Crash (dir. Paul Haggis)

[Deleted]

I firmly believe Brokeback Mountain was the better film and the Oscars havent made me that angry in ... ever. But I still do like Crash although I really do think it is a flawed film. THe reson I am writing this, however, is to defend the movies un-subtle-ness.

The reason I didn't mind the anvil-esque nature of Crash is because, in some ways, subtlety is overrated. I *like* a movie, or any artwork for that matter, which is completely transparent about what it is talking about. I mean, I could work tirelessly on an art work made up of abstract brush strokes and paint splatters that is meant to symbolise my objection to abortion laws or Japanese whaling practices etc, but if it isn't clear what I'm on about from the art work, then I don't think it really amounts to much.

It's like the Girl Power debate. A lot of feminists decry the mixed messages in Madonna or the Spice Girls professing "girl power" whilst dressed up all sexy (to please men). The thing is, however, is that they are getting the female empowerment mesage out there to the chicks that need it the most. Whilst a woman being abused in a trailer park somewhere isn't going to have access to complex feminist theory espoused behind university walls, they are going to get access to Madonna and her simplistic message of "stand up for yourself girl, yeah".

Why should a movie have to cloak what it is saying? Why does that make it more artistically valid? I think it can too often lead to the message being lost, or worse, misunderstood. If I made an abstract artwork that was, say, pro-abortion and someone approached it and misinterpretted my message to be anti-abortion, and inspired them to think that way I'd be crushed (a bit of an extreme example, I know). If a movie has something to say, why can't it just say it plain and simple?

So, I guess I'm making two points. Firstly, subtle indirect ways of getting a message across through art means a lot of dumb people won't get it. Secondly, we seem to simplistically equate movies that are "subtle" as being more artistically valid - that not being strong and direct with the point of your parable is something to be lauded and preferred.

[mrpancake]

Why should a movie have to cloak what it is saying? Why does that make it more artistically valid?

This is a big problem with the argument that people tend to have against Crash. So many people are complaining that the characters were over-the-top and no one would ever act like that. Wanna bet? There are tons, TONS of people who wear their racism on their sleeve. And you know what? Not all racism is subtle, and in my experiences, most of it isn't. I don't think the fact that the characters were profoundly racist made it any less valid or worthy of being considered a good film. To me, it's like saying, well, Brokeback Mountain was a okay film, but they really tended to hit me over the head with the whole "gay thing." I don't know, my best friend and I were talking over the phone about this. He absolutely loved Brokeback Mountain, but he liked Crash more and thought it was the overall better film. We sort of had the some reasoning against the arguments against Crash.

Sandra Bullocks character? I can think of a couple people in my own life who have similar attitudes as her when it comes to their Mexican hired help. It's (unfortunately), not that uncommon.

But I also didn't think the ending was cliched. I thought the ending was a good way to wrap it up because it showed me that though the characters had changed, they were still very flawed.

I know I'm in the minority, but Crash just left thinking a lot more than BBM did. Once BBM was over, I thought a bit about it for the night and determined that no, I really didn't like it. I thought about Crash for a long time after I saw it and found myself sort of picking apart the characters long after I had seen it.

[Deleted]

Perhaps the most telling thing for me about this movie is that I don't remember it in very much detail. It wasn't a terrible film, but it wasn't great. I never really understood what I was supposed to take from the Sandra Bullock storyline or the Persian shopkeeper storyline.

The painful truth is that Sandra Bullock's character was right in feeling uncomfortable about the two guys that eventually carjacked her. Her reaction to the locksmith was unfair, but not totally irrational after being carjacked. I didn't really understand the rest of her story about her interactions with her maid.

And the Persian guy -- so he doesn't want to be thought of as Arab because he doesn't want the terorist stigma on him, amongst other things, I'm sure, so he goes to shoot the guy he thinks is responsible for the loss of his business. That just made no sense whatsoever.

This was a mediocre film and I have no idea why it was nominated or why it won. The only thing I will say for sure is that I don't think it was because of homophobia.

