Just curious. I was starting to wonder after “Crash” took home the “Best Movie” award a few years back, after which I stopped going to the movies.
Ham-fisted is the word that comes to mind when I think of that movie.
It does, but you have to be a 17-year old who is immune to the inhumanity of multiplex culture.
Adult film - in the non-porn sense - is now a genre.
Crash wasn’t intended to be a parable. It was an old-fashioned message film (e.g., Gentlemen’s Agreement, The Well, Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner), and a particularly good one.
I fail to understand the hate for it (other than from those that hate it because they were fans of Brokeback Mountain, because everyone knows it’s impossible for there be two great movies in one year).
I thought both of them sucked.
Brokeback Mountain was really, really slow (read boring) and Crash lacked subtly.
Still the question remains: Is the OP after a subtle parable per se, or just a subtle message? Are allegories simply out of the question? What about oblique allegories? How about nagging allusions? And while the OP is specifically interested in Hollywood, what if Burbank comes up with an insinuating roman à clé?
I just went through the list of Academy Awards since about 1991 to see if I could find any movies that could be said to have a “message” that are subtle or elegant or at least don’t hit you over the head with a message hammer.
Here are a few that I thought might qualify
Unforgiven
The Player
Six Degrees of Separation
Pulp Fiction
Election
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Had to sort through lots of stuff like Traffic, Babel, American Beauty, and I hadn’t seen everything of course.
Ok, go ahead, pick my taste to pieces.
I think it should br criminal to describe anything Quentin Tarantino has done as “subtle.” The man is over the top 100% of the time, and from what I gather, very proud of it. I didn’t think ESotSM was particularly subtle either. Both were very, very good movies, but subtle is not exactly the right way to describe either.
It wasn’t supposed to be subtle. It was making a point. You weren’t supposed to say “gee, what a subtle comment on society”; you were supposed to say “racism is our society is a much more complex issue that most people think.”
If the purpose of your film is to make a point, subtlety is not an option.
And, back to the OP, no parable is ever subtle. You don’t use parables unless you want to say something and make damn sure everyone knows what you mean.
If you want an incredible movie with an extremely subtle and invisibly woven message, consider…
The Day After Tomorrow
The beauty is that very few people realized the true message, that…
Gotcha!
Ok, ok, maybe the wrong word choice on my part. Any of those could qualify, although frankly I have no idea what the last one is.
This movie is exactly one I would put in the category of “being beaten over the head with a message.” And I thought it was poorly executed as well. Why the f*** didn’t the two protagonists have any chemistry whatsoever? 
Deleted (referred to Jules Andre’s post).
None of those are subtle in the slightest. They had a point, they made it, and the made it blindingly clear. The only thing you can say is that The Player and Election did it with a sense of humor, but they were hardly subtle about their points (and Pulp Fiction really had no point – which was the point of it).
Look, if you have something important to say, you say it, and you say it very clearly. Unless you’re a fan of modern short fiction, where each story is a puzzle where you have to tease out a meaning (which keeps critics and English professors in business, but it pretty stupid if you really have something important to say).
I enjoyed Mean Girls and its obvious progenitor, Heathers. They started off with clearly defined “good” and “bad” characters, followed the protagonists’ progress from one camp into the other, and questioned the validity of making a distinction.
Another one to consider: Boogie Nights. It presented its theme (“Family is where you find it”) in the most roundabout way possible, and refused to judge even the most despicable characters in it. The movie it most reminded me of was, of all things, My Life as a Dog.
I thought Crash was abysmal, for the reasons already presented by others. Brokeback, on the other hand, had many redeeming qualities.
I’m glad to see there are others out there who also hated Crash.
This is going to read oddly, and this might be a “just me?” moment, but the movie that leapt to mind immediately was Earth Girls Are Easy. It wasn’t until about 3/4 of the way through that I realised it was a commentary on SoCal society rather than an aliens/first contact movie.
I hate “crash” not just for being a shitty movie, but also for stealing the title of an earlier and far better film, Crash, 1996, by David Cronenberg, an adaptation of the novel of the same name by J.G. Ballard. Ballard and Cronenberg were both very annoyed at the director of the 2005 “crash,” Paul Haggis, for using the same title instead of using a few brain cells to come up with a new one.
But that’s kind of the point, and why it answers the OP: Tarantino’s “text” is always over the top, but his subtext–when there is any (Pulp Fiction being probably the best example)–is very subtle.
RC, I usually read your movie posts with a great deal of appreciation.
But you’re wrong here. I urge you to watch it again closely. It was about the 4th time I saw it that the subtext fell into place for me, and made it one of my alltime favorite movies.