Paul Haggis' CRASH

JustaFied: "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."

Tab Uno: Race relations as portrayed in all its sound and fury signified everything in this movie and in America as well as around the world, particularly, in terms of life and death matters with thousands of people being murdered because of it. The emotional punch in the face for the viewers is an amazing, one-two punch that definitely raises this movie up to the top levels of impact. I don't see artificial and unnatural situations because you just have to turn on the television news and read it in the newspapers, except what is left out of reality is the full extend of the emotional trauma and the real flesh and blood that such emotional encounters actually represent and become. What the filmmakers have accomplished is the synthesis and compilation of likely real scenarios that can be easily found in real life in any city or town in America and allowed the audience to truly experience the total reality of the damage, the hurt, the pain that actually exists and is unfortunately stripped away and ignored in actual news coverage because its likely interpretation as sensationalism. What is special about Crash is its unmasking not masking of the underbelly of racial hate and intolerance and I found the message and the pain not bland but revealing, relevant, and an essential important message that must be heard at this point in our turbulent society. To be in search of something deeper in Crash means that you have missed the essence of this movie - the emotional, pure hate that screams across the entire length and breadth of this movie and perhaps the need for reflective thought that occurs at the end. Yes, it's a simple message, but a crucial one that requires no psychoanalysis. Sometimes simple is better than convoluted and overly intellectual movies that require deep thought. This movie turns such movie critic assumptions on their heads and only asks us to feel the movie and instead of reflecting deeply on the movie to reflect deeply on ourselves instead. My what an idea for a change.

JustaFied: 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"

Tab Uno: There is no intention in this movie to believe that everyone of these characters will have been changed in their directions. In fact, it is overtly evident in this movie that change is difficult and hard as we experienced with the young, naive police officer. Anybody asking for a therapeutic model or psychological analysis is looking for something not required in this movie because it is a drama, not a documentary nor educational science film shown to college students. This movie is great for the singular ability to make its audience feel negative emotions and the negative spiral of hate that can envelope an individual even in a short period of time. However, to automatically dismiss that even in 36 hours, nothing substantive can happen, that no "light bulb" moment of singular clarity might occur is also dubious. At some point there can occur, simultaneously in fact moments of creative thought and revelation (occurring in separate parts of the globe, independently on important issues and problems of history). It seems that some people are asking for so much, over-reaching in their arguments in order to use blanket bullets to defend something that can really be defended. It's like hoping to put up a black sheet of glass so that no light can get through, but with a single fisted punch it can shatter into little bits.

JustaFied: 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.

Tab Uno: Thank you for allowing some of your personal life to be published on this thread. Yet, as a white male (as I am Japanese American whose parents were placed in detention centers in World War II), your jury experience doesn't quite fit what I was looking for in terms of face-to-face experience with hatred, racial prejudice, and intolerance. There are many where I live in their nice homes, fancy cars, predominant religion who never experience nor exposed to the raw, primitive, negative emotional abuse and trauma that seeps into the underbelly of various sectors of our society. It would be very easy for these people to deny what they see in Crash and to project negative on the film in hopes that it will all go away. It is the eggs thrown against my father's home when I was a child that I'm talking about - the direct verbal and physical assault upon our persons due to the color, religion, or some other fundamental core element of our humanity. If only Crash could achieve this awakening, it would be a monumental achievement. However, for you, it seems that it was jury duty that nudged you towards some racial experience, yet the real horrors that abound outside the court room walls may have eluded you.

Tabuno, your story is very moving. I do indeed see where you're coming from now, and I'll try to explain my perspective briefly. We are approaching this film from two different perspectives. Perhaps I'm viewing the film and its subject matter from a more "clinical" or detached (intellectual?) perspective. Perhaps this perspective on this film, as opposed to a raw emotional one, is more natural to me as a white male. I realize as a white male in this society that I get the benefit of the doubt in many situations. I realize I probably haven't been on the receiving end of racial hostility as frequently for this reason. So I'm probably less sensitive to the approach of the film than you are.

