Wow. A gripping movie that gave a three-dimensional view of racism in America. Did anyone else see it this weekend? What were your thoughts? Did it change your perspective on race relations?
Hey, any movie where you can see Holly Hunter’s breast is okay by me!
Not much racing though. Just a lot of crashing and sex.
Wrong “Crash,” Johnny.
I saw it last night and thought it was very provocative in how it challenged the audience’s assumptions about the characters. It came at issues of racism and prejudice from a variety of different angles but none of the characters were stereotypes even within movie conventions. Some of those who seem to be the most irredeemable have humanity to them and can even be heroic. In the case of Matt Dillon’s “racist white cop,” character we see how much of is lashing out is rooted in a powerless rage about his dying father.
Sandra Bullock seems like a total bitch for most of the movie but has a realzation of her own at the end that doesn’t seem contrived or pat and there is a subtle reveal in her last scene that explains a lot.
I was very affected by the scenes with the Hispanic locksmith (maybe the most decent character in the movie) and his daughter because I have a five year old daughter of my own.
I liked the little bits of hope and redemption at the end, particularly the little smile by Ludacris after he does something that makes him feel good about himself for once.
Definitely a very smart, thoughtful and challenging movie. I liked it quite a bit.
I know. Just poking fun at the title, because the filmmakers used the same title as another well-known film.
[sub]Of course, Crash was also the name of a film in 1988, 1987, 1984, 1978, 1977, 1974 and 1968. Popular title. But I own the 1996 film. 
[/sub]
Great film. I agree with everything Diogenes said (the young Hispanic father’s scenes affected me the most, as well – and I’m not a father myself – yet!). The screenplay, at least, certainly deserves some major award. I assumed that the director was the same Paul who did “Magnolia” – the feel and structure of “Crash” is so similar to that film, including the *unusual-California-weather–final-shot (the main difference to me is that “Crash” deals with more universal issues) – that I was surprised to learn that that was a different Paul altogether.
Something about this film brought out terrific performances from actors from whom I expected little – Matt Dillon, Sandra Bullock … and Ludacris’ nuanced and intelligent acting. Looking forward to more from him.
I liked how the film explores how each of us, in trying to make up for a previous mistake (by ourself or a colleague), sometimes cause more damage, our actions all the while shaped by how race structures our society, and by our own self-perception (including, for some of us, having to prove our “manhood”).
(*Sorry, I haven’t figured out the “spoiler” thing yet – but this fact I mentioned really has nothing to do with the plot, so I hope it’s cool to mention it.)
Responding more directly to the OP (“what did I learn about racism?”), I’d say that, besides the more straighforward message that “a racist might have his own, personal reasons to feel a certain way” (not that that’s necessarily a good enough excuse), I learned to face a more subtle idea: that someone who considers himself non-racist might still find himself doing something that reveals his character to be more complex that he’d supposed.
Forgive the generalization, but the film also made me wonder if Los Angeles residents face these problems to a greater degree than New Yorkers – perhaps in part because New Yorkers, being less spread out geographically, are more forced to learn to live together. Of course there are many counterexamples to this – as a native New Yorker, perhaps I’m just deluding myself (there’s that theme again).
Spoilers are done by {spoiler}Spoiler.{/spoiler} except with the curly parens replaced by square brackets .
I was surprised by the outright racism given to every character’s speech in the beginning until I began to get what the movie was trying to say. I think - and it’s a hard movie to come to a neat conclusion about - that Haggis was saying that racism isn’t inherent; that it’s armor that people put on themselves in order to deal with the outside world. That we’re different inside the circle of our homes, our families, our friends where we’re accepted, protected, and loved. That to give up that armor is scary and perhaps dangerous, but necessary in the long run.
Crash does suffer a bit by being compressed into movie time (36 hours for events that would normally play out over weeks or months and give emotions a chance to cool) and movie coincidences. And the Sandra Bullock/Brenden Fraser couple were severely underwritten (or left on the cutting room floor). Overall, though, it’s one of the best movies I’ve seen in a theater in a long time. I hope that coming out at the beginning of the summer season it’s not so early that it won’t be remembered when people talk about the best movies of the year next winter.
Gracias, Mapcase. Would that customer service helplines for software or hardware were as prompt and clear as you.
Right now Metacritic is giving the film a 70. The reviews for it have either been glowing or scathing.
Wow, the smile was so slight that when I caught it, I smiled myself. I wonder:
Did you know about the blanks in the gun before or after it was revealed at the end?
The only thing I didn’t like about the movie was
I don’t think the connection that Lorenz Tate’s character was related to the cop was fleshed out well. Either I have ADD or I completely missed the memo on that one. At the end of the movie, I was like, “WTF?!”
Unfortunately, the movie - while exceptionally good - doesn’t appear Oscar-worthy. Then again, if Sideways could be nominated, then I suppose anything is possible.
- Honesty
[QUOTE=Honesty]
Wow, the smile was so slight that when I caught it, I smiled myself. I wonder:
Did you know about the blanks in the gun before or after it was revealed at the end?
