*** Official CRASH Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[Rich Malloy]

Effete? First, I'm not calling you names. Second, a was actually shooting for a muscular discourse, the kind of no bullshit stance that finds Ebert's invocation of Dickens to be not merely inapt but humorously pretentious. Just couldn't strike the right tone, I guess. What can I say... I must be a pencil-necked girlie boy!

 

[Chris Minogue]

Turin is spot on! Thank you for posting that.

 

[Quentin]

Hehe. Sorry about that. I meant it in the self-indulgent way, not the effeminate way. Though, I liked your girly-man comment!

We agree on three things:

Spielberg is a master manipulator (or, was...)

All the Oscar nommed films were, more or less, nothing special.

Comparing CRASH to Dickens is a stretch.

 

[Simon Massey]

My take on Crash is somewhere in the middle. I enjoyed the film, and agree with the above quote that this film is not meant to be an "insightful drama" about racism. The problem is that Haggis does try and make points about racism and some of these are presented in such a way that it feels like Haggis is lecturing the audience. It wasn't the scenes like the little girl getting "shot" or the car on fire which were my favourite moments of the film as I was prepared to accept the conceit you mentioned. I have only seen the film once and need to see it again, but one scene I recall that stuck out as poor was the scene with Don Cheadle's character being offered a job. It felt like the other character on screen was lecturing the audience rather than interacting with Cheadle's character.

 

[Chris Minogue]

With all due respect, when your only defense for a film is 'it was supposed to suck' - I think an honest re-evaluation of the work might be in order.

 

[Tino]

And with all due respect, what the hell are you talking about??

Where did he say "it was supposed to suck"??

Give it a rest dude. Your endless trashing of Crash is getting a bit old..just like your Big Momma joke.

 

[Chris Minogue]

You've mentioned Big Momma far more than I ever could.

If you like poorly written, shallow, manipulative, disingenuous, bombastic, pseudo-intellectual films - that is your choice and your right.

I am glad you are expressing your opinion and I am equally as glad to be able to express mine.

 

[Tino]

There is a line one crosses from expressing opinions to merely trashing a film just for the sake of trashing it. In my opinion, you crossed that line.

 

[Chris Minogue]

There is a line one crosses from expressing opinions to blindly praising a film just for the sake of praising it.

Fortunately for you, I have yet to establish the specific parameters of this line.

Anyhow, this is drifting woefully off topic. I have said my piece about this movie and I will sully your lovefest no more. I truly am sorry if I have offended you or anyone else.

 

[Tino]

I'm sure I speak for many, many members when I say...Thank You!

 

[John Doran]

no, you're calling ebert names...

ah, well - at least his pretension is humorous.

 

[Rich Malloy]

Well, I happen to know that Ebert's a grown man who can take a bit of criticism without collapsing into a puddle, John. And as I criticized his argument by way of Dickens - as opposed to, I don't know, his character or something - my criticism isn't exactly of the ad hominem variety.

And I certainly didn't take Quentin's "effete" comment seriously, and fortunately Quentin gets that. I'm not so thin-skinned as to be insulted by a little verbal parrying. So why not give this "who insulted who" stuff a rest and get back to some film discussion? You're free to act as insult monitor if you wish, and I'm sure we're all eager to know when you think we've crossed the line. So, listen carefully...

I actually thought the biggest piece of red meat I tossed into the fray was the "Code Unknown" comparison. It's a film I like very much, and I think its rigorous formalism and absolute refusal to manipulate one's emotional responses in any traditional way stands in fairly stark contrast to "Crash". But that's not really why I prefer it, though I admire that formalism very much. As Quentin noted, I've defended Spielberg on many occasions, and he's a director not adverse to manipulating every response of the audience - one is never really confused as to how Spielberg intends for a certain scene to be read. The distinction I'm drawing here is that Spielberg is a master of the technique, slickly and efficiently evoking precisely the response he wants, whereas the hand of the writer-director of "Crash" seems to clumsily intrude into the frame, you know, "like a stray boom mic".

But I also agree with Kyle's criticisms (and Kenneth Turin's) to a large extent, and I think here too "Code Unknown" is the more honest and significant film. Redemption does not come easily in "Code Unknown" - and for most not at all - and one does not leave the theater thinking that by watching through to the choreographed epiphany of the finale that you've "done your moral duty and examined your soul when in fact you were just getting your buttons pushed and your preconceptions reconfirmed". No, when you leave the theater after seeing "Code Unknown" you realize that your moral duty begins when you step out onto the street among the other human beings.

I certainly wouldn't say that "Crash" is somehow a setback for humanity or wrench in the works of racial relations. This isn't a film I consider irredeemably irresponsible or in anyway cynically conceived. Hardly. It's clearly a well meaning film and I don't doubt that it just might have a very deep impact on the right person. But the best film of the year? Or even the best film about the topic of racial relations? No. But once again, it seems to me that the truly important, groundbreaking work in these areas is either unseen entirely or dismissed, while the more mediocre representatives are lauded all out of proportion to their actual merits (call it the "Driving Ms. Daisy" principle). And, really, that's all I'm saying.

 

[PaulP]

Whoever said it was? It received the award for being the best film of 2005 in the eyes of the AMPAS. Code Unknown is a French film from 2000 - so I don't see why you brought it up. It wouldn't be eligible as the Best Picture of 2005, which is what's being discussed here, I understand - not whether or not Crash or any other film is the best film to deal with its issue. Code Unknown was nominated for a Golden Palm at Cannes, by the way, and did not win.

