Crash - the movie

[Larry Kart]

I guess not that many people have seen Todd Soldonz's "Storytelling," but in the light of the way that movie ends, the conclusion of the Sandra Bullock portion of "Crash" (where she discovers that the Latino maid she's habitually abused is her only "real friend") just cracked me up. In fact, "Crash" is the most unintentionally amusing movie I've seen in a long time.

[Kalo]

I've been assuming this movie sucks, but you guys make it sound even worse than I could have possibly imagined on my own.

So do I have to see it now just so that I can see exactly how terrible it is? Please say that I don't.

[RDK]

I've been assuming this movie sucks, but you guys make it sound even worse than I could have possibly imagined on my own.

So do I have to see it now just so that I can see exactly how terrible it is? Please say that I don't.

Why the hell would you assume the movie "sucks?" It just won an Academy Award for best picture, was on the top of many critics' "best of year" lists, and is interesting enough to spur debate on its themes. Yeah, some people hated it, but I and others liked it quite a bit. I can only assume that your assumption is based on some preconceived notion and/or personal biases???

[wolff]

Like I said about a year ago, I thought this movie was great. I also felt many would not 'get it', and I see that to be the case. That critic's comments are laughable. It is a piece of art that is interpreted differently.

BBM was a good movie, but has as a ton of insulting flaws. Thing is....only real sheep herders and cattle ranchers would know what they are. Oh well, that's Hollywooooooooooood!!!

[Simon Weil]

I didn't like the movie - but I think it's a very good film. Go figure. What I mean by that is that I think it's very well made, articulates its vision well, and is just somehow dislikeable in its core.

The thing that strikes me is that it evokes the idea of the world as chaos (the women choosing the blanks is a perfect example of that), just to knock it down (the choosing of the blanks turns out to be a moment of grace, saving a life). All the lives turn out to be interrelated and there is a very strong thematic undertow.

The horrible thing about it is the racism, presented as inescable. The two major non-racists meet, only to have one kill the other - an antithetical moment to the moments of grace revolving around the bullets. Like I said, strong thematic undertow - basically "all human life is here", or something like.

This comes about when one tries to show the other this Christian statuette (that both own) - and I have a feeling the director is a Christian and the film invokes his vision of the world is Hell (i.e. apparent chaos, held together by Christian grace).

the reason I think that, is that in the Haggis script, the key moment in "Million Dollar Baby" has the heroine corrupt herself and receive immediate and terrrible retribution.

Haggis is an oscar-winner. Maybe that's how Hollywood Liberals see it right now, a desparing vision.

Simon Weil

Edited March 22, 2006 by Simon Weil

[md655321]

Like I said about a year ago, I thought this movie was great. I also felt many would not 'get it', and I see that to be the case. That critic's comments are laughable. It is a piece of art that is interpreted differently.

BBM was a good movie, but has as a ton of insulting flaws. Thing is....only real sheep herders and cattle ranchers would know what they are. Oh well, that's Hollywooooooooooood!!!

I think the fact that I 'get it' is precisely the problem. While Brokeback may have flaws, are those flaws central to the entire film? The film is at heart simply a painful love story, any errors outside of that arent very essential. Crash is filled with errors of character and perceptions of race, the very heart of the film.

I would still reccomend anyone seeing, just to see what the fuss is about. The script itself was a good first draft, and a fatnastic middle school play. But it is so far from being actually relevant that it is painful. Even Don Cheadle remarked that some of the writing for blacks was insulting and inaccurate, but he chose to do the film in spite of that.

[RDK]

Crash is filled with errors of character and perceptions of race, the very heart of the film.

And here I'd argue that "errors of character and perceptions of race" is the very point of the film.

[md655321]

By errors and perceptions, I meant fundamentally unrealistic and inaccurate to the human experience.

If you will.

