Isn't it nice to see all the friendliness going on in this thread?



In any case, my anticipation for the movie is raised, as it seems to be yet another entry in the love/hate category.

If a cop had his fingers in your vagina, and then the very next day resuced you from a burning vehicle where he risked his life to save you from being barbecued alive, which is one of the most heinous ways to die, I think you would be somewhat thankful for it and perhaps a slight smile would find it's way from your lips. The film was an exercise in dicotomy. It only takes a nudge to make a good guy a bad guy and visca versa. I love these scenarios and I love how they paint us all as being capable of going both ways. That was the true power of Crash.

Shouldn't you use a spoiler warning?

If a cop had his fingers in your vagina, and then the very next day resuced you from a burning vehicle where he risked his life to save you from being barbecued alive, which is one of the most heinous ways to die, I think you would be somewhat thankful for it and perhaps a slight smile would find it's way from your lips. The film was an exercise in dicotomy. It only takes a nudge to make a good guy a bad guy and visca versa. I love these scenarios and I love how they paint us all as being capable of going both ways. That was the true power of Crash.

Which was apparently all of this. I have chosen to comb through the cinemania thread and find posts (uneditted) of what others got out of the movie. These are not my words, they are yours, several of you anyways. Coincidentally, I got the exact same thing out of the movie as well.

















<---So him fingering her wasn't his true character? Exactly. Picture if these two scenes had been reversed? He had saved her first, so when he pulled them over, she was friendly and thanking him, and then he proceeded to abuse his position. Would you have left the theatre feeling differently about him?

<-----Which he did do at the end. So in fact, his character enforced the stereotype, not countered it.



<-----Grande gesture, but since people already let Dillon off the hook, and said what Phillipe did in the end was "understandable" there weren't actually any "bad" white guys in this film. Please, point one out. As it stands, all the "bad" guys (count the amount of guns guys, and the illegal immigrant peddler) in the movie were minorities. Again, not practicing what its preaching. It actually reinforced racial stereotypes. To the point, apparently, were people don't feel bad saying stuff like "Black peole ARE bad guys", and that good honest white people have been professionally screwed over by minority quotas (which are marginal to say the least).

In regards to Nona, because heaven forbid she was qualified for the posititon and didn't get there by government handouts and sleeping to the top. Interestingly enough, I didn't pick up on this what-so-ever, considering she didn't have one line in the entire movie, or even one hair out of place. SO it was interesting to hear everyone else picking up on it:







*

Doesn't look like this movie was really challenging any of these problematic sentiments, since most comments here feel like they already fell in line with, and are endorsing, the perpetuation of archaic racial myths, rather than making people leave the theatre and actually wondering about Dillon's clearly offensive exchange with Shaniqua.

The above quotes feel more like people could leave the theatre patting themselves on the back for finding a film that told them it is ok to freak out about even well dressed black youth in an expensive part of town, that cops can be racist but in the end are good honest men, that the language barriar inevitably leads to violence but only in one direction (minority up, not in reverse), pointing to violence as a justification for their assumptions all latinos are gang members, and most problematic to me, that black people "rob" white people of jobs or only climb up the professional ladder by sleeping their way up (those loose black women, they're so vulgar and unprofessional, she probably not even as qualified as some white people for the position, and had to find some other means of getting there).

Now everyone here knows I give precedence to content and "message" more than even technical qualities of a film. So regardless of dialogue, etc, which I've already stated my sentiment on, and style will always be debateable (to each his own); this is what the movie boiled down to for me. What the ultimate message the audiance got from it was. Not the original intentions of Haggis, Cheadle, and Co., but what the majority of people walked away saying from this movie.

The above comments are what we all (yes I got these same sentiments too) got after leaving the theate. We even took the time to write them down in detailed posts. So the big question is if you find this message commendable or condemnable in a movie made in 2005? It is the message many people got from it, the quotes come from multiple posters (I removed names, because it really doesn't matter, it was general quotes, I don't want to finger point). I couldn't personally applaud a movie that reinforced the above sentiments and (un)intentionally perpetuated all the stereotypes it had probably originally set out to debunk, in 2005 no less.

<----- true, it managed to completely derail discussions of institutional racisim, which is too bad, because they exist, and cultural conditioning "forms" the individuals within it to a big extant. Now we can all sit back and think its just other individuals who are racist, and therefor, continue to congratulate ourselves on being "ok" even if we harbor similar (mis)understandings. We can now wax philosophy about a cop abusing his position to sexually harass someone, or a woman who has conversations with her best friend of ten years about her useless Hispanic maid and gardener. Because, in the end, aren't we all a little racist? Instead of challenging that, we should embrace it as human fallability and then continue on unaffected in our habits.

This movie seems to have not actually challenged anyone to the point they reflected on their own habits, and I find it a big surprise that that the above messages seemed to have resonated well with viewers. What in those above words would lead someone to say this was poignant in the least, or even a useful tool for exploring racial friction? I personally, found them deeply problematic. Frankly, I wish people hadn't "connected" with this movie's messages, just because of its visceral content (who doesn't feel bad when a little kid gets shot?). What the use for connecting and endorsing the above messages is beyond me.

*

Ok. I won't big you guys anymore. I think I finally managed to say what I felt about it in a more clear way.

All I can to this last comment is you don't know what's its liked to raped, I do, and I don't care what the person who raped me does, save my life, etc..it cannot undo the violation that occured in the past. Because it doesn't fall into the past that easily, you cannot forget a sexual violation like its nothing. I wish I could.