Maybe Crash is not the best film about race relations, but neither is Brokeback Mountain the best love story (gay or otherwise) ever told, and the same can be said for all other nominees.

So comparing Crash to Code Unknown in conext of Crash's Best Picture win is like comparing apples and oranges.

 

[Quentin]

Let's all come back down to Earth.

"Best film of the year" is utterly subjective and individualistic. We all have our own. For me in 2005, it was BATMAN BEGINS. Not even nominated. CRASH is the winner of the Best Picture Oscar. While it may be "Best Film of the year" for some, I just want to point out that the Oscar winner is rarely the consensus final word.

A Best Picture Oscar is also not supposed to be awarded to the "most important picture" of the year, or the "finest piece of art" of the year. It's just an award that a bunch of movie people give to their favorite movie. And, really, the award IS the nomination (I know...cliche), and the voting is just there so they can have a big show at the end.

And, since I've hit on "most important picture"...I would ask that critics everywhere (and fans) stand back, stop writing about how the academy had a chance to make a statement and failed, and remember that these were just movies. I know that art can sometimes (and, really, it isn't often) have important social impact. But, none of these films fit that bill. For starters, there just aren't enough people who saw them! None of these films were big enough or good enough to have any significant social impact. And, IMO, none of them were even good enough to go down in the annals of film history as memorable or remarkable.

 

[Quentin]

For the record:

TURIN is in Italy. It was where the Olympics were held last month.

TURAN is the head Times critic who is crying sour grapes about BBM.

 

[Rich Malloy]

I'm sorry, but I think you're wrong on that last point. This isn't the Academy Awards thread, and I wasn't suggesting that "Code Unknown" should have won Best Picture instead of "Crash" in this year or any other year. I do see why my post was confusing on that point, but I was bringing up "Code Unknown" simply for comparison's sake. And although the 2005 Oscar for "Crash" has certainly colored and revived this discussion (reminding me that it's been like a year since I've seen the film), I don't think we are limited to only discussing the Best Picture of 2005 award.

Rather, I wanted to discuss "Crash" in the context of another film, a far superior film IMO, and one with a remarkably similar style of intersecting storylines and characters and the very same theme of race/class relations.

In other words, I'd like to know what you think of the film as compared to "Crash" - if you think anything at all about it, of course - and not what you know about the arcana concerning Oscar nominations.

 

[Holadem]

Well, if anything, this discussion has landed Code Unknown on my netflix queue.

It will be my third Haneke after La Pianiste and Cache. A spotty record at best from where I stand, but what the hey.

Crash rulez.

--
H

 

[Quentin]

I didn't care for CACHE, but I will add CODE UNKNOWN to my list as well!

 

[Rich Malloy]

Aside from the obvious similarities between "Crash" and "Code Unknown" - namely the intersecting storylines and overall theme of racial and class difference - the other reason this film came to mind had to do with Quentin's jabs at my Spielberg affinity and the question of whether "Crash" is overly manipulative of the audience's emotions. That's not exactly my criticism - I think Spielberg is a master manipulator of the audience's emotions whereas Haggis is comparitively clumsy and ineffective - but I don't have an issue with the attempt to so manipulate one's emotions. After all, that is largely the point of all art.

Which is why I think Haneke's films, particularly "Code Unknown" given the similarity of theme and structure, makes for an interesting counterpoint to "Crash". Of all the criticisms of Haneke - and there are many - the one that I read most often from viewers not enamored of his rigorous formalism is some variation of "I can appreciate what he's doing, but it left me cold."

I think this sense of being "left cold" represents that very aspect of Haneke's filmmaking that can be deemed "anti-Spielberg" (or "anti-Haggis" for these purposes). Simply put, Haneke does not tell you what to feel about what you're seeing. There are no swelling strings to indicate the Big Emotional Moment. There are no third act epiphanies leading to the We've Learned Something Speech. Connections aren't underscored and made obvious, conclusions aren't highlighted and slammed home - if you're not paying attention, you may well miss a hugely significant detail. Dramatic resolution is parsed out as sparingly as redemption. What you take away from the film speaks largely to what you bring to it. There is no hand-holding in a Haneke film.

Some, like me, find this approach to be riveting and true and refreshing. Others are "left cold". Speaking of Haneke's "Time of the Wolf", Michael Atkinson writes "this is what early-millennium Euro art-film masterpieces feel like — lean, qualmish, abstracted to the point of parable but as grounded as a gravedigging."


(I'm sorry to say that Haneke's films are not well represented in R1. "Code Unknown", "The Piano Teacher" and "Time of the Wolf" get their best transfers in R2, either UK or France. Sad to report that the R1 "Code Unknown" is non-anamorphic and a fairly poor transfer. Please try not to hold it against the film. Haneke's compositions are as formally beautiful as Kubrick's.)

 

[Robert Montoya]

A little too heavy handed for my taste. I think he could have used just a tad bit of subtley. There were a few scenes that resonated with me but, unfortunately there were more that were laughably bad. Example- the scene with Bullock after she has the locks changed in her house. If she was so scared that the locksmith would keep a copy of the keys and come back rob them - why would she say that within ear shot of the guy. Makes no sense. I guess she was stupid racist. Way too may coinsidences and just too cliched moments. I guess that syle of directing and story telling is just not my taste. I like films that challenge me and allow me to think as oppose to hammering me over the head with it's point. I kept saying over and over "I get it, I get" can just move along. Plus I think this film came out ten years too late. Would have had more of an impact if it would have come out shortly after Rodney King. Just a little dated and way too pat and cliche for me. Carry on.