In Defense of "Crash"

[angelordevil]

Box office is down again.

Crash won best movie.

Reese Witherspoon won best actress.

Three sad reasons.

 

[U2@NYC]

I'm done celebrating Crash. Now I'm just celebrating the fact that Crash winning Best Picture is actually making you this riled up.

Keep going!

Happy to keep you entertained.

 

[Bono's shades]

I almost threw up when the sexually abused woman is narratively forced to submit to the redemptive authority of her attacker. Disgusting.

That's exactly how I felt when I saw that scene.

I thought the film was well-done for the most part, but that one scene made me so mad it nearly ruined it for me.

I didn't realize how much I was rooting for Brokeback Mountain until they announced Crash as the winner.

 

[BigMacPhisto]

I really liked this film. While it was only stronger than one of the other nominees (the clumsy Munich ), it had a lot to say about a LOT of topics. I especially liked the American Grafitti sort of interconnectedness that worked so well.

 

[doubleU]

Box office is down again.

Has nothing to do with this.

Crash won best movie.

Great movie. Exagerated? In what sense, everything in that movie still happens today, I'm not sure how that's exagerating.

Reese Witherspoon won best actress.

I've never liked her and thought she did an amazing job, she deserved it.

 

[If you shout...]

That's exactly how I felt when I saw that scene.

That is becaue you can and, more importantly, DID think. It's something so many people fail to do on any serious level of critical engagement.

Things got a little trashy 'round these parts when peeps busted up in laughin' at people and such, trying to stir shit up, but I think something important came out of the lunacy.

As a part of the academic world, I mostly come into contact only with people who have years of study under their belts. Like Melon, I myself have six years of critical theory (cinema focus) under my belt, and most of the people I know are in a basically equivalent situation.

I have noticed about this film that...

A) It is hated most vitriolically by members of the academy. Of the 100 or so people--students and faculty--who surround me, these days, ZERO of them liked this film. 100 or so hated it like I hate "A Man and a Woman." That's saying something.

B) Most all of the so-called "regular" people I know loved the film or were at least casually indifferent towards it. A very small number of people in this "group" hated the film as powerfully as myself, but usually for less theory- or representation-based reasons as myself.

Of course, none of this is empirical--I haven't exactly committed myself to a systematic audience analysis or anything like that, and I don't plan to in the future. Even so, I do find it very interesting that all the people working to advance the language of cinema hate the movie (again--all those whom I know, at least), whereas so many of the people who actually EMPOWER the cinema and make it relevant (the lay viewer) seem to enjoy the film.

I find this legitimately fascinating, and as I alluded to in my first post (which says most all of what I have to say about this so-called film), I find myself torn between the film-as-text and the reception/audience/film-as-text. I just can't stop turning it over in my head--does an irresponsible film which is read by the audience in a constructive and progressive way any worse or better than a progressive film seen by audiences as, perhaps, pretentious and worthless...?

So interesting, I tell you. And, again--thanks for paying attention, Bono's shades!

 

[BigMacPhisto]

On a side note, it actually didn't do too well with the critics, especially when compared to the other nominees and a lot of films that were snubbed from a nom.

www.metacritic.com

 

[Dorian Gray]

I really cannot the believe the near hatred felt for this film. I'm amazed at some of the comments. I understand what your criticisms are, and I respect them; This is not meant as an attack on your thoughts. But have we watched the same film?

Cliched? Yes.. but my god, this is the world we live in. If you can't see this sort of stereotyping around you, then please tell me where you are, because I want to live there.

Everybody holds stereotypical beliefs. Everyone. Some hide them better than others; some disregard them, out of respect and in understanding what they represent; and others, racists, act on them. Sadly, there are more of this type than any of us would care to admit, or think about.