My example of jury duty is just one of many situations in life in which I've been exposed to the effects of race relations. It was just one example I gave, and frankly it didn't "nudge me towards a racial experience" because it's impossible to live in this society without having "racial experiences" on a day-to-day basis. I'm 30 years old with a post-graduate degree, so in my life I've lived, studied, and been exposed to racism in our society. As I said, perhaps I view it from a more detached or "clinical" point of view because I'm not as often directly involved. This is my problem with Crash; in my opinion it doesn't hold up nearly as well from such a sociological perspective. For example, in my jury situation, why is that black males make up a large majority of the prison population (as I said, the defendant in this case is black)? Of the diverse jury pool, how did it end up that 10 of the 12 jurors are white males, and what does that say about how they view me that I was chosen? Like I said before, much of the racist and prejudiced element in our society today exists just under the surface. It's subtle. We live and work together in diverse environments, and yet on some level, differing races and classes often don't really seem to trust one other. I felt that the film overdramatized this situation by having everyone yelling racial slurs at each other. This isn't necessarily what you see on a day-to-day basis, and yet racism is still largely present in our society. I wish the film had done a better job of approaching the subject from this angle.

I agree with you that if this film creates more self-reflection and dialogue on the subject, then it's succeeded in what it set out to do. I certainly hope that it has such an effect.

Wow! I understand now. My light-bulb moment.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JustaFied
Perhaps this perspective on this film, as opposed to a raw emotional one, is more natural to me as a white male

---

First off, I want to correct this sentence. It would have been better to say "is more natural to me based on my own life's experiences". I certainly didn't mean to imply that "white males" tend to have more analytical, as opposed to emotional, viewpoints on issues. It was just that on this particular issue, I probably don't have the raw, emotional life experiences that others (including Tabuno) do, and this indeed may partly be the result of being a white male.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by tabuno
Wow! I understand now. My light-bulb moment.

---

Okay, I can't tell if you're being sarcastic. I truly sympathize with your family's situation. The time of the Japanese internment camps was one of the darkest moments in the 20th century in this country.

I am also looking forward to viewing (and discussing) with an open mind Lars Van Trier's provocative (to say the least) new film, Manderlay. Arsaib4 originally posted the trailer link on another thread; here it is again:
http://www.play.dk/manderlay
This looks interesting....particularly in that it's evidently set in the 1930's. Like I said, it'll certainly be provocative and controversial...will there be any discussion of any responsibility on his part in making such a film?

JustaFied: "Okay, I can't tell if you're being sarcastic."

Tab Uno: I'll attempt to provide the full description of my response to your earlier response since this form of communication has its limits. [Anybody that knows me in person, I'm a person who is pretty dry without much common humor (though some would say I have a very dry wit]. I really didn't want to waste your time in writing about non-movie stuff.

Wow! I understand now. My light-bulb moment - translated means:

I actually can relate and understand where you're coming from and it really makes sense to me now. This realization of your perspective was like one of those final pieces of the puzzle that fits and like Crash (within the 36 hours of the movie time frame), I to came to feel very comfortable with how your description of the movie connects and what you have expressed is so consistent with your experience. I can appreciate your perspective and your experience and I admire your efforts to offer some your own personal history in connection to how you saw this movie. I'm writing this pretty fast because my wife has gone out and begun mowing the lawn (which probably means she's going to be mad at me).

Thanks Tabuno. I always enjoy engaging in a detailed, open-minded discussion on a topic like this. I can now understand your point of view in approaching and appreciating this film. I'm sure at some point I'll see it again to try to better understand the filmmaker's point of view.

So much has been written about this ensembler here that it's possible to build a review mostly from comments by others. Comes as no surprise to me, based on affinities that became obvious to me long ago, that most of my quotes would come from Justafied's and C. Knipp's posts. I am not surprised that the bulk of the reaction is positive but I am definitely taken aback by tabuno's "one of my top films of all time" and H. Tree's "best film I've seen in 2005 and 2004".

I must conceed that the film succeeds as an emotional provocation, "deeply-felt" (arsaib4) and well-intentioned (the need to "better empathize with others' p.o.v." as tab states). This is as far as I could go in praise of Crash, other than highlighting a couple of well-observed affecting scenes: one involving story-telling to relieve a 5 year-old's fears (mentioned by arsaib and others), and the cross-ethnic, cross-class embrace between a woman and her newly-discovered best friend.