I did not know. I remebered that the daughter had just asked for “red box” without bothering to find out what she was buying. I though she might have bought the wrong kind of bullets but it didn’t occur to me that she might have bought blanks.
[quote]
The only thing I didn’t like about the movie was
I don’t think the connection that Lorenz Tate’s character was related to the cop was fleshed out well. Either I have ADD or I completely missed the memo on that one. At the end of the movie, I was like, “WTF?!”
I don’t think you were supposed to know until the end. It was meant to be a surprise to the audience.
Was it actally a box of blanks? My attention (and gaze) were momentarily distracted by a wailing infant down front…when I looked back at the screen, I saw the close-up of the red box for about a millisecond. I figured it was a reveal about the bullets but why would a gun store sell blanks?
Honestly, I thought it was ridiculously obvious as soon as Don Cheadle’s mother mentioned a brother. There were two other significant black characters in the film, and the Ludacris character didn’t really fit as his brother.
Where else would you buy blanks?
I dunno…I guess I thought they were such specialty items, I figured they’d be created in prop departments for movie sets or something. :o
Interesting movie. Just saw it last night, figured there had to be a thread on it here. I liked it, but I can see how that fact that it’s often set up to make the viewer uncomfortable would cause people to have mixed feeling on it.
A couple comments on the spoilers
I picked up on the fact that the guy sold the Iraqis blanks from the get go. When the store manager reacted to the daughters quick demand for the “red box” he hesitated for a second about to say “do you know what those are…”. I knew that was going to be important, though part of me thought that maybe they were going to be oversized and cause a backfire or something. Blanks was what I assumed though.
Also
I thought things were pretty clear that Lorenz Tate’s character was Cheadle’s brother. When Cheadle was in the DAs office and the slimy politician was trying to get him to finger the white cop and he used the bro’s rap sheet with multiple auto theft convictions, it was a pretty dead give-away.
Also, I have to say that seeing Jennifer Espisito naked…so worth it. Johnny LA, much better than Holly Hunter. And Cheadle’s line about “getting all those different peoples to agree to park their cars on the lawn had my laughing out loud.”
Anyways, I haven’t really precessed the film quite enough to have intelligent commentary, but I did find myself caught off guard by the subject matter.
I found the trailer/teaser’s to be really intriguing. Had me very curious and interested to see the film. Granted I didn’t know what the themes were going to be from that though. Its sorta bug me when movies do that, and I think it invites alot of bad word-of-mouth as a result. If this movie underachieves that could be a big reason. When they used the commentary by Cheadle as the hook, discussing people “crashing” into one another desperate for contact, I sorta expected a melodrama about relationships and random emotional encounters, perhaps some type of character drama. And while that’s not wholly inaccurate, having the city and the race issues carrying such a major load is going to leave alot of viewers unpleasantly surprised. Lets face it, it’s not exactly an uplifting or fun film to watch. I’ve talked to people who hated it cause they were expecting a decent date movie, this really isn’t that.
Also, after I read the tagline on IMDB and a couple reviews after having seen the movie, it strikes me how little the trailer/teasers did to promote the movie. The tagline for the movie “You think you know who you are. You have no idea” is much more descriptive and no less compelling than the dialoge from the teaser, IMHO.
I thought it was notable since I was so caught off guard when I saw it. I’m a pretty openminded movie viewer, alot of people aren’t after dropping $30 or more…
I liked this movie, but am surprised at how much praise it’s getting from critics. We’ve seen this theme before in quite a few films, the recent “House of Sand and Fog” comes immediately to mind. Good film, but nothing new.
It was pretty good, and I don’t doubt it’s accuracy. It was definitely a thinker. And at least three times my heart rate was up and I was squirming around in my seat. I would give it four out of five stars. It’s not quite the movie it achieves to be, but it comes pretty close. And it’s the most realistic depiction of racial problems in this country that I’ve seen in a long time.
I’m sure a lot of people left the theater thinking it was an exaggeration, but it’s set in L.A. We don’t see as many different ethnicities here in Indy, and people are pretty separated from each other racially. I realize L.A. is probably just as segregated, but in L.A. you’re confronted with different kinds of people everywhere you go. It’s not so much like that here. It would seem that tension runs high.
The main point I got from it is that no one is innocent, no matter your race. And that solid point that people are basically the same, whether they are rich, poor, black, white, etc. It makes racism look really f’n stupid when you think about it that way. This movie is a great illustration of that.
I really liked the movie. Forest Whitaker is listed in the credits, but he wasn’t shown. Was his part edited out?
I saw the movie this past weekend and really like it even though it was basically about the two worst days in the character’s lives.
I thought Don Cheadle’s performance was perfect and heart-breaking (somebody give this guy an Oscar, already).
Did anyone else chuckle when Tony Danza showed up? I checked, IMDB. His character’s name wasn’t Tony!
Regarding one of the twists:
I totally knew the bullets were blanks when the gun store owner asked, “Do you know what kind of bullets these are?”
One gripe about the movie. Did any of the wives have jobs?