[sal]

SPOILERS BELOW

I also think that the film was just so oversaturated with these intense moments of supposed drama that it just rendered itself ineffective. I mean, when you first see the cop feeling up Terrance Howard's wife, you get shocked. But the movie just continues to shove the "shocking" dramatic moments down your throat at such a breakneck pace without ever giving you a chance to breathe. The shooting, the car wreck, arguing....by the time Ryan Phillipe shoots Larenz Tate at the end, I found it difficult to give a damn. I found the pacing in that sense to be quite amateurish. Perhaps it would have worked better as a TV series.

The film seemed to try to strike a cord in the viewer in a similar way "Do The Right Thing" did 17 years ago, while trying to appeal to the "artsy" crowd by mimicking a Robert Altman-esque multicharacter mosaic. Didn't work for me on either front.

[Dmitry]

I saw and liked the Crash. Haven't watched BBM yet.

Oscar shmoscar. Is that even a measurement of a particular film's greatness any more?! Bonfire of the vanities...

[RDK]

Oscar shmoscar. Is that even a measurement of a particular film's greatness any more?! Bonfire of the vanities...

Well, "greatness" in art, of course, is subjective and in the eye of the beholder, but i would suggest that an Oscar is still a fair indicator that a film has both some artistic merit and achieved some degree of popularity and appeal, at least with a mainstream audience. By no means does it signify "best" except by a common poll, but I think it's a safe bet to assume that an Oscar nominated film is unlikely to be terrible and is likely to be better-than-average (individual biases aside of course).

I put about as much stock in the merits of a film/book/music award as i dismiss the opinions of those who find no value in them at all...

[Dmitry]

Oscar shmoscar. Is that even a measurement of a particular film's greatness any more?! Bonfire of the vanities...

Well, "greatness" in art, of course, is subjective and in the eye of the beholder, but i would suggest that an Oscar is still a fair indicator that a film has both some artistic merit and achieved some degree of popularity and appeal, at least with a mainstream audience. By no means does it signify "best" except by a common poll, but I think it's a safe bet to assume that an Oscar nominated film is unlikely to be terrible and is likely to be better-than-average (individual biases aside of course).

I beg to differ. Here's the list of the Oscar-nominated films. You decide whether they exhibit an amount of artistic merit larger than the films that were not even close to being nominated.

2000 - "GLADIATOR," "Chocolat," "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon," "Erin Brockovich," "Traffic"

2001 "A BEAUTIFUL MIND," "Gosford Park," "In the Bedroom," "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring," "Moulin Rouge"

2002 "CHICAGO," "Gangs of New York," "The Hours," "The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers," "The Pianist"

2003 "THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING," "Lost In Translation," "Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World," "Mystic River," "Seabiscuit"

2004 "MILLION DOLLAR BABY," "The Aviator," "Finding Neverland," "Ray," "Sideways"

2005 "CRASH," "Brokeback Mountain," "Capote," "Good Night, and Good Luck," "Munich" [the best batch in the last 5 years, I think].

I dunno...

[Christiern]

Good to see you back, Simon W.

I liked Crash, perhaps because I did not assume that it was intended as an accurate reflection of real life, but rather as a microcosm. Everything we saw in this film does take place in the real world, but not in as condensed a way as Crash has it--that's where the film divorced itself from absolute reality, IMO.

Last night, I saw Brokeback Mountain, somewhat disadvantaged by all the commentary, opinions, and hype that preceded my viewing of it. Still, I thought it was a fine film, visually stunning and--considering the story line--tastefully handled. The two films are so different that I find it difficult to make a comparison, but I think both deserved the recognition awarded them.

[Kalo]

I've been assuming this movie sucks, but you guys make it sound even worse than I could have possibly imagined on my own.

So do I have to see it now just so that I can see exactly how terrible it is? Please say that I don't.

Why the hell would you assume the movie "sucks?" It just won an Academy Award for best picture, was on the top of many critics' "best of year" lists, and is interesting enough to spur debate on its themes. Yeah, some people hated it, but I and others liked it quite a bit. I can only assume that your assumption is based on some preconceived notion and/or personal biases???

