criterionforum.org

American History X?

Interesting that the recommended films dealing with race by white directors are almost all foreign (Haneke, Blomkamp) or by a Hollywood outsider (Sayles). I'm about to generalize here, but Hollywood's inability to deal with race in a mature fashion simply mimics the American mainstream's inability to deal with race. For whatever reason, people just want to pretend that race and class don't exist, and the fact that--in this country at least--those categories are so inextricably intertwined makes them even more difficult to talk about. So we get stuck with heavy-handed representations of race over and over again.

I usually don't watch the Oscars, but the year Crash won, I was in a bar that was showing the telecast. I don't know how many folks remember this, but during the show there was a long video montage showing how Hollywood has always made films that deal with social issues. As soon as the montage began, my friends and I all realized (to our dismay) that Crash was going to win. Anyhow, after the montage ended and the lights came back up, Jon Stewart said "And these problems were never heard from again. Congratulations to us!" I nearly fell off my chair laughing, but the live audience was just dead quiet; Stewart clearly struck a nerve with that quip. And that's what happens whenever you puncture the safe, formulaic little thought-bubble that we use to talk about race.

Crash's conceit was to complicate race in the most minimal way, i.e. by taking racists and giving them exactly one redeeming characteristic or action. Don Cheadle's character is insensitive to his girlfriend, but he loves his crack-addict mother. Ludacris is a stickup artist, but he's racially conscious. Sandra Bullock, is a racist, but she realizes how much her Latina housekeeper means to her. And so on. The moral of the story seems to be, "racists are people, too!" but that's something most of us knew by the time we were, say, ten. Nevertheless, I recall sitting on a bus and overhearing a long conversation among six college students who all thought the film was "amazing" and "profound," and given how idiotic our national conversation on race is, it probably was profound for them.

If you want an intelligent recent American film about race, head straight for The Order of Myths. Though it's a documentary and about as far from Hollywood as you can get, it's guaranteed to take the synthetic, metallic taste of Crash out of your mouth.

Storytelling?

swo17 wrote: EDIT: Oh, and I assume most people hate it, but I kind of like von Trier's Manderlay.

It's a flawed film but it definitely ranks among the ballsiest films ever made on race

domino harvey wrote:

swo17 wrote: EDIT: Oh, and I assume most people hate it, but I kind of like von Trier's Manderlay.

It's a flawed film but it definitely ranks among the ballsiest films ever made on race

absolutely. I still don't know what to make of it.

jbeall wrote:Nevertheless, I recall sitting on a bus and overhearing a long conversation among six college students who all thought the film was "amazing" and "profound," and given how idiotic our national conversation on race is, it probably was profound for them.

Yes. Exactly. I've been saying this for years. Crash was a perfectly fine, though blunt, melodrama, which served the limited purpose for which it was intended. Does it entrench existing stereotypes? I think it merely confirms them as stereotypes, in order to make the above point about recognizing a certain kind of multi-dimensionality. In other words, the fact of the stereotype is subordinated to Haggis' larger scheme.

Crash's prime fault appears to be that it was not sufficiently complex for many while it gave off the glow of earned self-satisfaction. I can live with Haggis' hubris, misplaced though it may be. The vitriolic invective should be saved for really egregious offenders (of ethics and aesthetics), like Wayne Kramer's similar but far more aggressively heinous Crossing Over.

John Cope wrote:

jbeall wrote:Nevertheless, I recall sitting on a bus and overhearing a long conversation among six college students who all thought the film was "amazing" and "profound," and given how idiotic our national conversation on race is, it probably was profound for them.

Yes. Exactly. I've been saying this for years. Crash was a perfectly fine, though blunt, melodrama, which served the limited purpose for which it was intended. Does it entrench existing stereotypes? I think it merely confirms them as stereotypes, in order to make the above point about recognizing a certain kind of multi-dimensionality. In other words, the fact of the stereotype is subordinated to Haggis' larger scheme.

