I finally saw Crash this weekend. It seemed to me that it was mostly people milling around in and out of each others lives, while making racial slurs. It was a good movie with great performances from just about everyone. But did I miss something in the story (which there didn’t really seem to be).
You missed whether or not the daughter knew she was buying blanks. She knew.
No, I don’t think you really missed anything. “People milling around in and out of each others lives, while making racial slurs” is about as apt a description of the film as any I’ve seen.
No, the daughter did not know about the blanks.
There was a quite lively and interesting thread about “Crash” within the past month. You should search for it.
she looked right at the box and said I want those, the clerk asked do you know what those are and she said yes
Now now, children, I thought we put the “did she know they were blanks or not?” debate to bed. But since it’s been brought up, what do you think,robdavsuss?
In answer to your question, it sounds like you got exactly what one should get out of a movie; enjoyment. If its intended message about racism touched you in any meaningful way, that’s an added bonus. If you simply dug it becasue Thandi Newton looked hot, that’ cool too. Were you expecting more because of all the hype? I know I was hoping to be blown away and when I finally saw it ( just a few weeks ago)it pretty much lived up to my expectations. Other films that have received massive acclaim (hello English Patient, you insufferable bore)didn’t do a thing for me.
Here’s the Great Blanks Debate for all to enjoy.
They’re still arguing that? Are people really so deaf to story conventions? :rolleyes: It’s 100% clear that she did, and you really have to be clueless to argue otherwise.
No, she didn’t!
The film is basically an overwrought and less interesting retooling of Grand Canyon. Save that it came in a year of mediocre films I can’t see why it deserves such reverence.
Holy crap; #84 on the IMDb.com Top 250 list? People are easily impressed, I guess.
No, it is a *fact * of the story that she knew they were blanks, as revealed by the director in his commentary.
It is absolutely not 100% clearthat she did, or there wouldn’t be so many people that interpreted it otherwise. :rolleyes: right back at ya.
How insulting do you get when you’re debating something of real importance, **Reality Chuck ** ?
After thinking about the movie, yes, I think she knew they were blanks. She was pretty adamant about buying the red box. By the way, who played the daughter… she sure is pretty.
Bahar Soomekh played the daughter who knew she was buying blanks.
Yes, she did.
- What kind of ammunition do you want?
- Whatever fits.
-We got a lot of kinds. We got long colts, short colts, bull heads, flat nose, hollow points, wide cutters, and a dozen more that’ll fit any size hole. Just depends upon how much bang you can handle.
-I’ll take the ones in the red box.
- You know what those are?
- Can I have them?
I’m pretty sure the only reason that screenwriter didn’t have the the gun shop owner explicitly say, “You know these are blanks, right? And you still want them?” was to maintain the audience’s surprise at the ending.
Looked like it worked.
Maybe RealityChuck meant ‘it’s 100% clear [to those listening to the director’s commentary] that she knew’ … Which may not be accurate either…
It seems odd to me that once the “what did the movie-makers intend” issue is resolved, people still get so heated up over the “how did you interpret it”, or “how well was it conveyed”. (Not you, WOOKINPANUB, but a lot of responses in the other thread and here.)
And back to the OP: Yes, you definitely missed something. Unless you never blink.
I agree, there really isn’t much more to say once the director gives the definitive answer. Just thought Reality Chuck was being rather snarky considering how many people did not understand it the way the director intended them to.
Sure, the director says X, but what he was really saying is Y.
The meaning of any work of art depends as much upon the viewer interpreting the art as it does the artist. Once an artist releases the work its meaning no longer belongs to him. Director be damned. No way she knew.
Anyway, to the op. The movie wasn’t really about anything in the sense of one consistent plotline. It was more several overlapping short stories exploring similar themes of prejudgements based on superficial features and how each of us, including the most well intentioned, do it, how we each deal with that, and how the most overt racist can have a positive side as well. Throw in a little bit of how many of use race as a clumsy way to lash out in anger, and themes of isolation within crowds, and you got a movie. A great movie? Nah. But neither was Brokeback or anything else this year.
The director messed up by not making it clear that she knew. The point is that her father didn’t know. The daughter really is a tertiary character: she wasn’t shown to have any racially-based predudices, nor did she face any consequences from them.
My view on “ownership” of released art is that the artist retains 51% ownership.