Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: "Crash" review

  1. #1

    "Crash" review

    Although a febrile adolescence hovers bleakly near to Cronenberg's intellectual strivings, his amoral visions (here asexual and attached to heated metal), often intense, often dull, go by like the blue whine of traffic.
    tomcheese

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    92

    Alternatively...

    (originally posted on IMDb. Some spoilers)

    Satire is an art form where a common situation is made to look ridiculous and amusing by distorting a key element. Dr. Strangelove is satire. Heathers is satire. And Crash is satire.

    I'm amazed that only a small amount of people commenting on this movie - Craig Brown from San Francisco is one (a user who appeared further down the original IMDb page, possibly not the great English satirist. Actually, it's not impossible...) - seem to truly grasp that this film is a satire. If you look at it this way, it all makes sense.

    Many critics and viewers lambasted this movie for "looking like porn". That's the point. It's shot like porn, it's lit like porn, there's enough nudity for a Zalman King production, but they're fingering scars and bruises. That's the filmic satire. Let's move onto the social satire.

    The characters played by James Spader and Deborah Unger are typical middle-class professionals. Like most people in their age and social group, they feel vaguely unhappy, have a few fetishes and obsess over modern gadgetry. The only difference between us and them is the nature of their fetish. They like gadgets so much that they become sexually obsessed over the ultimate 20th century status symbol - the car.

    Some people who watch this movie wonder what's so sexy about car crashes. What isn't sexy about them? Cars are held by many people to be sexy, and S&M, tatooing, piercings, etc. are considered sexy - why not go the extra distance? Well, because it's ridiculous. But again, that's the point the film is trying to make - in theory finding car crashes sexy is logical, in practice it's absurd. That's why this is a satire. It shows us a warped reflection of our own behaviour.

    And that's before we've got onto the film's skewering of tabloid culture - Elias Koteas's recreations of famous car crashes for an appreciative audience are absolutely hilarious! But it's not just a black comedy - there's serious emotional weight to this. When Spader and Unger emerge from the nightmare of seeing Koteas killed, they've learned absolutely nothing. They're still unhappy, they're just unhappy with a few more bruises. It might sound odd, but I actually filled up with tears at the closing scenes.

    There's a lot on the surface of this film to enjoy - Cronenberg's cool directing style, the first-rate score by Howard Shore, Koteas's insane, charismatic performance, but I just wanted to post this in the hope that this masterpiece of late 20th-century satire becomes more widely understood. It's certainly Cronenberg's best movie (actually, I'm not too sure about this any more. I think Videodrome and Naked Lunch could stake a convincing claim too) , and probably the only one Jonathan Swift would heartily approve of.
    Perfume V - he tries, bless him.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Annapolis, Maryland, USA
    Posts
    152
    I appreciate and understand the satirical aspects of "Crash." By the same token, I've made many claims that the reason the movie doesn't work as well for as the book is because of the nature of the satire. It seemed fascinating in printed form when I read the book. The boredom of the characters didn't translate the same way in the book as it did on film. In the book, J.G. Ballard's vocabulary and his voice are so engrossing that it's actually interesting to read about these characters and the concept of their plight of unhappiness. In film, they have to convey this concept more visually, and somewhat more abstractly...only in trying to show Spader and Unger as an unhappy couple, it comes across so well that I actually became unhappy and bored...to the point of lack of interest. I liked certain scenes, and it was a fascinating concept, but for me the satire seemed insulting visually because it wasn't particularly interesting to me. I didn't find the movie really shocking or contravertial (not just because I read the book, but because I couldn't stay interested). I could certainly understand the idea behind lighting it and filming like a softcore porn and the fact that they get ecstasy from bruises and scars as a mockery of values...but...my reaction was just...blah. I love movies that push the envelope, and I appreciate "Crash" for what it tried to do, and I think Cronenberg is a good director (and, yes Howard Shore's score was great). But I think Perfume V's mention of, "in theory finding car crashes sexy is logical, in practice it's absurd" is true...not just as an explanation of satire, but in explanation of why the movie is ultimately uninteresting. Reading about it is interesting...but seeing it...didn't seem like anything worth giving a second thought to. Like I said, I normally love movies like this, but "Crash" just didn't do anything for me.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Ottawa Canada
    Posts
    5,656
    Some films need preparation to really enjoy them.

