Crash -- Deserving of Best Picture?

[Frosted_Glass]

Originally Posted by The Big Cheese
I only saw Crash & Brokeback, of the two Brokeback was better. Watching Crash I thought I almost felt I was watching a PBS Frontline documentary. They seemed to pull out every thing that could go wrong and put them in 2 hours. Good, you bet, but it just felt forced to me.

Interesting to hear the PBS comparison from someone else. I had a discussion about the Frontline feel of Crash with a fellow commuter on the bus this morning. Were you pretending to be asleep behind us? .

While I do feel that Brokeback was a good movie, I do not feel as if I learned anything from it. “Gosh, it is hard being gay.” Before I get attacked, I know that’s an over simplification but I think that the movie would have moved from good to excellent if it challenged the viewer a little more. Granted, the overall American public may not be used to dealing with the subject at all, but it does not seem, IMHO, beneficial to give it an Oscar because its the “first” mainstream movie to take a serious look at homosexual issues. To be fair though, I did not really learn much from Crash either. Another good movie, but best picture of 2005…eh. It is hard for me to say without having seen 3 of the 5 nominees.

Personally, I was partial to The Constant Gardener but that was not an option, and I have yet to see Capote, Munich or GN&GL.

[Rubystreak]

I thought* Crash* was an excellent movie with an engaging storyline and full of strong performances. However, Brokeback Mountain is destined to be a classic, IMO. It’s the difference between 4 stars and 5 for me.

But boy, are people touchy about this, touchier than they need to be. This thread is evidence enough, but at work today, I said I was disappointed that Crash beat BBM. One of my co-workers said acidly, “Did you even SEE Crash?” Why yes, I did, and in spite of that, I liked* BBM * better. It’s a matter of TASTE, you see, and no one is going to change anyone’s mind about which is better, so why get all in my face about it?

Is what I’m saying.

[woodstockbirdybird]

I thought Crash was a pile of shit, and it had nothing to do with the coincidences. It had to do with the unbelievably simple-minded treatment of the subject matter - it was like watching an After School Special with bigger stars. Almost every frame of the movie had me thinking of the filmmaker’s smug pride at the fact that “there are no sides being taken and no judgement going on - I’m just presenting the issue in an intelligent manner” (whether that was his thought process or not; that’s the feeling I got from it). Except it wasn’t intelligent; it didn’t tell me a damn thing about the human condition I hadn’t already deduced by age 14. In fact, it felt like it was written by a classroom full of 14 year-olds as a project on the “complexity of racism” or some such topic. Despite all the talk of the examination of a complex issue, it came off as hopelessly simplistic in its treatment. The coincidences were an obvious gimmick, which I’d resigned myself to halfway through the film, so they didn’t bother me nearly as much as the unbearably Lifetime movie quality of the rest of the script. But I’m sure trunk will be along to tell me that was part of the point, too.

[Interrobang]

Matt Zoller Seitz wrote a pretty good analysis of why some people really, really, really didn’t care for Crash. And the word “coincidence” never comes up.

Excerpt:

@Matt Zoller Seitz

Yes, I admit, the movie’s more primally exciting than, say, “American Beauty” or “A Beautiful Mind” or “The English Patient,” and more superficially “edgy.” But it’s also dumber and meaner and uglier, an Importance Machine that rolls over you like a tank. And it’s lazy and simplistically cynical about its central subject, race, in that it promulgates a false idea of how Americans express racial attitudes in public. Cowritten by Haggis and Robert Moresco, “Crash” directly contradicts what we know about how race plays out in the U.S. today, not just in Los Angeles, but all over.

[Cervaise]

@Interrobang!?

Matt Zoller Seitz wrote a pretty good analysis of why some people really, really, really didn’t care for Crash.

Bingo.