Overall, what strikes me most are the narrative contrivances (Justafied's "how is it than in a matter of 36 hours...") and characterizations that are gratingly stereotypical_particularly "a mean Iranian man"(Knipp), reductive (Justafied's "one's actions generally can't be broken down...") and simplistic (Justafied's "what was the basis of their previously held prejudices?"). The schematic script attempts to achieve pathos and poignancy based largely on coincidences, a few of which demand too much suspension of disbelief. Arsaib's comment that Haggis "overcomes this by being as honest as possible" doesn't resonate with me but I'll continue to mull it over.
I find Crash "over-ambitious" in relation to its writer/director's skills, "obviously not the film talent Altman and Anderson are" and agree that none of it "has the depth of Magnolia or the specificity of Short Cuts" (quotes by Knipp). A minor issue is the musical score which Justified called "heavy-handed" and "oppressive". I also felt that it aggressively dictates how one should feel when viewing this movie. I reserve my most negative reaction to the grossly manipulative, overwrought scene of a shooting with blanks, with its slo-mo theatrics and its close-ups of faces in twisted, pained agony. I reserve my most positive reaction to the acting from the whole ensemble.

Thank you for pulling things together so thoroughly; I don't think you could have done this any better. You don't add much of your own, because you are kind enough to say that we have covered the field for you; it's also true that this is a film that, despite its clear virtues -- and no doubt you're right to underline the ensemble acting as chief among these -- it's so spdcific in what it asks us to look at, and how it asks us to react. I don't mean to say it's manipulative; it's too complex a piece fo feel that way, despite the stereotyping of some characters. But it contrasts a lot with Magnolia, for instance, whose interwoven stories are so complex and original that they leave room for each of us to have our own varied interpretations and reactions which may continue to change on repeated viewings. I hope the same may prove true of Crash.... But I don't know.

oscar jubis: "The schematic script attempts to achieve pathos and poignancy based largely on coincidences, a few of which demand too much suspension of disbelief."

tabuno: Perhaps in time you might have an opportunity to experience the strange phenomenon of coincidences. For me as well as a number of other acquaintainces, coincidences in real life have all too often accumulcated and been experienced by myself and others. Such schmatic script attempts based on coincidences as shot in this movie do not call for much suspension of disbelief, if any at all, for those who have experienced the weird, almost too much to be believed randomly spaced events that seem to have at their core some connection in space and time. Without becoming religious, it becames at times, very hard to dismiss the possibility of some sort of cosmic hand in all of these events that seem to be tied together that I have experienced, small events, nothing earth-shattering, but curious, and sometimes, unbelievable when counted together.

oscar jubis: "I reserve my most negative reaction to the grossly manipulative, overwrought scene of a shooting with blanks, with its slo-mo theatrics and its close-ups of faces in twisted, pained agony."

tabuno: Where does reality and fantasy divide? When does what is experienced on screen become manipulative and overwrought versus a realistic and emotionally authentic experience? Has not time slowed down, perhaps even stopped from a personal perspective with some traumatic event. Are not some images and scenes etched in our memories forever while other details seem just to vanish. It is as easy to argue the shooting blanks scene is as much or more accurate than any scene that has been shot, it all depends from whose vantage point. And for the purpose of Crash, the audience being able to experience this scene from the psychological vantage point, but objective, emotionaless, technical lense and timer vantage point is much more valuable I believe. For those who feel this is manipulative, then it is possible that Crash is beyond the fabric of time and space of your universe to comprehend and understand.

I'm not sure what you're getting at, but as I said, the blanks scene that Oscar objected too has been objected to by a number of people. It just feels too tricky. Reality is hands down stranger than any fiction, but in judging a movie that is fiction, we have to consider what works in an art form, and certain rules of believability apply. If it doesn't work with the audience, or with critical viewers, if it seems manipulative,then how possible it is in the whole realm of things doesn't help. One does not say that a certain real event was "manipulative, " bathetic, melodramatic, etc. Different rules apply. In the universe anything goes. In movies, anything goes that works artistically and with a critical audience, anything that doesn't, has to be considered a misfire.

Chris Knipp: I'm not sure what you're getting at, but as I said, the blanks scene that Oscar objected too has been objected to by a number of people. It just feels too tricky.

tabuno: It's unfortunate that people feel that they were manipulated by this scene. Perhaps some people feel that in real life they are also manipulated, taunted, and controlled. It happens every day from the time we get up to go to work, by our spouses, by our parents, by multi-million dollar advertising, by the news media, by drug companies, by the drug cartels, even by God.