It seems to me that some people here believe that if a film shows racism, then it inherently is racist. But Haggis is telling a story. A real, believable story. Listen to the dialogue. It's natural, unforced. These are people who exist in this world. One poster stated that Crash "worked systematically (intentionally or not) to re-validate that very same racism." How so? By depicting it? So you're saying that this somehow sanctions racism. You also say a "film so racially subversive (in a bad way) is dangerous, because so-called average viewers obviously aren't recognizing the tripe they're being fed." Are you saying that this film will make racists out of people? I think you're underestimating the intelligence of the average viewer. I might be wrong, but I think that those who use the depicted stereotypes to fuel their own racial beliefs have already formed their opinions.

In his original view, Roger Ebert made a subtle point. He said "Not many films have the possibility of making their audiences better people." For the critics here, ask yourself this: don't you think that the majority of those who come from watching this film will think in some way about how they see others? Even if for just a minute... is this not an accomplishment worthy of honour? Heaven forbid we're forced to face our own ignorance!

Is everything too much of a coincidence? Too far-fetched? Maybe. But isn't that the point? I think Haggis is suggesting something here. As fate would have it, these people are forced to witness their own pettiness. So perhaps Haggis is saying there's something greater involved. i.e. Karma; God (Grace). This is only my interpretation. Anybody agree with me?

Thankfully, and this has been said already in the original post, what this film shows is that - in the end - people are good. How fanastic is this? Really! I don't know... I feel this is more important than most give credit for. We're hateful, stupid, ignorant animals, but by the grace of god there's hope for us.

 

[If you shout...]

It seems to me that some people here believe that if a film shows racism, then it inherently is racist. But Haggis is telling a story. A real, believable story. Listen to the dialogue. It's natural, unforced. These are people who exist in this world.

This comment also interests me very much, and it's not just you whom I hear saying it--it seems to come up a lot when people are talking about Crash.

This is exactly what I was talking about with the intentional fallacy, though. Probably unconsciously, you're trying to have your cake and eat it to. Allow me to explain...

During an acceptance speech, Haggis himself mentioned how the film was meant not to be used as a mirror held up to society (a literary metaphor long, long ago dispelled...remember that Realism/Naturalism died as artistic movements around the dawn of the 20th Century), but as a hammer. Or something like that, you know? I'm pretty sure he used the hammer as his metaphor.

I'm straying from my point, though. Sorry. That point is that you're in part lauding the film for showing the world as it really is, saying that Haggis is trying to show us as we really are. He specifically said, though, that this is/was not the "aim" of the film. This is why this type of criticism does not work. The author-function exists, to be sure, but as was written some time ago (by Foucault...? I think it was Foucault...), "The author is dead."

You ask good questions in the rest of your post in quoting me, but I'll be honest and say that I both already answered most and anticipated some of them in previous points (VERY briefly, yes...sorry) and that it's damned late and I have a long day ahead of me. In closing, peace out.

 

[If you shout...]

Oh well...I spent Oscar night watching "'F' for Fake" (1976), Orson Welles' eccentric final film. What a fantastic movie.

Kudos to you. Easily among my all-time favorites from the Welles canon. I love this film more than I can begin to say. Kudos, I tell you!!!

 

[doubleU]

Thank you If you shout... for your very unelitist point of view.

 

[deep]

Which ended up in Reese Witherspoon winning best actress, after her amazing performances in Legally Blonde and Cruel Intentions...

her amazing performances were in

election

and the off-beat dark comedy

freeway

 

[Tiger Edge]

Thank you If you shout... for your very unelitist point of view.

 

[Dorian Gray]

This comment also interests me very much, and it's not just you whom I hear saying it--it seems to come up a lot when people are talking about Crash.

This is exactly what I was talking about with the intentional fallacy, though. Probably unconsciously, you're trying to have your cake and eat it to. Allow me to explain...

During an acceptance speech, Haggis himself mentioned how the film was meant not to be used as a mirror held up to society (a literary metaphor long, long ago dispelled...remember that Realism/Naturalism died as artistic movements around the dawn of the 20th Century), but as a hammer. Or something like that, you know? I'm pretty sure he used the hammer as his metaphor.

