in with other cultures. If they really liked this type of movie, there are better ones out there that I've seen which get no recognition. So there you go, mystery solved. Politics: revealed.

In the middle ground between the movie I detest and the excellent one is the so-so one: Erin Brockovich. I definitely enjoyed this movie, but it's kind of a 100 minute movie pretending to be a 120 minute movie. The middle of the film just kind of sits there, but the beginning is excellent and the end is expected but well-delivered. There were also like half an hour's worth of deleted scenes, which is crazy because the movie was already a bit longer than it should've been. I think Steven Soderbergh was a bit out of his element when he was directing this movie. Because there's not a whole lot for him to do, but his talents are still evident (just not nearly as evident as his other film that was nominated this year, for which he won Best Director). Julia Roberts certainly gives an excellent performance as the title character, but I feel that her supporting cast didn't receive enough recognition. There are a lot of fairly significant actors in the film, all of whom do a good job (including Albert Finney and Aaron Eckhart). Poor Aaron Eckhart is always getting overlooked. He gave an outstanding performance as Two-Face, which also went largely unnoticed. So Julia's is a great performance, but I don't think it's a show-stealer. The plot itself is of course based on a true story revolving around a class action lawsuit against a water company. So in its own way the story is the classic sports film, and of course the classic David v. Goliath. So it's cool that it represents the modern representation of this struggle as the average person versus the faceless corporation. However, given that the movie itself is more of a "hey isn't this a cool story" instead of a film that's actually really well done, I think the nomination was a bit far. Julia's nomination and win was well-deserved, but the movie itself is enjoyable and not award-worthy.

On the other hand, the excellent movie is Steven Soderbergh's masterpiece: Traffic. I really do go back and forth on whether or not this should have been the winner or not. Because I really, really love the film that won. But this is quite honestly the better movie I think. It's incredibly well-directed, well-written, thought-provoking, and it features an outstanding ensemble cast. With all of those hyphenated words how can you refuse? The film also avoids having a wholly conclusive ending, leaving you with the thought that the debates and the conflicts go on. The film features an intertwining stories approach, and it probably does it better than any other of its kind that I've seen (especially as compared to that falsely-nominated 2006 junk). Soderbergh makes the separate storylines instantly identifiable by having each one tinted with a distinctive hue (blue, yellow, and...red? It's been a while, and I don't have it in front of me. They're all apropos though). This makes the transition from story to story both more jolting and easier to take, if that makes any sense. Because it's like: boom! Now it's blue-tinted. But then you instantly go: "oh! This is Michael Douglas' story." Which reminds me: I haven't said what it's about. Basically it's about the drug trade and it focuses on three different aspects of it: the politics, the cops, and the dealers (but there are two separate stories within the dealers: the higher-ups and the soldiers on the ground). Most importantly: the movie doesn't tell you what to think of anything. It gives you food for thought on the issue, but it doesn't preach (at least not too much). The only qualm I have with the film's reception is that though I feel Benicio Del Toro's performance in the movie was excellent, I thought that Michael Douglas, Don Cheadle, and Catherine Zeta-Jones gave performances of equal caliber. When you have a good ensemble cast, an award shouldn't be given to one of the people because the movie isn't dependent on just one person. But that being said, they're good performances and the movie itself is brilliant. The Best Director Oscar was well-deserved.

And that brings us to that year's winner, a movie I hold very near and dear to my heart because it was the first R-rated movie I ever watched: Gladiator. And when I watched it, I said to myself: "this is everything I dreamed R-rated movies would be. People's heads get sliced off and stuff." As I got older and continued to view the film, I said: "this is a legitimately really good movie." As I stated before, I go back and forth on whether it should have won or not. Because while it's not as original as Traffic I think that it tells a good story and tells it well. And because years 1996-99 were all kind of "arthouse" films I think the Academy was looking for a movie that's just really good. Not controversial or contemplative, just really good (although the 1997 winner's box office is hardly arthouse, it's not exactly what one would call mainstream either in a lot of ways). So for this reason, and the fact that I love it, I stand by the Academy's decision. It's probably Ridley Scott's best work (and he is an overlooked director) and as far as classically-told movies go, it's pretty much as good as it gets. It centers around a Roman general in the waning days of the Empire, and how he struggles for revenge against the corrupt Emperor Commodus. So it also kind of represents the end of tyranny and its defeat at the hands of the common man. So there is some semblance of deeper meaning there: the emergence of democracy. The movie addresses the fact that the everyday man had his livelihood taken from him by the big government, and the man doesn't want to take it anymore. So he sticks it to the Man (capitalized M). He sticks it to him right in his neck (sweet). And remember when I said Benicio was great but shouldn't have won? The larger reason is because I think Joaquin Phoenix's performance as the Emperor should have gotten the Oscar. Benecio gave a subtly brilliant performance, but Joaquin stole every scene that he was in. He played a character that was internally weak but possessed near-unlimited power. It's not easy to appear vulnerable and powerful. The person who did win an Oscar in the movie was Russell Crowe, who gave a solid performance to be sure, but Oscar-worthy? Probably not. The film also features one of Hans Zimmer's best musical scores, which is saying a lot. And on a very general level of viewership: the battle scenes are fricking awesome. Seriously. I've seen my fair share of battles, and contrary to what some may think, a good battle scene takes a very talented director to put together. And Ridley Scott really shows his skills here. The battles are realistic enough to be believable and cinematic enough to be enjoyable. So it doesn't venture into the area of the TV show Spartacus (way too over-the-top to be serious, but still awesome) or the movie Spartacus (a bit too realistic to really take in the viewer at times). Funny how that works isn't it?

So except for one token hiccup, 2000 was a solid year. It brought in the new century with a little bit of everything. And taking a step back from artistic merit, I'm really glad a movie won that people actually went to see and enjoyed. Because too often are movies released that only people like me can enjoy. And I know that sounds strange coming from me, I'm clearly too tired right now to be my usual misanthrope. But it's true though, movies should win on occasion not because they have interesting cinematography or conflicting ideas on existentialism. But just because you walked out of it and said, "that was awesome." And on that note: 1999's winner is purely arthouse. Other highlights of the year include John McClane coming back from the dead, Tom Hanks eluding death for far too long, and Batman's butler helping Spider-Man avoid the draft during WWII.