    To fully enjoy Crash, I suggest you see it alone and with a few stiff drinks beforehand.
    You gotta pay attention to the FLOW of Crash. It is a fairly lethargic film, but man, you WILL be rewarded if you come to it on IT'S terms.
    I felt like a hang-glider leaping from the Grand Canyon (yes, I imagined it-never done it) when the credits rolled. A poetic piece of work that is proof postive that films require sex and death in them to truly succeed.
    "Set the controls for the heart of the Sun" - Pink Floyd

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Annapolis, Maryland, USA
    Posts
    152
    Truth be known, I was alone when I saw "Crash." As I said before, I love movies that do what "Crash" tried to do, and so I always try to approach those types of movies on their terms. I don't drink nor do I do drugs (nor will I ever), so if that's what it would take, then I wouldn't want to enjoy it. Like people who can only enjoy "2001: A Space Odyssey" if they're on acid...if you need drugs to understand or appreciate something, then I think it's a useless movie because it basically asks you to destroy yourself. I can't do that. I'm not a moralist by any stretch...I have a pretty sick mind and I love to see a little debauchery now and again to satisfy my inner beast, but sometimes it's just extemporaneous. Like "Natural Born Killers," which I just saw for the first time last night. I like that movie, but at the same time I'm scared and insulted by it. It was partially right in its satire of the over-hyped media machine that is taking over our modern culture, and it was partially right in its mockery of both Mickey and Mallory and the system that persecuted them. But at the same time, while the extent to which they played these things out was meant to be ridiculous, it was also insulting because I'd like to think that we as human beings can eventually rise above this kind of trash. It's not happening, but I guess I'd need some level of decency. Maybe it's unfair to bring up "Natural Born Killers" when talking about "Crash," but both do seem to be satires, though on different areas of our culture. Both are dead on in their mockery of us, but at the same time one does not like to be reminded of how fucked they are. I guess...that probably just sums up my problem with these movies. They're right to make fun...and yet at the same time, do they really need to be THAT bleak? I thought "American Psycho" was excellent in that it left you with the question that if all of his murders were in his head, is it possible that we ALL have that kind of lingering fascination with murder? "A Clockwork Orange" was excellent because in the end you weren't sure which was worse, the people who do depraved acts, or the ones who punish them with equal/worse depravity. I think if it leaves you with a question, then it's good. "Natural Born Killers" and "Crash" didn't leave me with that kind of question...they left me feeling...basically fucked. I don't like that. But that's just me. If others can get something else out of it, that's great. It's just not for me.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Ottawa Canada
    Posts
    5,656
    Your point is well taken. Thank you for not ripping my head off for praising a movie you didn't care for. It's all about respect, know what I'm sayin', G?
    "Set the controls for the heart of the Sun" - Pink Floyd

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Annapolis, Maryland, USA
    Posts
    152
    Johann, of course not. People are entitled to their opinion. I try to explain mine without sounding like I'm cursing anybody who disagrees with me. I admit sometimes I'm pretty passionate about my views (don't get me started on how terrible I think "Titanic" is, hehe), so sometimes I sound insulting to someone else's tastes. I try not to though. You're right, it's about respect. I respect what "Crash" tried to do, it just didn't succeed to do so for me. If it did for you, then that's all that really matters, isn't it? And let's face it...it's obviously not a movie that's meant to have universal appeal. It's NOT going to appeal to everybody, be it because they're offended by pornography, or because the movie offends their sense of enjoyment. I don't think there's such a thing as a movie with universal appeal, because while a movie has the capacity to reach past its target audience and touch other people, there will still be those people who just don't get it or like it. It can't be universal because obviously not just "anybody" can get into it. My dad and I had this argument once, and he didn't agree with me at all. Not that he's hardcore conservative (in an anti-liberal sense), but he is conservative when it comes to moral and family-based values. To him, a person who doesn't like a movie like "Amadeus" is just a degenerate with no sense of art or passion and is just a punk. On one hand, I do like to agree with him, but I'm also friends with a few "punks," so I'm a little more forgiving and appreciative of the fact that some people just can't get into the things that I like. I consider myself a sophisticated person, but I don't consider anybody who doesn't share my view to be less than sophisticated.
    Last edited by Ilker81x; 03-07-2003 at 02:59 PM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •