Paul Haggis' CRASH

My impression of this film: I need it think about it a little longer, and possibly see it again, but my initial impression coming out of the theater was that it was manipulative and unconvincing. First of all, the heavy-handed musical score was oppressive and unbearable. It was a large distraction, and I found it really disappointing that a director setting out to make such a serious, "important" film would resort to overwhelming us with such stuff.

Secondly, I was disappointed that every scene and character was overblown with self-importance and self-seriousness. In that regard, it reminded me of "Magnolia", another film I didn't particularly like. I agree with Arsaib4 that the race and class structures are "heightened to a point of absurdity", but I disagree with his conclusion that "it’s astonishing how intelligently the material is handled." The film seems to give little credence to issues of cause and effect in its taking on the issue of racism in our society. Yes, racism and prejudice are bad, and yes, we should all just get along, but how is it that in a matter of 36 hours in this film all the problems in society are solved? For example, we see in Sandra Bullock's character that she realizes that her life is superficial and her prejudices were wrong, but why didn't she realize this a week, or a month, or a year before? How is it that every character in the story has a moment of revelation during this same 36 hour period? What was the basis of their previously-held prejudices, and why did they not challenge these beliefs earlier? This is a major flaw in the film, in my opinion, and why I view it alongside "Magnolia" as a failure in its storyline. I much prefer "Short Cuts", a slice-of-life film with no need to provide the audience with easy, feel-good answers.

Interesting remarks, JustaFied. You're certainly not the only one who feels this way but I think we needed an opposing view here (I know you aren't totally against it). Many do feel that some of the occurences are a bit too coincidental, if not clichéd, and I think I know where they're coming from, but I also believe that the film is self-consciously aware of this and overcomes it by being as honest as possible. A more simple answer would be that's just the way Haggis wrote the screenplay and he relied upon his cinematization skills.

I don't think the message (if there is any) necessarily is for all to "get along," but rather be more cognizant of your surroundings and the feelings of others. I didn't find the proceedings to be all that hopeful or that they provided easy answers for the participants. It recognized that we're all capable of good and evil depending on the situation.

arsaib4: "The sequence between Dillon and Newton, comes at about the midway point, and it's been much discussed. I actually wish I had gone in length about a few more characters. Crash contains quite a few surprising twists and turns, and it's the kind of film which can be discussed in detail because it doesn't depend on a particular strand."

tabuno: Perhaps if you are referring to the regular subscribers to this website you may have a point about having more leeway in talking about details from a movie. However, it think the "spoiler" warning in any post still pertains for those people, particularly guests, who haven't seen or know about the movie. It is ironic though that since this is more of the more intelligent discussion boards regarding movies, it would be pretty idiotic if we couldn't actually discuss in really great detail movies we've seen. What would be the point, if we couldn't?

JustaFied: "First of all, the heavy-handed musical score was oppressive and unbearable. It was a large distraction, and I found it really disappointing that a director setting out to make such a serious, "important" film would resort to overwhelming us with such stuff. "

tabuno: Mark Isham's score (who is also known for the great sound in The Cooler) and who is perhaps a true artist when it comes to music, was actually much more mellow and subdued than I had anticipated and, if anything, almost too imperceptible. When I saw in the initial credits that Isham had done the music, I paid more attention to the music in this movie than usual. I found it flowing and contributory to the scenes and setting. I felt the music was lightly refreshing and captured the mood of the scenes. Compared The Cooler, Mark's music was much more in the background and didn't call attention to itself at all (compare the opening The Cooler credits - now that's powerful and upfront music). In Crash, Isham's music was background, not foreground at all. Actually I appreciated the melody as it lent a much needed handrail for me to hold onto while the drama was unfolding in the movie.

JustaFied "I was disappointed that every scene and character was overblown with self-importance and self-seriousness. In that regard, it reminded me of "Magnolia", another film I didn't particularly like. I agree with Arsaib4 that the race and class structures are "heightened to a point of absurdity", but I disagree with his conclusion that "it’s astonishing how intelligently the material is handled." The film seems to give little credence to issues of cause and effect in its taking on the issue of racism in our society. Yes, racism and prejudice are bad, and yes, we should all just get along, but how is it that in a matter of 36 hours in this film all the problems in society are solved?"