Just when a scene comes along that actually has a message, manipulated or not they miss "it." I only smiled with thank godness in this scene as the Red Box of blank bullets were chosen by the woman in an earlier scene. The audience felt cheated that the Middle Eastern guy didn't blow a big hole in some guy's body? Wow! I guess, the audience has been programmed for certain artistic rules for uncertainty, unpredictability, for something novel and new, for something creatively amazing, not something that is meaningful, important, or even plausible. Instead we have to label it manipulative. It's better that a movie actually manipulative us without us knowing about it? What about subliminal messages instead?

For me this whole thing about manipulation in the movies is over-rated. Jaws is manipulation. The fancy scenes in Revenge of the Sith is manipulation. Most great movies are manipulative, it's just that we hope that somehow we're too ignorant or smart enough to care about it. Any twist in any more, The Sixth Sense, is manipulative. Any time I cry or laugh in any more, I've been manipulated, do I complain? I wish people would quit complaining about what I felt was a "real" not "manipulation." The shooting blanks scene was "real" because taking in the circumstances, the psychological elements of heightened senses, fear, adrenaline, the time sense, the perspective of the self changes as did appropriately I thought the director and the way this scene was shot. I guess more people need to have something life-threatening to them happen in order to understand this scene the way it was meant to be experienced.

Jesus this thread has gotten some life. Pardon me but I've run out of time to read ALL of your comments.

I don't think arsaib gave away too much in his review. I saw the film last night, and there was a lot of details missing from his review, but that gets to be a problem with reviewing films. On the one hand you should discuss everything involved, including endings and revelations, but when it's a new film, it's hard to get someone to see a movie after telling them everything.

As for the film in question, I loved it. I admired the redemptive nature of the film. Some characters change, some don't, but they all seem to have an opportunity for self discovery and change. It is humanistic in nature, and there are no good or bad guys here. But I was able to cheer and laugh, and feel during the picture. It was epic in scope without being epic in length. Comparing it to Magnolia and Short Cuts is relevant, but Crash is far shorter than those films.

Some loose ends weren't really tied up, like the money in the Mercedes, and I don't think enough was done with Jennifer Espisito's character. As far as Sandra Bullock, I wasn't a fan of her performance here. Perhaps I had too much contempt for the character, but I didn't really feel anything for her or the performance.

I think the race involved is what makes the film really hold true. Racism is not confined to the deep south and doesn't hide under a white hood and a burning cross. People can feel racism without being racist, and even the most "liberal" of people wind up hypocrites in certain situations. A case in point would be Phillipe's car ride towards the end of the film. Highly recommended though, and I'm glad I got to get to a theater, I blame Fan of Kubrick's ongoing rant about drops in ticket sales.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by wpqx
I don't think arsaib gave away too much in his review. I saw the film last night, and there was a lot of details missing from his review,...

---

Thanks. At least you saw the film before commenting on it.

As for the film in question, I loved it. I admired the redemptive nature of the film. Some characters change, some don't, but they all seem to have an opportunity for self discovery and change. It is humanistic in nature, and there are no good or bad guys here. But I was able to cheer and laugh, and feel during the picture. It was epic in scope without being epic in length. Comparing it to Magnolia and Short Cuts is relevant, but Crash is far shorter than those films.

I agree. It's much more tightly wound than Magnolia, a film I don't dislike, but P.T. Anderson simply lost control on a few occasions.

As far as Sandra Bullock, I wasn't a fan of her performance here. Perhaps I had too much contempt for the character, but I didn't really feel anything for her or the performance.

Maybe her character did cause some reservations for you. I thought her performance was one of the better ones.

I think the race involved is what makes the film really hold true. Racism is not confined to the deep south and doesn't hide under a white hood and a burning cross. People can feel racism without being racist, and even the most "liberal" of people wind up hypocrites in certain situations. A case in point would be Phillipe's car ride towards the end of the film. .

I couldn't have said it any better. Great point.

Quote:

---

I'm glad I got to get to a theater, I blame Fan of Kubrick's ongoing rant about drops in ticket sales.

---

Better to light one candle than to sit and curse the darkness.