I'm straying from my point, though. Sorry. That point is that you're in part lauding the film for showing the world as it really is, saying that Haggis is trying to show us as we really are. He specifically said, though, that this is/was not the "aim" of the film. This is why this type of criticism does not work. The author-function exists, to be sure, but as was written some time ago (by Foucault...? I think it was Foucault...), "The author is dead."

You ask good questions in the rest of your post in quoting me, but I'll be honest and say that I both already answered most and anticipated some of them in previous points (VERY briefly, yes...sorry) and that it's damned late and I have a long day ahead of me. In closing, peace out.

Thanks for your quick reply. I need to hit the sack too. I guess what Im trying to say is that I see parallels based on my own experiences growing up in rural Canada. These are people I've talked with. These are thoughts we've all felt.

So, in part, it is refelctive of society. Maybe that wasn't Haggis intention, but it's what I take from it.

I'm sorry.. I'm not versed in the academic realm for filmmaking. Any arguement I'd make regarding the author-function would be bullshit. I'm reacting as a member of the audience. I was moved by this story. Ultimately art is communication, right? It's made for the self and others. We draw from it what we will.
If you do get the time, please do elaborate on how the film is "irresponsible" in its telling. I want to understand you here.

 

[theblazer]

I have six years of collegiate-level media education, including film studies, and I'm an aspiring screenwriter/director/editor (i.e., film auteur) myself.

In other words, I have a good idea of what's good, what's bad, and what's just plain mediocre.

I'm 23 and have watched an insane amount of movies from every decade that films have been made.

In other words, I have a good idea what's good, what's bad, and what's just plain mediocre.


Edit: Oh, and as an evil, white, American conservative, I thought Brokeback Mountain should have won both director and best movie honors. I thought it certainly was the best movie out of the 5 in the running in terms of seeming to be most believable, even though BM and Crash were the only two "fiction" movies.

But, I always like movies that aren't based on specific events better than movies like "Munich."

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Reese Witherspoon is such an amazing spit image of a long term ex-girlfriend of mine, to the point of being rather scary, that I find it kinda funny ever watching her. I can't sit through whole films of hers and I'm not sure whether I want her to win things or lose. Is that weird? Honestly, they are absolutely identical twins.

Other than that, can I just add that I work for one of the major studios and we pay a fuckin' shitload for these nominations and awards so you'd better just shut the fuck up, accept it, and go buy the dvd. Tomorrow.

No, seriously, I did read that Crash had a truckload of money behind it.

 

[chickadee]

Best movie of the year was Brokeback and everyone knows it.

Well it's won about a hundred others compared to this one, so fans of the movie, like myself, aren't that disappointed.

 

[maycocksean]

Wow.

 

[melon]

Kudos to you. Easily among my all-time favorites from the Welles canon. I love this film more than I can begin to say. Kudos, I tell you!!!

I'm itching for "The Other Side of the Wind" (1972) to actually see the light of day. I hear it's a stylistic companion to "'F' for Fake." There's rumors that the long-running rights issues are close to being resolved, so here's hoping 2006 is the year.

Melon

 

[U2@NYC]

Has nothing to do with this.

It is exactly a reflection of what is going on with movie quality... if you cannot see beyond the numbers you are not looking at the big picture.

Hope you are happy, now go listen to that "pimp" song that won the Oscar to celebrate...

 

[melon]

I'm 23 and have watched an insane amount of movies from every decade that films have been made.

In other words, I have a good idea what's good, what's bad, and what's just plain mediocre.


Edit: Oh, and as an evil, white, American conservative, I thought Brokeback Mountain should have won both director and best movie honors. I thought it certainly was the best movie out of the 5 in the running in terms of seeming to be most believable, even though BM and Crash were the only two "fiction" movies.

But, I always like movies that aren't based on specific events better than movies like "Munich."

I never meant that as an elitist comment. It was meant as a counter to the rather inane comment (followed by a gratuitously immature number of ) that we're all idiots here compared to the glory of the Academy judges.

And I will agree. I'm kind of burned out on "real events." Give me fiction all the way.

Cheers...