tabuno: When it comes to hate and intolerance, one doesn't need to go into deep psychoanalysis and assume that the deep mental Freudian unconscious ego states of childhood must somehow be tapped into to enjoy and feel how significant this movie really is. I can understand some reservations about this movie and at the very beginning I too was for a moment going to go down the same path of "overblown with self-importance and self-seriousness." Yet I pulled back my reservations, especially regarding the two women who seem to just off on some raging, feminine chemical imbalance at first. But rage, anger, intolerance are just such emotions that most everyone can relate to. The overblown self-importance and self-seriousness are exactly the nature of such emotions and as these emotions (in part as result of repression, shame, hurt and pain) actually can focus one's attention on one's own diminished importance and lack of seriousness that others around them seem to belittle others with). It is just this importance and seriousness that each of these scenes portrays with such vivid realism because it is what we actually feel in the moment. Sometimes it is hard to accept for we ourselves can deny harboring such of these feelings. Negative projection of this film may actually say more about ourselves than the movie itself.

The answers to this movie actually are presenting in simple but analog not digital terms. Again, $125 per hour therapy for three to five years cannot be equated to a two hour movie, yet the underlying themes, the emotional catharsis can reawaken our senses just as with Matt Dillon or the attempted shooting of people in this movie. I felt both wanting to commit violence and the revulsion of my own eagerness to at times to "bleep" that bastard. Were there any "feel good answers" in this movie, I think not. Instead, this movie forced us to witness something in everyone of us and to experience possible emotional traumas that may awaken within us something good.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by arsaib4
I don't think the message (if there is any) necessarily is for all to "get along," but rather be more cognizant of your surroundings and the feelings of others. I didn't find the proceedings to be all that hopeful or that they provided easy answers for the participants. It recognized that we're all capable of good and evil depending on the situation.

---

My use of the expression "everyone just get along" was an allusion to a quote from Rodney King, a somewhat enduring symbol of the shaky race relations present in L.A. I'm sure Haggis meant for his film to have a broader message than that.

Also, in everday life, one's actions generally can't be broken down into "good" versus "evil". Life, and human behavior, are more complex than that. I didn't think the movie did a very good job of showing this point. I like this quote from A.O. Scott, "Mr. Haggis is eager to show the complexities of his many characters, which means that each one will show exactly two sides." I agree with much of what's he's written in his review (which I read more thoroughly after seeing the film), and he obviously is a better writer than I am, so I'll stop now with the generalizations.

Response to tabuno's points:

Regarding the music: My opinion is that in taking on such ostensibly serious subject matter, the filmmaker should rely primarily on his script and his actors. Race relations in America is serious stuff, and any script taking on this subject better be sharp. I thought Haggis went overboard with the melodramic music as a way of convincing the audience that a particular scene was really, really serious. He used it as a crutch. For instance, the scene with Matt Dillon and the burning car was really overdone in my opinion. It sounded like a symphony was reaching full crescendo at the peak moment, and I think that's a cheap way of adding thematic importance. Most of the film followed this trend.

<When it comes to hate and intolerance, one doesn't need to go into deep psychoanalysis and assume that the deep mental Freudian unconscious ego states of childhood must somehow be tapped into to enjoy and feel how significant this movie really is.>

This movie really doesn't stand up to a good psychological, sociological, or historical analysis. It doesn't really say much at all, and I don't consider it to be significant. Another example: the black television director is pulled over by white cops, and he has no idea of how to react. It's as if he and his wife have never dealt with (or never discussed) the racist elements present in society. Likewise, when his T.V. actor (great cameo by Tony Danza, by the way) makes compromising comments, it's as if he's never dealt with such a situation. He is a 35 year old black man in America; it would have been much more interesting (and relevent) if the filmmakers hadn't portrayed him as a blank slate.

<Sometimes it is hard to accept for we ourselves can deny harboring such of these feelings. Negative projection of this film may actually say more about ourselves than the movie itself.>

No, I have no problem critiquing my own actions in life, and like I said earlier I think "Short Cuts" by Altman is a beautifully poetic pessimistic view of how we live our lives, but it's also much more profound and incisive than "Crash".

Again, my problem with this film is the "cause and effect" involved. We are told to accept that everyone here in L.A. hates each other, but what was the basis of this discord to begin with? And how presumptious is it to assume that this 36 hour period is sufficient to change people's outlooks and viewpoints?

<Were there any "feel good answers" in this movie, I think not. >

Yes there were. The movie tell us to better understand and empathize with others' points of view. But didn't we know that before? And, quite possibly, it's the failure of such an approach to take root in our society that has us where we are. But the movie doesn't get that far...