[John_Mace]

@Gangster Octopus

I know one of my gripes with Crash is that I live in L.A. and it bears no resemblance to the city. It gives the impression, or at least it seems to me, that LA. is full of racially insensitive people. And undoubtedly they are. But the universe of characters in the movie is both too small and too big. It is no where near representative of the prevailing attitudes in L.A., ergo too small. But by portraying so many different races and so many different lifestyles it is in some ways trying to be all-encompasing of L.A. (and I suppose of society as a whole), ergo too big. So it fails, in my mind. I think the movie could have been so much more effective if they had consentrated on one of the storylines.

But the fact that it was LA, and not some other town, is completely irrelevant.

I think I appreciated it more the second time I saw it. I was surprised how well it stood up to a second viewing. I do remember the first time I saw it I was kind of distracted by thinking it was too similar to House of Sand and Fog.

[Rubystreak]

@Matt Zoller Seitz

And it’s lazy and simplistically cynical about its central subject, race, in that it promulgates a false idea of how Americans express racial attitudes in public.

Did this guy forget that the Rodney King beating happened in LA in recent memory? I know James Byrd was Texas and not LA, but to say that Crash “promulgates a false idea” about American racism is rather spectacularly disingenuous. Most white Americans would like to think that, but it seems to be this kind of criticism is coming from people who are in denial. Do you think cops like Matt Dillon’s character exist only in fiction? And that the subsequent conversation between Newton and Howard’s characters doesn’t happen? Or that Sandra Bullock’s character isn’t everywhere? If so, you’re kidding yourself.

Sure, on your typical day, many of the events of Crash would be out of the ordinary, but how many Oscar-winning movies are about just an ordinary day? Clearly the movie depicts highly dramatic and extraordinary incidents, but it IS a movie, after all, and the characters are in unique situations. It’s under stress that people show their true colors.

Criticisms like this are absurd, IMO. You didn’t like the movie, it didn’t do it for you, OK. But don’t try to discount racism in America to justify a matter of taste. That’s going too far.

[interface2x]

@Trunk

The accolades for the writing were deservedly prominent in many reviews of Crash. Do a quick scan of Rotten Tomatoes. . .

“Crash is hyper-articulate and often breathtakingly intelligent and always brazenly alive. I think it’s easily the strongest American film since Clint Eastwood’s Mystic River, though it is not for the fainthearted.” -Dave Denby from the New Yorker

“Haggis writes with such directness and such a good ear for everyday speech that the characters seem real and plausible after only a few words. His cast is uniformly strong; the actors sidestep cliches and make their characters particular.” – Ebert.

I was more partial to the thoughts of the LA Times review …

“The movie’s structure has drawn comparisons to “Short Cuts” and “Magnolia,” though it’ll feel familiar to anyone who submits to regular cudgelings by “hard-hitting” network TV dramas that wield messages like bludgeons.”

“Every conflict in “Crash” — even lovers’ quarrels — is racially motivated, and having hit on this key to human inhumanity, the director pursues the line with extreme (sorry) prejudice. There may be a million stories in the naked city, but there are something like 20 principal characters in this movie, and they expend 90 minutes of screen time on roughly one topic of conversation.”

“‘You think you know who you are,’ the racist cop Officer Ryan (Matt Dillon) tells his green, uninitiated partner. ‘You have no idea.’ Actually, in “Crash,” you do. Whatever flimsy layers cover the characters’ raging 24-hour xenophobia are swept away by the slightest breeze.”

I swear I might have written that review.

[Marley23]

@Rubystreak

Or that Sandra Bullock’s character isn’t everywhere? If so, you’re kidding yourself.

Hoo boy, is she everywhere. I wish I’d kept track of how many people I’ve spoken to who voice their concerns about local crime by saying “[primarily white suburban home town] is turning into [nearby, mostly black town].” A few will even go so far as talking about all the minorities who’ve moved in.

[Spoke]

I didn’t even think Crash should have been nominated. Syriana was a better film. (In fact Syriana was the best film of the year in my opinion. Of the films actually nominated, I thought Brokeback Mountain was the best, and by a healthy margin.)

