Paul Haggis' CRASH

wpqx: "I don't think arsaib gave away too much in his review."

tabuno: Overall I believe that arsaib did a great job in his review with one big exception when he states [specific spoiler]:

"the downtrodden Newton finds herself stuck underneath her car only to be helped by Dillon’s character who assaulted her the night before. Newton fights him off while Dillon tries to calm her down, knowing that he needs her as much as she needs him. It’s a moment so breathtakingly vibrant and honest that even the best passages of Magnolia seem less in comparison."

For me, I would definitely not wanted to have somebody reveal this twist if I hadn't already seen the movie. The psychological impact of this scene of an already intense movie was a great addition to the coincidences revealed in 36 hours (something that really isn't that far fetched). When I experienced this scene "fresh" the whole impact of the movie so far really hit me in the gut anew and made the scene all that more poignant in the moment. I really think that arsaib overstepped himself on this specific revelation.

Yeah I did notice that detail, but hardly giving away the film, and that moment occurs with plenty of time for more twists and turns, not already mentioned. I suppose he just had to wet your appetite.

I think you've mentioned the delicate balance on a film discussion board (as opposed to a movie critic board) that is difficult to maintain between revealing plot details for good film discussion versus spoiling the movie going experience which also may in turn inappropriately influence the film discussion.

I guess what I fear is that the saving traffic accident woman scene was one of the most powerful scenes relating to one of the strongest subplots of the movie and by mentioning this scene with individual detail would have spoiled a major portion of having experienced the movie if I had not already seen it previously. I can only perhaps say that a spoiler warning at the very least in this one instance would have been really recommended in the posting.

I have recently consulted Jonathan Rosenbaum's review of Crash and find that it pretty well jibes with my remark that "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" (my words, not Mr. Rosenbaum's). He says its plot stretches the limits of how much artificiality he can take and still regard a movie as believable or "real" because Crash is "blatantly contrived." But in the end he decided after a second viewing that this did not undermine the movie's "larger social message."

Quote:

---

I decided that it didn't, because I valued the truth of that message -- that, for instance, a racist cop is perfectly capable of saving a black person's life -- over the falsity of the plotting, and because I decided that this falsity was intended to articulate other truths.

---

In other words, Haggis wins through good intentions, though he tries too hard and visibly loads the dice. Rosenbaum also notes that the extreme racist language tends to seem "real" to the audience because it's usually screened out of dialogue; moreover it gains added conviction because the acting and direction are well above average:

Quote:

---

we're likely to accept the profusion of insults as unusually candid or real, particularly given the spirited and talented ensemble cast, which Haggis directs with sensitivity

---

This is a particularly interesting Rosenbaum review which explains how he arrives at his ratings. For Crash he describes this trajectory:

Quote:

---

In my reviews I try to describe the paths that lead to my subjective response so that readers can decide whether some part of my path might be theirs too. In the case of Crash I may blanch at Haggis's narrative contrivances and think two stars, though I did enjoy them (three stars). But the vision of Los Angeles that they're designed to express strikes me as just and vital (four stars). So I wind up with an average of three. Viewers who find the vision uninteresting and the narrative contrivances acceptable but unenjoyable will come up with ratings of their own -- or arrive at the same rating for entirely different reasons.

---

He fleshes out this revealing picture of his rating process (which led to his calling Crash "a must-see"--rating: 4) by giving trajectories he went through in evaluating two other movies, Mindhunters ("worth seeing"--rating: 3) and Monster-in-Law ("Has redeeming facet"--rating: 2) and he explains what he meant when he called Star Wars III "worthless" (rating: 1). His top rating, given out a bit too often for my taste but perhaps sensible in view of his role in getting people to go to good movies, is "masterpiece" (rating: 5). I would recommend this review to anyone interested in working out a valid rating system of their own and to any fan of the admirable Mr. Rosenbaum, whose critical methods clearly emerge here as both rational and emotionally honest.

Nice post, Chris. Two mistakes though. One is Rosenbaum's star ratings. They are as follows:

4=Masterpiece
3=A Must See
2=Worth-Seeing
1=Has Redeeming Facet
0=Worthless

Second, Rosenbaum did not review Star Wars III. J.R. Jones did: 3 Stars or "A Must See". The Star Wars movie Rosenbaum found worthless was the Special Edition re-release (in 1997) of the very first Star Wars, also known as Episode IV. This is the highly criticized version technologically "up-dated" by Mr. Lucas for re-release.

I stand corrected. The main points are still valid, though, I guess, whether it's 0-4 or 1-5, the same principles apply. I read too fast about Star Wars-- I see he says

Quote:

---

I was taken aback recently when I received a couple of e-mails from Star Wars fans asking how I could have concluded eight years ago that the "special edition" rerelease of that film was "worthless" when it gave so much pleasure to so many people.

---

I jumped to the conclusion that it was a review of the recent release and overlooked the fact that it all happened "eight years ago." A pretty gross oversight on my part, partly due to my lack of specific interest in or knowledge of the Star Wars series.

I hope, though, that people will get the substance of Rosenbaum's review and my summary above about averaging together one's different personal reactions to the various aspects of any given movie to achieve an overall personal rating that makes both emotional and rational sense for one as a viewer.

That was the point. I think it's great that Rosenbaum is sure enough of himself and honest enough so that he shows the inner workings of his thought process in arriving at ratings. Very different from the kind of reviewers, who are legion, who seek to entertain and/or impress -- The New Yorker's Denby and Lane are of this type, and I would never write them off because they do entertain and they do impress -- they both write very well and Rosenbaum has repeatedly said that he admires how Denby writes (I admire even more how Lane writes, how amusing and witty he is, while still presenting quite sensible evaluations of movies 85% of the time) -- these guys don't want you to see the humbler aspects of their working methods; not really, anyway (though they may pretend to). And hence they entertain more than they instruct. One is amused, but one doesn't learn much.

And above all I also wanted to note that Rosenbaum, as I did, found the plot of Crash extremely contrived, but concluded, as I would, that the damaging effect of that was balanced against good work and good intentions, though it doesn't leave one with a "masterpiece," rather, with the next best thing, a "must-see.".