JustaFied: "Regarding the music: My opinion is that in taking on such ostensibly serious subject matter, the filmmaker should rely primarily on his script and his actors. Race relations in America is serious stuff, and any script taking on this subject better be sharp. I thought Haggis went overboard with the melodramic music as a way of convincing the audience that a particular scene was really, really serious. He used it as a crutch. For instance, the scene with Matt Dillon and the burning car was really overdone in my opinion. It sounded like a symphony was reaching full crescendo at the peak moment, and I think that's a cheap way of adding thematic importance. Most of the film followed this trend."

Tab Uno: I didn't find the music in Crash at all melodramatic. In fact as a I mentioned earlier I found it more supportive and background instead as you seem to have experienced Mark Isham's music. I didn't find the music as attempting to "convince" the audience of anything. The scenes in the movie along with the biting dialogue are sufficient to do this. For me Haggis was perfect in his use of music because I didn't find the music pushy or intrusive as if it was trying to convey anything that the scene wasn't already doing. The music didn't seem to be a crutch where the movie would fall apart or down without it. I found the music as supportive as a mellow outlet to soothe and reflect on what I was experiencing rather than to hinder or become obnoxious in anyway. Your specific reference to Matt Dillon and the burning car is a good reference (thank you for offering up something to focus on, unlike many posters). Unfortunately, I was blown away by this scene with emotional suffocation and I didn't even notice the music thus inferring that the music wasn't as overdone by anymeans. If I see this movie again, I'll make a note of it.

JustaFied: "This movie really doesn't stand up to a good psychological, sociological, or historical analysis. It doesn't really say much at all, and I don't consider it to be significant. Another example: the black television director is pulled over by white cops, and he has no idea of how to react. It's as if he and his wife have never dealt with (or never discussed) the racist elements present in society. Likewise, when his T.V. actor (great cameo by Tony Danza, by the way) makes compromising comments, it's as if he's never dealt with such a situation. He is a 35 year old black man in America; it would have been much more interesting (and relevent) if the filmmakers hadn't portrayed him as a blank slate."

Tab Uno: We don't need to analyze this movie for scientific purity. For me this movie was enjoyable for the crashing of the emotional senses. It was amazing without analysis. I don't think that on the level of emotions that we need to probe deeply. As I attempted to explain earlier in my previous discussion, the primal, emotional state of intense feelings almost dictates distorted thinking and behavior, maginified actions and reactions. As you say yourself you don't consider such analysis to be "significant" therefore your examples need to be taken in the context of what the movie is about, not about how such and such a black television director acted in such a situation. I am not taken aback by the supposed action of this black television director, I felt for him being boxed in by both the police and his wife. What was fascinating about this movie wasn't the blank slate, but that most of us would probably become blank slates as emotions clouded our judgments and we faced anger, rage, and hate under similar circumstances. I found these tense, emotional encounters symbolic in a much dramatic and blunt way that have needed to come out for a long time.

JustaFied: "No, I have no problem critiquing my own actions in life, and like I said earlier I think "Short Cuts" by Altman is a beautifully poetic pessimistic view of how we live our lives, but it's also much more profound and incisive than "Crash"."

Tab Uno: In response, this is a most difficult topic in which to reply tactfully. But I will try, nonetheless. Your reaction to this film may imply something about your own internal emotions and how you project them onto others and this movie. It would be interesting to see what your own experiences have been regarding intolerance, racial hatred, anger, and rage.

JustaFied: "Again, my problem with this film is the "cause and effect" involved. We are told to accept that everyone here in L.A. hates each other, but what was the basis of this discord to begin with? And how presumptious is it to assume that this 36 hour period is sufficient to change people's outlooks and viewpoints?"

Tab Uno: The chance encounters (which I am beginning to believe based on my own life of the many coincidences that occurred over the past five years) and the cause and effect may exist in reality. The original cause need not be present in any situation, only the results of that cause, the most recent effect that ultimately becomes the cause of the of the final effect is necessary for a particular scene to work and to have meaning. It is not necessary nor even in some therapeutic models to concern ourselves with the psychological analysis of these people and the causes of their conflict that you yourself mentioned are "not signficiant." Instead the focus on this movie can be on the experience, the hotflash points that up until now have been muted in most other mainstream movies. There is no presumptions that this 36-hour period during which this movie takes place that people's outlooks and viewpoints must necessarily change. Except for Sandra Bullock who interestingly enough doesn't have a direct role in the major subplots in most of the movie, the change of the characters in the 36-hour period are more layered and reflective. In fact with the young cop's character who is supposedly the most likely hero in this movie actually turns your critism on its head as this movie supports your own position about the skepticism about change in such a short period of time.