[amarinth]

@Rubystreak

Do you think cops like Matt Dillon’s character exist only in fiction? And that the subsequent conversation between Newton and Howard’s characters doesn’t happen? Or that Sandra Bullock’s character isn’t everywhere? If so, you’re kidding yourself.

I do think they only talk like that in fiction, and in bad, heavy handed fiction at that. I agree with that review, not that there isn’t racism, but that Crash isn’t how racism looks.

The coincidences didn’t bother me (law of economy of characters at work). And the actual performances of the actors were quite good. But their material sucked. The dialogue was, for the most part, forced and stupid. The storyline was the same.

I found it to be pretentious, in a bad way - “look at me, I’m exploring racism.” But they weren’t, not in a good, well thought out, well delivered way.

There was a better movie somewhere in the idea of Crash, but they didn’t have the skill to write or film it.

[Spoke]

@Rubystreak

But boy, are people touchy about this, touchier than they need to be.

It is sort of odd. Some supporters of Crash seem weirdly defensive about it.

[woodstockbirdybird]

@spoke-

I didn’t even think Crash should have been nominated. Syriana was a better film. (In fact Syriana was the best film of the year in my opinion. Of the films actually nominated, I thought Brokeback Mountain was the best, and by a healthy margin.)

Agreed. Syriana (though the subject matter was different) was everything Crash tried to be and failed miserably at.

[Malodorous]

I liked Crash, and have no problem with it winning.

A lot of people are criticizing it for being too heavy handed, but I actually liked it for the opposite reason:

While a lot of movies gunning for an Oscar really lay on the tragedy, Crash had the taste to let most of its characters end up being both more or less OK in the end, both physically and morally. While tear jerkers have thier place, I liked the mix of optimism and cynicism shown in this movie. It’s something that we don’t see enough of, instead hollywood too often produces storybook endings or bloodsoaked Shakesperian tragedies

Of the other nominees I saw, Good Night and Good Luck was great, but it’s documentary like feel made it hard to get too enthused about it. In a way it’s probably a greater feat to make a movie seem like an undoctored recitation of the facts, but it feels less impressive.

Brokeback Mountain was a well executed movie (they should throw the director a compinsation prize), but honestly if you just change the gender of one of the leads, its basically a story that’s been done many times before.

[Larry_Mudd]

I can’t really offer an opinion, because Crash is the only one of the nominated films that I haven’t gotten around to seeing yet.

All I can say is that if it can be considered a better film than Capote, well… wow. Capote is nearly-perfect art.

And Brokeback Mountain rocked my world, too. Note perfect.

Good Night, and Good Luck left me awestruck, but then I’m one of those weirdos who’s actually an Edward R. Murrow fan, and I actually expected it to be less well-received than it was, so I didn’t really expect it to win – especially with the stiff competition.

Munich was wrenching and perfectly put together.

Crash was at the bottom of my list because the excerpts that I’ve seen all looked a bit stagey and histrionic. It was still on my list, because the premise sounds great and the cast features several actors that are on my “See them in anything” list.

I was utterly gobsmacked. I mean, you’ve got four fecking stand-out movies there. Absolute peak pictures. --and then there’s this one movie that everything I’ve heard and seen about led me to think “Probably a decent movie.”

I must say, now that it’s won, I’m much more eager to see it. Usually, it doesn’t work that way for me. (I just got around to seeing Forrest Gump a couple of months ago.) This time, though – if that many Acadamy voters looked at Crash in that company and said “That’s the one!” …well, I’ll probably pick up the DVD in the next couple of days.

[Gangster_Octopus]

@John Mace

But the fact that it was LA, and not some other town, is completely irrelevant.

