My take is that the “moral of the story” can be put, colloquially, as “You just never know about people.”
-FrL-
She was probably aware, from her role in the medical examiner’s office, that his gun was way more likely to kill or injure him or a member of the family than it would be to kill or injure a burglar or vandal.
No, it’s clear from the scene that she initially put no thought into the ammunition but her eyes shift and light very specifically on the box of blanks while the store owner id listing off the different kinds of ammo.
If she had said “give me a box of blanks” then the whole “invisible bullet-proof cloak” segment wouldn’t have been paid off. She didn’t say “give me a box of blanks” because the writer can’t, in the context of the story, reveal that she’s buying blanks. Her word choice is not a character knowledge issue; it’s a storytelling issue.
What, was I being too subtle in pointing out the film’s lack of subtlety? The moral of the story is “RACISM IS BAD” in big flashing neon letters thirteen feet high.
No, I disagree. That’s not the message of the movie. Its a presupposition of the movie.
The message of the movie has more to do with the possibility of radical shifts in our understanding of people’s motives and natures as we see how they live out their lives.
In other words, when it comes to people, you just never know.
As to this stuff about the blanks, you people are just nuts. Which is code for, dammit, I’m going to have to watch the movie again now. 
And I didn’t really like the movie that much…
-FrL-
One thing I’ve noticed is that many of the people that didn’t like this film make the point that it is heavy handed; they don’t appreciate being hit over the head with the film’s obvious message. I agree that the situations and much of the dialogue are over the top, but all this time I’ve been thinking it’s intentionally portrayed that way. It never occured to me that we’re supposed to view this as a realistic slice of life, but more as a fable(?) If the director is trying to sell this as a serious drama, than yeah, I agree it is far from a good picture, much less the best picture of the year, but somehow, when taken in the context of a sort of modern day faerie tale, I thinks it works pretty well.
Did anyone else see take it that way?
I did.
I didn’t think the film was best picture material, and it’s not one of my favorite films, but I liked it okay. I think the “its too heavy-handed” criticisms miss the mark for just the reason you’ve articulated. In fact, I’ve never been able to explain why I thought its heavy-handedness was okay quite as well as you have here. I hereby declare my intention to crib your analysis as my own in future personal conversations.
-FrL-
Calling it a fable is the only way it works for me, and just barely.
Are we expected to believe that anyone in the movie will act differently in the future or even examine their behavior, because of “lessons learned”? I don’t. But I don’t want a Crash 2 to find out either. 
Another vote for Wook’s “fable” analysis. Thank you!
Yeah, Crash is a fable movie. Fable spelled with a double-e in the middle.
Based on an informal survey of the academic department of which I am student, I can confidently conclude the following:
Four out of five philosophically trained persons believe the lady did not know she was buying blanks.
Sample size: five.
-FrL-
Welcome
RE the blanks / no blanks question, I think I need to watch it again, this time paying closer attention. I don’t suppose it impacts the story all that much, but now my inquiring mind wants to know.
Update:
The ratio is now, unfortunately for me, four out of eight philosophically trained persons.
-Kris
I’m pretty confident that I, having never loaded nor wielded a gun in my life, would not be able to tell if you gave me a handful of blanks or live ammo. They’re pinched at the end? How do I know that’s not normal? Or, more precisely, how do I know that means they’re blanks? Maybe I bought pinchy bullets.
I still think she didn’t know … but I am a little bothered that she didn’t see the word “Blanks” on the box. I tried to explain that by supposing that she didn’t know what blanks were; but even I’m not that ignorant, so that didn’t work.
Long-time lurker here… and this thread made me finally subscribe to this board. Not because the topic is near and dear to me, but just because I finally have one thing to add to a discussion.
For whatever it’s worth: I was watching this movie when it came out, and after this scene I whispered to my girl friend “I think she bought blanks” (and I thought she did so purposely). I can get her to testify to that if need be.
…To prove what? I guess just that there was something about the scene that, before it being revealed at the end, suggested to me that she was purchasing blanks, and on purpose.
Or it could be that I was already cynical at that point, to where I was thinking “I’ll be they’re going to pull a fast on here somehow…”
Anyhow, there’s my two cents.
–KidScruffy
Okay, three typos. Should be “girlfriend”, and “I’ll bet they’re going to pull a fast one”.
Sheesh.
–KidScruffy
Those of you arguing that she accidentally bought blanks seem not to have paid close attention to what happened earlier in the conversation. She does not want her father to have a gun in the first place.
How do we know that? She tells him that she’s not going to leave until he gives her a gun or returns their money but she really hopes he gives her back the money. Given it’s her dad, who better to know that he’s likely to go off half-cocked when presented with perceived provocation? Therefore her insistance that he give her the blanks after harrying her about if she knew what they were is very believable.
I find it strange that so many people think it was a coincidence that the daughter of a nutcase who didn’t read English well accidentally bought him blanks that’d result in him not actually killing someone when he inevitably got belligerent enough to wave that gun around.
The movie also makes a point, when dealing with the insurance agent, that the storeowner/father can’t read English, only speak it. I took this as a hint that the daughter knew what was in the clearly labeled box, but the father did not. Maybe not at the time of purchase (although I think that as well), but certainly within minutes afterwards.
I’m well aware she didn’t want him to have a gun.
But how depraved would she have to be to, once he has a gun, deliberately provide him with blanks?
That’s sure to get him killed, if he ever ends up using the thing.
-FrL-
Again, she was aware that his gun was more likely to kill or injure him, her or her mother than an intruder. It’s not at all depraved of her, when dealing with a father whom she knows has a short temper and knowing the statistics, to keep him away from live ammunition.
Welcome KidScruffy! I’m glad our little pow wow lured you out of the darkness that is Lurkdom. Hope you’ll pitch in your .02 often
I’ve been accused of the following myself on a few occasions when discussing this issue, so I’m glad to be able to turn the accusation around:
You’re importing alot of assumptions into your interpretation of her motivation.
Anyway, here’s a list of evidence for the she-didn’t-know interpretation:
- She didn’t specifically ask for blanks.
- When given the chance, (questioned by the gun shop owner) she didn’t explain that she knew they were blanks.
- She went to look at the bullets after the incident, seemingly indicating she was in that act discovering what kind of bullets they were.
- The motif of the movie is such that, in each sub-plot, there is a coincidence which works to undermine the involved characters’ former intentions, and which brings these characters (and the audience) to a dramatic climax. On the she-knew interpretation, the motif is broken by this subplot, since what happens is exactly the kind of thing the bullet buyer expected to happen–her intentions are not undermined. On the she-didn’t-know interpretation, however, the motif is preserved, as the coincidence undermining her intentions is exactly what brings the audience and characters to the dramatic climax of that sub-plot.
I propose that others list further pieces of evidence, both for this interpretation and the other interpretation, and also, that people look at the evidence for the interpretation they disagree with and try to say something about what undermines that evidence.
-FrL-