JustaFied: "Yes there were (feel good answers). The movie tell us to better understand and empathize with others' points of view. But didn't we know that before? And, quite possibly, it's the failure of such an approach to take root in our society that has us where we are. But the movie doesn't get that far..."

Tab Uno: I thought the movie was much more ambiguous on the feel good answers. I never felt that the movie "told" us anything about understanding and empathizing with others' points of view. What this movie accomplishes, and does it well, is to take "Lost in Translation" and the Bill Murray experience and brings home to us in graphic and raw language the physical blows of verbal and physical threats to our integrity - waking us up to the possibility of the exposure of our own being to hatred and the threat of death. In an intense emotional traumatic way, this movie pushes was further and further than any movie into the realm of touching our core selves when it comes to racial intolerance and stereotyping. It goes as far as a movie can without having the actors jump out of the screen and actually threaten us. There is a big difference between knowing something and actually become a witness to something, feeling it, and experiencing it. This is what this movie manages to instill in a number of people who have experienced it. If so, this movie has gone beyond just an entertaining, musically distracting, overblown, blank slate movie to become an strong societal catalyst as a wake-up call to reflection, one of the best movies that I've experienced in my opinion.

I brought up Larry Clark in my initial post on the film, but not much has been said since then. (Chris Knipp is a big fan so I hope he understands where I'm coming from after watching the film.) If anyone has seen the likes of Kids and Bully, then I think the consensus would be that Clark has "heightened" the situations in order to observe and interpret his characters, yet at the same time the films are realistic, more or less. I do see some similarities with what Haggis has done in Crash. It isn't supposed to be overtly objective, or, at least, I think that isn't the intention. By bottling up time and space, Haggis has also been able to get a purchase on the emotional landscape of his narrative, something Clark has also done very well in the past.

A Review of Paul Haggis' CRASH

Shock corridors

by Chris Knipp

Screenwriter Paul Haggis' American directorial debut, Crash, is over-ambitious, but so are Paul Thomas Anderson's Magnolia and Robert Altman's Short Cuts, two films Crash resembles in being set in L.A. and spinning out multiple story lines interwoven in a complex and thought-provoking way over the course of a few intense days of screen action.

Haggis's ambition isn't limited to his involving us in a couple dozen characters. It's also seen in the way he tackles the topics of identity, alienation and racism in American cities (or is it just L.A.?).

Where Short Cuts was based on the quirky, specific short stories of Raymond Carver and Magnolia goes into rich emotional depth in exploring its main characters (even the shallow ones like Tom Cruise's Frank T.J. Mackey are devastatingly laid bare), Haggis's characters in Crash tend to be generic and two-dimensional.

The two dimensions do, however, provide the rounding effect of contrast. As one character's remark suggests, these people don't know who they are; they have to "crash" to be jolted into knowing, and the movie shocks and jolts us too with opposing qualities that are schematic, but also quite thought-provoking.

The inhabitants of Haggis's L.A. are both racists and victims of racism and most of them have some other major opposing aspect. The racist Officer Ryan -- Matt Dillon, for once using his Irishness in a blunt, unflattering way -- humiliates and abuses a well-off, accomplished black man and his wife, Cameron and Christine (Terrence Howard and Thandie Newton), but he tenderly cares for his ailing father at night, and later rescues a black woman in mortal danger. Graham (Don Cheadle), the bookend and stage manager of the movie, is quick to spot the racism of others, yet crudely stereotypes his Latina girlfriend. Another character is first pathetically self abasing, then later suicidally aggressive. Ryan's unwilling partner, Officer Hanson (Ryan Phillippe), gets reassigned to avoid the racism, but himself commits an act of racist violence. A young black man with corn rows named Anthony (Ludacris) chatters on perceptively with his pal Peter (Larenz Tate) about how they're stereotyped as ghetto toughs when they really look like UCLA students; but in fact they're car-jackers. And so on. However simplistically, the characters are all given dimensionality through having opposing characteristics. Even the endlessly bitchy wife Jean (Sandra Bullock) of D.A. Rick (Brendan Fraser), who seems without a single redeeming feature, is finally jolted into the arms of her Latina housekeeper and thereby gains an air of humanity.