[Baby Fish Mouth]

baff said:

Firstly, subtle indirect ways of getting a message across through art means a lot of dumb people won't get it. Secondly, we seem to simplistically equate movies that are "subtle" as being more artistically valid - that not being strong and direct with the point of your parable is something to be lauded and preferred.

I don't necessarily think subtlety automatically equates more artistically valid. But in the case of Crash, it does. Because I still think most racism is hidden, and that's exactly why it's so hard to find a solution for it. I don't think of myself as a racist, but I know damn well that I am capable of judging and stereotyping people in my head even if I don't express it. We all do it to some degree. Crash took the easy way out by avoiding this reality.

I guess I'm a person who prefers to see a movie that doesn't feel like an after-school special, and a movie that actually assumes some level of intelligence in the audience because it doesn't hit me with completely unrealistic anvils. It's the same reason I prefer a debate or a thought-provoking discussion rather than a sermon.

[slashgirl]

anne said:

What message, other than racism is terrible, did Do the Right Thing deliver? I agree that it was an outstanding movie, but I don't recall much of a solution being offered up.

For me, the message of DtRT was the quotes at the end by Dr. King and Malcolm X was a solution. The way I see it, it said that there are two ways of dealing with racism. How you do it is up to you. That scene had the one thing that Crash lacked-sublety. DtRT was just as loud as Crash, but at least the former, in its own way, had a grace that Crash doesn't. In my mind, Crash doesn't say anything that DtRT didn't say first and much better.

[Neurochick]

I don't think it was a movie about racism, I think it was a movie about what happens to people, how fucked up they can be when they don't know how to make a connection with a single person.

[anne]

neurochick said:

I don't think it was a movie about racism, I think it was a movie about what happens to people, how fucked up they can be when they don't know how to make a connection with a single person.

Interesting perspective. It certainly does fall in line with the Don Cheedle line opening the movie. Being screwed up translates into aggression and hate, which appears under the veil of racism. That certainly explains the Sandra Bullock character more clearly.

[Neurochick]

anne said:

neurochick said:

I don't think it was a movie about racism, I think it was a movie about what happens to people, how fucked up they can be when they don't know how to make a connection with a single person.

Interesting perspective. It certainly does fall in line with the Don Cheedle line opening the movie. Being screwed up translates into aggression and hate, which appears under the veil of racism. That certainly explains the Sandra Bullock character more clearly.

When I saw it a second time, I could relate to her character a lot more. She was angry because she had no friends and she really couldn't talk to her husband. She reminded me of college friends who thought, like all of us did, that getting married would solve all problems. Lots of people believe that NOW. It reminded me of Ordinary People, where everyone was so closed off, cold and unable to express any kind of emotion.

And the Persian guy -- so he doesn't want to be thought of as Arab because he doesn't want the terorist stigma on him, amongst other things, I'm sure, so he goes to shoot the guy he thinks is responsible for the loss of his business. That just made no sense whatsoever.

To me it did make sense. He thought that everyone was out to get him; he goes to buy a gun and the guy calls him "Osama." Then he has someone fix his lock and he's told he had to get his door fixed and it just went on. The guy just snapped, that happens to folks, it's just one more thing, the last straw and before he knew it he was in front of the man's home with a gun, wanting to kill him. I've never attempted to kill someone but I've been just that angry.

[lpatrice]

Sandra Bullock's character was pissed off because her husband was screwing his assistant.

[mrpancake]

Neurochick, I just wanted to say that I couldn't agree more with you. You say exactly what I'm thinking but you're able to put it into words. That's one of the criticisms of the movie I can't get behind though - that it's unrealistic. Frankly the most unrealistic part for me was the snow in Los Angeles. Well, that, and everyone running into each other, but that's why it's a movie. I don't need my movies to be 100 percent real life, I just want to enjoy them.

I think that people, when pushed to their limits, often do behave in ways that are irrational or illogical. I think that is human nature.