I don’t know if I agree with the 100%. I understand that they were trying to make some generic point without regard to L.A., but there is a reason it takes place in this city. L.A. is an extremely diverse city. It is also can be a very alienating one, very spread out, where folks don’t really know or attach themselves to their neighborhoods. Don Chaedle speech about folks “crashing into one another” may be a commentary on modern life, but it is especialy relevant in Los Angeles.

However, whether you believe it being set in L.A. is relevant or not, to me, living in L.A., it seemed false and contrived.

[irishgirl]

OK I liked ONE thread in crash.
The one with the Hispanic Locksmith and the Arab shop owner.

I’ve seen it twice.
Once with my husband (we thought it was well-acted and directed but not brilliant and the message blunderbuss subtle) and once with my sisters (again, same response).

The biggest reason I disliked Crash can be summed up by my Chinese-Malaysian friend, who was seriously unimpressed with the film.

" People are racist- that’s not a big shock- still, it wasn’t very believable racism, was it?"

[Clothahump]

I thought it should win. It was on my shortlist for potential Oscar after I saw it. Excellent movie.

[Trunk]

With all due respect to IrishGirl’s friend. . .but if you came away from the movie believing the message was “people are racist” and then call out the movie for being as subtle as a blunderbuss, the fault lies NOT with the movie.

The fact that the movie was talking about race was overt. What it was saying wasn’t.

In some situations, people are racist. Sometimes they have to be. Sometimes things that appear racist, aren’t. Some things that don’t appear racist, are. Sometimes people are racist out of ignorance. Sometimes they’re racist out of fear. Sometimes they’re racist out of experience – and when the writer didn’t shy away from ideas like this last one, that is what made it a great movie.

Consider the scene in which Ryan Phillippe kills the black guy with the statue. Any movie can make you sympathize with that character. That’s easy. How many movies make you really empathize with him – and if not him, at least one of the other characters. (And why could it do that? Because, on top of its ideas, it was brilliantly written, directed, and acted but I digress.)

I don’t know. Maybe some of you never have to deal with race, or class. Maybe you’re never sitting at a red light at midnight with your wife in the car and you notice you’re next to a bus stop with 4 thugs in it. Maybe your ideas about class are so finely tuned so that if one of those guys walks up and taps on her window, you roll the window down because he’s probably just asking for directions.

Maybe you’ve never hired a contractor to do some yard work and had him send some guy who looks like a stone-cold junkie who thinks it would be nice to have access to your bathroom.

Maybe the dude in the park just standing there for the last two mornings, watching everyone get in their car and leave, is just out for a breath of fresh air.
Maybe you’ve never had to call the doctor’s office to check on a loved one, and had Denise answer instead of Shaniqua, or vice-versa.

Are any of these things DAILY occurences? Of course not, but they are the kinds of things you’re faced with living in America, and living in the city, and when I hear someone say that they think the movie was preachy, or liberal, or obvious, I really question how far their own thinking on the subject extends.

Mabye some people are fortunate enough to never have their fairy-tale Sociology 101 lessons actually butt up against their daily experience. Maybe some of them are so locked-in to their mindsets, that they really ignore their personal experiences. Maybe that came out with an unwillingness, or inability, to really let this movie effect them. This movie went way beyond “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner” or “Grand Canyon”. Way beyond.

The worse part of the criticism is not from the right who think the film was preachy and liberal, but from the left who are comfortable with where we’ve arrived on the issue of race. Like that guy from the LA Times who called it the worst movie of the year.

(also, I don’t expect non-Americans to connect with this movie. That’s a whole different topic, though.)

[GargoyleWB]

@woodstockbirdybird

Agreed. Syriana (though the subject matter was different) was everything Crash tried to be and failed miserably at.

Yes. Syriana and Crash both used the same gimmicky narrative technique (diverse unrelated multiple stories and characters eventually meeting), yet Syriana managed to create interesting characters with complex conflicts and emotional depth. Crash was populated with shallow single-issue cutout characters, any of whom could have been deleted from the movie without affecting the film or story.

Syriana was far superior.