I'll cop to the preconceived notions and personal biases. It just didn't sound like a good movie to me, based on the information at my disposal. The critics who liked it are critics I usually don't agree with, the critics who didn't are ones I often do agree with. And since when have the Academy Awards been anything other than Hollywood patting itself on the back for its own "importance"? Sometimes the "Best Film" has been a good movie, and often a mediocre one, but rarely has it been one that has ended up being considered by film historians to be the best film made that year, or anywhere close. The best films are usually too challenging or unusual for Hollywood to acknowledge at the Oscars.

Dmitry's list above makes the same case very well. Most of the time, the best film nominated didn't even win, and that doesn't take into account the films not even nominated.

[Simon Weil]

Good to see you back, Simon W.

I liked Crash, perhaps because I did not assume that it was intended as an accurate reflection of real life, but rather as a microcosm. Everything we saw in this film does take place in the real world, but not in as condensed a way as Crash has it--that's where the film divorced itself from absolute reality, IMO.

Last night, I saw Brokeback Mountain, somewhat disadvantaged by all the commentary, opinions, and hype that preceded my viewing of it. Still, I thought it was a fine film, visually stunning and--considering the story line--tastefully handled. The two films are so different that I find it difficult to make a comparison, but I think both deserved the recognition awarded them.

Thanks Chris. I take your point about it not being reality. I think someone else made the same point (but from a less positive side) when they said it was full of "dramatic" moments. The thing is, Haggis clearly intended it to be an assault on the senses - a crash of a film, if you will - because of that spiel at the beginning where it's asserted that the only way people get to interact is through crashing into each other.

The rest of time they're stuck in their cars - read stuck behind, I don't know, their social defenses. So, I guess, it was like a movie about the "real" interactions in society (as seen by Haggis). The other thing is the idea that movies are like life with the boring bits taken out.

Haven't seen Brokeback yet. Sounds very good. Ang Lee is a fine director. For his abilities visually, Ride with the Devil, his civil war film, is a great showcase.

I like tasteful, me.

Simon Weil

[BruceH]

I'll cop to the preconceived notions and personal biases. It just didn't sound like a good movie to me, based on the information at my disposal.

What else can you do?

[BruceH]

I've been assuming this movie sucks, but you guys make it sound even worse than I could have possibly imagined on my own.

So do I have to see it now just so that I can see exactly how terrible it is? Please say that I don't.

You don't.

(Come to think of it, I don't either. Hurray.)

[BruceH]

I beg to differ. Here's the list of the Oscar-nominated films. You decide whether they exhibit an amount of artistic merit larger than the films that were not even close to being nominated.

2000 - "GLADIATOR," "Chocolat," "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon," "Erin Brockovich," "Traffic"

2001 "A BEAUTIFUL MIND," "Gosford Park," "In the Bedroom," "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring," "Moulin Rouge"

2002 "CHICAGO," "Gangs of New York," "The Hours," "The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers," "The Pianist"

2003 "THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING," "Lost In Translation," "Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World," "Mystic River," "Seabiscuit"

2004 "MILLION DOLLAR BABY," "The Aviator," "Finding Neverland," "Ray," "Sideways"

2005 "CRASH," "Brokeback Mountain," "Capote," "Good Night, and Good Luck," "Munich" [the best batch in the last 5 years, I think].

I dunno...

I've got to admit, though, I think Million Dollar Baby was a better movie that The Aviator.

[BruceH]

I'll cop to the preconceived notions and personal biases. It just didn't sound like a good movie to me, based on the information at my disposal. The critics who liked it are critics I usually don't agree with, the critics who didn't are ones I often do agree with. And since when have the Academy Awards been anything other than Hollywood patting itself on the back for its own "importance"? Sometimes the "Best Film" has been a good movie, and often a mediocre one, but rarely has it been one that has ended up being considered by film historians to be the best film made that year, or anywhere close. The best films are usually too challenging or unusual for Hollywood to acknowledge at the Oscars.

Dmitry's list above makes the same case very well. Most of the time, the best film nominated didn't even win, and that doesn't take into account the films not even nominated.

You said it!! Case in point, The 40-Year Old Virgin wasn't even nominated. Typical!!