Crash's prime fault appears to be that it was not sufficiently complex for many while it gave off the glow of earned self-satisfaction. I can live with Haggis' hubris, misplaced though it may be. The vitriolic invective should be saved for really egregious offenders (of ethics and aesthetics), like Wayne Kramer's similar but far more aggressively heinous Crossing Over.

I really think that is letting Crash off lightly. It is a terrible film, with an attempt at a morality tale that doesn't even reach the heights of the the most risible Christian television drama. To echo 'John Cope', I watched the film with a girl who was struck down by the power of the film , and it's message. She thought it was a masterpiece. To put it in context, you, perhaps, have to know a little about the Australian political landscape at the time. Having said that, the issue of race and identity was one the whole of the Western world was grappling with. Crash did not, in any way, contribute to a meaningful discussion then, and can only be seen now as a complete failure on every level.

jbeall wrote:I'm about to generalize here, but Hollywood's inability to deal with race in a mature fashion simply mimics the American mainstream's inability to deal with race. For whatever reason, people just want to pretend that race and class don't exist, and the fact that--in this country at least--those categories are so inextricably intertwined makes them even more difficult to talk about.

That seems undeniable to anyone who has paid any attention to the subject any time in the last decade or so.

I don't want to excuse it's other flaws as a film, but that same reluctance to squarely face the issue and it's role in the country's past is a major reason that Oprah's Beloved did the box office it did. Far too many white people either want to deny the reality of slavery or somehow, some way, try to mitigate it, at least in their own minds. If it weren't so horrible, it would almost be funny.

First time I saw "Crash" I thought it was quite impactful (maybe it was the title itself). But the next day, I felt it was a film that was trying to be a message film and just didn't live up to it. Sure it's something that is better to be on a basic cable channel as a TV series (which happened, but I haven't seen).

Now, for a film about connections of random people and events that happen to affect each other is Adam Rifkin's underrated "Look" because it's not trying to say any kind of important message. It's a fun experiment in film, and it worked. "Crash" was not fun, even when trying to connect the dots together...

Crash is our generation's "Guess Who is Coming to Dinner?". Incompetent, silly, immature, insulting, reductionist, and stupid. I can't imagine what it will look like in 40 years.

some films age like Michael Caine.

some films age like Elizabeth Taylor.

This one, in 40 years, will smell a great deal like White Diamonds.

What I found most striking about Crash was the intense focus on the personal aspect of racism/prejudice, leaving me to muse on how we as individuals almost uniformly behave in a prejudicial manner at certain moments, however seemingly justified in context. Taking the Phillippe storyline, Haggis draws an arc in which the character begins with a somewhat naive, unembittered, fairly unbiased perspective on race that is mildly destabilized by witnessing (without knowledge of any causes informing the spectacle, such as the contribution of his jaded partner's actions toward Howard's volatility) a seemingly respectable, upper-middle class African-American man explode at the police with what could only seem excessive fury given the apparent circumstances. The character maintains an overall bland tolerance despite the incident, though it is now seasoned with a dose of cynicism, that then erupts when he assumes that his kind act of picking up a hitchhiker is being taken advantage of, perhaps about to turn into an armed carjacking. The way in which Haggis creates persuasive motivations for lapses into prejudice, yet never quite meekly deems them inevitable or indeed not worthy of sober-yet-understanding disapprobation I think absolutely commendable, audacious even. So, while I cannot deny that portions of the film are contrived, it contains far too much raw power to dismiss, indeed I'm completely distrustful of anyone who postures being so much more complex than and insusceptible to the foibles of these figures that Haggis puts onscreen.

I think Mubi would really love to hear your take on this and every other film you've seen in the last ten years

domino harvey wrote:I think Mubi would really love to hear your take on this and every other film you've seen in the last ten years

Where is this snideness coming from?

You guys are just, like, crashing into each other. Isn't it beautiful/illuminatory of the human condition?

I thought this films was horrible... I hated every frame of it.