Melon

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

For me Brokeback Mountain was a better film, it will always be remembered whereas Crash will be a footnote -remembered for an upest Oscar win and that's all. I'm not saying Crash isn't a good movie because I think it is, just not worthy of a Best Picture Oscar.

 

[maycocksean]

Dorian Gray, I'm right there with you.

Where do I begin?

First off, a caveat.

I'm a "populist" at heart (Perhaps I'm misusing that word, and I'm sure some one will let me know if I am). I like the melody. I like the hook. I confess I've never been sophisticated enough to really get into the avante garde whether in music, film, literature, or any other artistic endeavor, though I often find the cutting edge interesting, and thought provoking, it doesn't usually grab me on an emotional level. I'm also an aspiring filmmaker, but I'm essentially self-taught. I'm a guy who liked "Titanic", "A Few Good Men", "Maria Full of Grace", "When Harry Met Sally". If I could ever make a film like "Pieces of April", I'd feel pretty proud of myself.

So. I doubt I'm going to be able to say anything to change If You Shout's mind. . .don't think they'd even let me into the ground floor doors of that ivory tower.

Nonetheless, I challenged someone to provide compelling arguments against the film, and I must say If You Shout certainly rose to the challenge. What I'm always looking for is something I haven't heard before and Shout provided that.

A couple of key points--I think I really missed the anti-Middle Eastern sentiment there. The Persian father was perhaps not the brightest guy? I suppose that could be anti-Middle Eastern. But the daughter was sharp and seemed to "represent" that region of the world well.

The most compelling point Shout made in my opinion was the the "redemption by rapist" thing with Matt Dillon and Thandie Newton. I wouldn't have thought of that but that does have a disturbing undertone. . .except that, I buy it. Maybe from an artistic standpoint it was "disgusting", but as a story I buy it. . .that this guy who could so horrifyingly molest a woman could be also the same guy that heroically saves people. That truth about humanity I don't think can really be discounted. And I would add that Hollywood doesn't often show that kind of complexity in it's characters.

Again, I doubt any of this is making a dent, but it's what I think.

Anything that makes people think, is valuable in my opinion. It's why I like Crash. It's why I'm interested in what Shout has to say.

Several posters got from my original post that I thought this movie showed that people are at heart basically good. That's not quite what I meant. What I meant is that people are basically good and basically evil. They are both.

I am pleasantly surprised that Crash won. I haven't seen any of the other contenders (sadly, out here in the middle of the Pacific Ocean where I live we only get the very bottom of the Hollywood barrel in our multiplex. Saw II anyone? Movies for kids, horror flicks, blockbusters. . .that's it. That we got "Crash" at all was, actually I think a mistake on the theater's part.). But I don't take it too seriously. Someone said awards shows are generally crap, and I tend to agree.

Keep up the dialogue, people. I'm interested. Obviously most of us are not going to change our minds, but it's the dialogue that interests me.

 

[Irvine511]

It is exactly a reflection of what is going on with movie quality... if you cannot see beyond the numbers you are not looking at the big picture.

no, it doesn't.

the decline in the box office has much to do with the rise of DVD sales and home theathers -- notice the emphasis on "extras" and stuff that is shot, on set, specifically for the DVD. this is where studios are making the bulk of their profits, not theater tickets.

if anything, the quality of movies this year was the best it's been since, i'd say, 1999.

 

[U2@NYC]

no, it doesn't.

the decline in the box office has much to do with the rise of DVD sales and home theathers -- notice the emphasis on "extras" and stuff that is shot, on set, specifically for the DVD. this is where studios are making the bulk of their profits, not theater tickets.

if anything, the quality of movies this year was the best it's been since, i'd say, 1999.

Clearly not true.

DVDs have been around for a while and it has been proven throughout the years that people who want to see movies at the theater still go to the theater. Look at the overall evolution of the box office since the release of the DVD and you will see is that it is not a constant decline.