None of this has the depth of Magnolia or the specificity of Short Cuts, but it has undeniable power. Crash is relentless in pouring out calamity after calamity and isn't much fun to watch. The racist clashes, the slurs, the name-calling, the hostility are in your face from the first scene, where Graham and his girlfriend Ria (Jennifer Esposito) are rear-ended on a highway by a car full of Asians and Ria and an Asian lady immediately get out and start yelling epithets at each other.

Oddly, since he seems to be both a peacemaker and a cop, Graham does nothing to mitigate this disaster and merely wanders off to examine a crime or accident scene by the side of the road, which perhaps is what they're there for. From here the movie goes back over the events that led up to this moment.

Crash's stereotypes can be grating, particularly a mean Iranian man named Farhad (Shaun Toub) with a pathetic little convenience store who is bent on shooting somebody and calls everybody he meets up with a "cheater." He isn't any better than the prejudiced (and probably frightened) gun shop owner who calls him "Osama" and throws 9/11 in his face, unaware that an Iranian isn't an Arab.

One of the most appealing characters is the Mexican-American repairman Daniel (Michael Peña) who's called in to fix the Iranian's door. He points out that the new lock won't provide any protection till the whole door is replaced, whereupon the shopkeeper calls him a "cheater." The Iranian's mistrust leads to his shop being broken into and trashed and when the insurers won't pay he tries to take out his revenge on the repairman. The resulting shock sequence has been condemned by viewers and critics for being tricky and exploitive. It is, but an earlier scene between Daniel and his little daughter is the movie's sweetest moment and the only time when a resonant metaphor is born.

There are other good things. Terrence Howard and Thandie Newton are fine together as the affluent black couple, even if their action seems pushed to the breaking point. Ludacris and Larenz Tate have a good rhythm as the young, not-really-ghetto carjackers. In fact the black actors are more convincing and rich in their portrayals than the white ones. Maybe that's because they're the ones who know best what racism is all about. You can argue endlessly about whether Haggis's screenplay is too schematic or doctrinaire. He obviously is not the filmmaking talent Altman and Anderson are. But Crash is a pretty original, striking piece of work nonetheless. It's provocative and causes extreme reactions, so people tend to say it's a masterpiece or pure junk, but the fact is that it's simply a good, but imperfect movie.
Posted on Chris Knipp website.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris Knipp

Shock corridors

In fact the black actors are more convincing and rich in their portrayals than the white ones. Maybe that's because they're the ones who know best what racism is all about.

---

This is a valid point. However, the exception would be Dillon's character, which is well-written.

I want to correct you and myself (along with many others "out there")...Crash is not the directorial debut for Mr. Haggis; he directed a Canadian film in 1993 called Red Hot.

Thanks, I'll change it to "American directorial debut".

Chris' review as usual has comprehensive clarity. His standards for good movies are relatively elevated perhaps due to his extensive viewing habits of hundreds of movies. Nevertheless, Chris may be "overly ambitious" in his approach to movie perfection.

Chris Knipps: "Screenwriter Paul Haggis' American directorial debut, Crash, is over-ambitious."

Tab Uno: Because the movie resonated so well with me, I found Paul Haggis' efforts balanced in ambition and accomplishment and not "over-ambitious." I believe that Crash has produced the intended substantive, qualitative impact on its audience regarding stereotypes, prejudice, bias, and hatred. Crash would have been overly-ambitious if Haggis had attempted to create what Chris sees as a possible weakness of two-dimensional characters (though balanced by its opposite two-dimensional counterpart) three-dimensional characters hoping for some deep character development study of psychological proportions. Ambition needs to be compared to what the intended outcome of a movie is. Lost in Translation was an excellent movie because it had at is essence a experiential and character study of the moment. In Crash we are provided the external experience of deeply traumatic moments that have great significance to the state of human relations in our society today. No more, no less. We don't need such extensive backgrounds of these characters. The whole concept of intolerance, prejudice is the superficial, two-dimensional aspect of emotional reactions to other people. What Haggis achieved was dead on.

From Knipps review, it is almost as if he has to go out of his way to find weaknesses in this movie and has difficulty finding any. If one takes the substantial majority of what Knipps has to say, overall, his review speaks very well of this movie, in fact, more so than he himself realizes.

