I think we got off to a bad start. Let my clarify a couple of things.
I didn't call you ignorant because you agree with critics, nor did I say that you always agree with the majority. I said it is ignorant to stamp on minority viewpoints, which it is. I didn't call you a fascist either. What I said was, invalidating minorities is basically fascism. However, if you agree that you are indeed stamping on minority viewpoints, which evidently you do (given the offence), then yes you are in my opinion an intellectual fascist. If you don’t want to be labeled as such, then (in future) don’t attempt to use the weight of majority opinion to smother the minority. I have little tolerance for the “majority rules” mentality; it has no place in a civilized an intelligent discussion. I'm sorry if that offends you.
Why Traffic is irrelevant.
Francis Ford Coppola directed Apocalypse Now and Peggy Sue Got Married, but the later has little relevance in the context of a discussion about the former. In other words, directors are capable of making good films (like Traffic) and bad films (like Contagion). The fact that Traffic is a good film doesn't really mean anything.
Why I am not going to open my address book.
I am not going to reveal personal details, which – given the nature of this website – I’m sure comes as no surprise; you’ve asked me for something you know I will not deliver, thereby setting up an inevitable failure on my part. If you chose to believe that I don’t know anyone in the film industry, that's up to you.
There have been some deserving winners of Academy Awards, but that doesn't mean that an Acadamy award is a sign of quality.
Fear mongering? I disagree.
Why do you disagree?
Here's a brief analysis of a couple of short scenes:
1> The doctor (don't know her name, don't care about her) goes to see her dying father (who hasn't been referenced at any point throughout the film) and tells him that she's sacrificing herself for the good of humanity...
This is not an effective exploration of "heroism." It is flat, forced drama. It is easy. The act in itself is so noble, that it forces an emotional reaction. But, it might as well be an isolated scene, separate from the narrative. There is nothing leading up to it. We don't care about the doctor. It is – entirely – plot-driven, much like the rest of the film.
2> Kate Winslet's character is dying. Beside her is another man who is dying. He is begging for a blanket. She weakly attempts to push her blanket off, in his direction. Clearly she doesn't care about herself, even in the face of death...
Again, an act that is so noble it provokes an emotional response from the audience. I didn't care about her, nor did I believe her as a person. The gesture was cheesy and unnecessary.
3> Lawrence Fishburn gives his vaccine to the son of the guy who cleans the toilets.
This was the cheesiest and most forced "hero" moment. The cleaner character and his relationship with Fishburn was artificial right from word go and I predicted that something like this was going to happen. It was a fairly obvious Hollywood set-up; they don’t establish minor characters for no reason.
For a film that supposedly opts for realism over drama (according to the critics), there were a strangely large number of dramatic scenes. The worst of which is when Damon's daughter re-unites with her boyfriend at their quarantined version of the Prom. Do we care about the daughter? Or the boyfriend? Is the Prom relevant in the context of a realistic, clinical and detached film about contagious viruses?
The film doesn't function as a human drama or a cold thriller; it is an awkward hybrid of the two. It wants to keep us distant from the characters, but at the same time it wants us to care about them. It wants to simultaneously be non-drama and drama. And, in doing so, it fails - to some extent - at both. This is what I meant by, "he (Soderbergh) tried to do too much."
(Contagion) has a overall score of 70 out of a hundred and on rottentomatoes 84% of critics gave it a positive review. But since you already don't care what critics say why are we talking about their opinions anyway?
I pay attention to certain critics. I find it is best to find a critic that you are on par with, rather than taking a broad average as an indication of quality. People these days don't even bother reading reviews, they just look at the numbers. To answer your question, though, I was addressing your erroneous assertion that the film received universal acclaim. It didn’t.
Pleased enlighten me as to how the film is racist.
Given your tone, I suspect you might be less than open-minded, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. I didn't say the film was racist. I said borderline racist. I wasn't outraged or offended by it; I don't think that the director was intentionally being racist, he probably didn't think about it. Hollywood has a long tradition of accidentally making films that present non-white people (and more specifically non-Americans) in a negative fashion. This is an enormous generalization, but: typically the Americans are the heroes and the foreigners are antagonists/ causes of antagonism. I'm not just talking about Air Force One and 24. It's wider spread than that.
In Contagion, a disease spreads rapidly across the world. We see short montage scenes in various other countries. Maybe a minute total. The bulk of the story takes places in the states. All the heroes are American. This is typical. Add to the mix a mischievous and immoral Britt with bad teeth and a gang of Asian abductees. Note: the Americans are all making sacrifices. They are noble. There is no non-American heroism, at all. And then the cherry on the icing.
The final scene in the film. Gwyenth Paltrow is in a fairly nice establishment. She's not eating street food. I've been to HK over twenty times. The place she contracted the disease was a lot nicer than what the majority of what the city has to offer. By the look of it, I’d say at least 4 stars. Anyway, the guy beside her spits big gobs of saliva onto his gambling chips and invites her to join in. In the spirit of being open minded to other cultures and embracing HK, she does. She spits on his gambling chips. And we cringe. Paltrow’s character is warm and loving; not your typical tourist, she exposes herself to culture. She joins in. So much so that she gets a photo taken with the chef. Who, of course, doesn’t bother to wash his hands after touching raw meat. He just rubs them on his clothes.
To sum up: the world is threatened as a result of a lack of hygiene in an Asian country, and the United States saves the day. The American characters all make enormous sacrifices. The non-American characters all make mistakes. Racism in Hollywood films is so common, that most of the time it goes unnoticed. As I said initially, some people picked it up, others didn’t.
Would you care for a biscuit; cup of tea, perhaps?
![:\](https://bluelight.org/xf/BL_Images/Orig_Emoji/wrygrin.gif "wry grin :\")