Look at these figures that prove you wrong (from www.boxofficemojo.com):

Year
Total Gross***
Change
Tickets Sold*
Change
# of Pics.
Total Screens
Ticket Price
Avg. Cost^*
#1 Picture

2005
$8,837.7
-6.2%
1,380.9
-8.9%
542
-
$6.40
-
Revenge of the Sith

2004
$9,418.3
+2.5%
1,516.6
-0.4%
551
-
$6.21
-
Shrek 2

2003
$9,185.9
+0.2%
1,523.3
-3.5%
508
-
$6.03
$63.8
Return of the King

2002
$9,167.0
+9.0%
1,578
+5.7%
467
35,592
$5.81
$58.8
Spider-Man

2001
$8,412.5
+9.8%
1,487.3
+4.7%
482
36,764
$5.66
$47.7
Harry Potter

As you can see, there is an increase in box office between 2001 and 2004, despite the launch of the DVD. The numbers do not lie, movies this year were terrible... and people decided that it was not worth to spend $10 at a movie theater to see them.

Numbers don't lie.

 

[beegee]

her amazing performances were in

election

and the off-beat dark comedy

freeway

yes, yes!

freeway is one of my favorite films ever.

while i adore reese as much as the next person, i didn't feel she deserved the oscar, at least not for her role in walk the line. in the film she plays a sweet and spunky southern girl. but she already IS a sweet and spunky southern girl. not too big a stretch, there.

as for crash, i came into this thread because i was trying to decide if i should spend my afternoon tomorrow watching the dvd. i have noticed that the persons whose opinions i would value over all others are the ones suggesting i shouldn't waste my time. and then there was the crackerjack with all the rolling laugh smilies who loved it.

i think i'll go see brokeback instead.

 

[If you shout...]

Thank you If you shout... for your very unelitist point of view.

You are welcome. It's often difficult not to sound all kinds of pompous or "elitist" when I'm talking about what is essentially my life's work and such. I work very hard to recognize the importance of the typical viewer (in fact, I can rather ashamedly admit that my ultra-scholarly viewpoint is, culturally, of FAR less practical value than that of my friend who goes to see a film because it's new, etc.), and I'm glad the effort payed off. I'm not going to run back through the previous posts, right now, as the day is starting in full force, but I wonder what you thought of the film and why, dU?

Dorian and maycocksean--if you're truly interested, I will try to elaborate without sermonizing as soon as I can. I appreciate your own open-mindedness to other viewpoints and your ability not simply to decry something you don't want to or can't (less likely than the former, probably) understand with silliness, rudeness, or just plain idiocy. Exams and theses and such need a lot of work right now, though, so it'll be a spot. Sorry to leave y'all high and dry, but them's the breaks. No rush, though, because I think that mcs is right in saying that it's unlikely we're going to be changing our minds at this point.

 

[corianderstem]

I really don't have the slightest idea of how to explain what I didn't like about Crash or why, but I very strongly disliked it, and felt it was too mediocre a film to win Best Picture. I didn't think the acting was all that strong, either.

But oh well.

 

[bsp77]

Numbers don't lie.

What do numbers have to do with quality? My general assumption is that people are stupid until proven otherwise. People that consistently choose to not see important movies only confirms that fact.

I liked Crash but had some issues with it, and I really do not believe that it should have won Best Picture. Brokeback won just about every major critics circle and award ceremony before the Oscars. There were a couple things it did not win, but no movie has ever gone into the Oscars with as many wins as it had. I have no idea how it failed to win the Oscars. Maybe just the older Academy members couldn't stomach it.

The other Oscar candidates were great movies as well, it is a shame that they are not more widely viewed. Maybe it is true that Hollywood is out of touch with Mainstream America. However, I believe that Mainstream America is out of touch, period. Out of touch with modern life, out of touch with the world. And the rest of the world's current disdain for us confirms that.

 

[U2@NYC]

What do numbers have to do with quality? My general assumption is that people are stupid until proven otherwise. People that consistently choose to not see important movies only confirms that fact.

Great, so let's shoot movies about no one will watch, but that can deal with people's stupidity... I am sure that is a recipe for a very successful business.