Chris Knipps: "The racist clashes, the slurs, the name-calling, the hostility are in your face from the first scene, where Graham and his girlfriend Ria (Jennifer Esposito) are rear-ended on a highway by a car full of Asians and Ria and an Asian lady immediately get out and start yelling epithets at each other. Oddly, since he seems to be both a peacemaker and a cop, Graham does nothing to mitigate this disaster and merely wanders off to examine a crime or accident scene by the side of the road, which perhaps is what they're there for."

Tab Uno: Like a performance gone sour at the beginning that leaves a bad residual taste, Chris' first inital experience appears to have been somewhat discomfitting in terms of realistic, understandable actions whereby Graham does something he should have and two women seem to be going off without sufficient provocation. It's possible on a second viewing, the two-dimensional generic behaviors of these people may be more understandable in a three-dimensional way once the entire movie has been played through and the audience finally begins to see more of the full display of humanity of these people.

Chris Knipp: "But Crash is a pretty original, striking piece of work nonetheless. It's provocative and causes extreme reactions, so people tend to say it's a masterpiece or pure junk, but the fact is that it's simply a good, but imperfect movie."

Tab Uno: I would have to see original, stirking, provocative, causing extreme reactions is a pretty good basis for making a perfect movie. If one defines a masterpiece as one where everyone agrees, where everyone's intention and ambition have been made, it will never occur. For me masterpieces are works that will last the test of time and surely, this movie stands out high among the crowd of movies this year and last year - a fairly good indicator of its initial brilliance. Whether that brilliance will last we will have to see. But based on the emotional outburst and depth of its penetrating storyline, performance, it meets the necessary requirements for masterpiece - whether its sufficient time will tell.

I think the movie has a very well written script.

In essence, it challenges all of us,
-- You think you know who you are ... until something happens ... and maybe we are not all that different after all ... (with all pun intended in this very line)
;)

I'm glad you liked it, hengcs. That's a good point.

Further responses to Tabuno's comments:

I guess your point is that this is a "symbolic" and "emotional" film, and thus "was amazing without analysis". I have trouble with this approach. You state that you were "blown away by this scene with emotional suffocation". My opinion is that the filmmakers created artificial and unnatural situations and characters in order to easily manipulate such emotions of the audience. In effect, they were masking the fact that the storyline of the film and the "analysis" of the subject matter (race relations in America) were pretty bland. Essentially, it's a film that's full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

My "cause and effect" comments refer to a broader time period than just the 36 hours in the film. My point is that the filmmakers treat these characters as if they're "blank slates", when in reality these characters have probably been involved in similar situations for their entire lives. What's so unique about the events of these 36 hours? How are we to believe that these events can change these characters from the directions they were previously headed. So yes, I do believe it is "necessary nor even in some therapeutic models to concern ourselves with the psychological analysis of these people and the causes of their conflict"

Curiously, you keep making the comment that perhaps my negative reaction to this film is based in some underlying refusal to confront my own feelings and thoughts about the subject matter (i.e. my own prejudices?). In this case, this film is not simply an example of an experience "cutting too close to the bone"; my problem with the film is that it's just not very interesting or thought-provoking. A personal observation about a recent "experience" with race-relations: I live in Houston, which is a huge, diverse, sprawling metropolitan area, not altogether different from L.A. (as shown in "Crash"). I was summoned to jury duty this past week, and the initial instructions to the potential jurors were read in English, then Spanish, and then in Vietnamese. I noticed a white couple snickering during the reading of the Vietnamese. Then, there were 60 of us taken into a criminal courtroom for jury selection. 12 of us would be selected, the remaining 48 could go home. We were a diverse group, with about 50% men and 50% women. The defendant was a black male, probably about 25 years old. His attorney was black. The prosecutor from the D.A.'s office was a white woman. They grilled us for over an hour about our histories, our potential biases (prejudices?) to such cases, and then they struck jurors to come up with the final 12 jurors. Of these 12 jurors, there are 10 white males (myself included), 1 black woman, and 1 hispanic woman. The trial starts on Monday. This entire experience was much more "insightful" and "significant" as to the subject of race relations than the film was. Certainly not to say that the medium of film can't take broad steps in this area, but I just think that "Crash" doesn't accomplish much. Probably what's most true about race-relations in our society today is the complexities and the subtleties involved, and "Crash" is neither complex nor subtle. Yes, it's emotional, so it's got that going for it.