I actually had to see the person who raped right after, for reasons I refuse to discuss.

I don't doubt her being thankful, but this man is both repsonsible for saving her life and also a great violatation of her privacy and dignity...one does not out the other.



Again like I said to Mav above, all I can say you don't know what its like to actually go through it, and I am not sure I can explain it to you, except to say that I will never forget it, that the thought of it still repluses me and causes my skin to crawl.

No, this is a review thread about Crash.

I am very sorry that it happened to you Ripper, and I not trying to say that I understand it, but dying by flame is not an easy way to go. He saved her, that does not exonerate his past actions, but for that one moment in time, he was a good person.

I am not denying the heroism of that act, but it doesn't undo what he did less then 20 hours prior to her, or what he might do next time he pulls someone over. My problem with the scene is her reaction, she cries in his arms, gives him a forgiving look, like "Oh you save my life, its okt hat you finger fucked me." Personally I find that insulting and a little deeming, it undercuts the power of the orginal scene. Newton's whole reaction in the movie just didn;t ring true to me, her interaction with her husband, etc...I just didn't buy any of that storyline.

Okay, I saw it Tuesday night and I have to admit that it was really good. The best movie of 2005, so far, that's for sure. Sandra Bullock really impressed me, and so did everyone else actually. It was a little too short, but very very good.

A- probably.

edit...l'm over this film

Dolce, you can't take half quotes when the full quotes completely kills the point you are trying to make. Here's my full quote, and this should not have been edited to try to make a point.

"Perceptions of Officer Hanson (Ryan Phillippe) was that of the clean cut all American guy with morals, when in truth, he was trash. Not for killing Peter (Larenz Tate), that was an understandable reaction to the situation (it's a bad world out there), but for what he did afterwards."

As you can see, I clearly stated he was really a bad guy, even though he wasn't always portrayed that way. So was the gun store owner, so was Rick (Brenden Fraser, who was more concerned with the black vote that his own wife's trauma), so was Jean's (Sandra Bullock) friend, who was too busy getting a massage to help her friend who had fallen down the stairs. There was plenty of whites shown in a bad light, but nobody was painted fully in a bad light. The blacks weren't, either. That's why I made the comment that people are bad SOMETIMES, and didn't say some people are bad ALL the time. That's the part of the film that I think completely escaped you.

But still people could come in just looking for REVIEWS for the film before they see it, not SPOILERS.

It doesn't undercut anything Cynthia and that was not the point of the scene. We all know that Dillon is an ass in the film, but the fact that he displayed an act of heroism just proves that he is in fallible, just like the rest of us. As fucked as this may sound, a guy that rapes someone is still capable of saving someone from aburning car. I think she would have been greatful for that. Do you think she would have rather died in the blaze? I think she would be damn thankful of what just happened, and for that one brief moment, he would have a saint, not the sinner that he is.

Um, not to derail this cause I've said all I want to about the movie, but for some of you guys that found the "dual" nature of Dillon interesting, I want to recommend you all watch this movie with Ryan Gosling called The Believer. Very well done and interesting. I'd like to know what you guys think about it if you get a chance to watch it.

This forum has always run on the notion that there will be spoilers in the threads. You shouldn't come view a thread like this if you don't want spoilers. It was the same way at Box Office Mojo.

Man, this is a tough one to grade. On one hand, it is a technically well made film - great acting, nice direction, good cinematography, but on the other hand, everything that happens in the final reel of the film is just completely absurd and preposterous. The personality changes the characters go through at the drop of a hat is just...too much. I get the point Haggis is trying to make here (we all have our heroic moments and our not so heroic moments), but it is all so ridiculously overwrought and melodramatic that it's hard to grasp on to. It's all very contrived and brutally obvious, and in the end it ends up saying nothing about race relations in America. I'm giving it a hesitant and disappointed B-, for now. I read a review the other day that said this is the kind of film a white guy makes to make all of his other white guy friends feel like they've confronted the problem of racism head on. I couldn't agree more.

I was made a villain for suggesting this very thing.

My dear, I would never make a villian out of you.

But I am so good at being bad :wink:

You're the best at being bad, and I quite enjoy it, even if I get a little scared. :razz:

I know why what I said bothered people, it like alot of things was not meant with offense, but I know better then anyone that when evoke race to describe something, that its hard for to come off any other way then offensive.

You should honestly watch Do the Right Thing...it a movie that tends to make people mad, and that's why I think I have yet to see a better film address the race issue, it makes one feel all the emotions they would feel in a heated situation. All the characters in Do the Right Thing are greater then their acts of pracism without it feeling the need to make the angel sin one scene and the devil in another. Do the RIght Thing feel slike a day in reality, you can see this happening in neighborhoods all over country on any day, which is why I think its such an important film and also why I think so many people dislike it so much...it offers no answer, no hope that these people learned anything, instead it makes you think about the stuff you said and done in life, and if you've learned anything.

I think all to often on difficult subjects, we want films that make us feel like things are getting better, that provide hope...but I prefer they provide a realistic sense of hope.

But I am rambling again, as I am want to do.

What made Million Dollar Baby so great was the people, you connected with the people and their relationships, so I was surprised to learn that Haggis has written both (I nevr knew who wrote MBD, the focus was on Eastwood and Swank so I just never paid much attention to that detail).

I think if that film has dropped the need to connect the characters so much I owuld dislike it less. For example, image if Matt Dillion had saved a black women, not Newton and not the HMO worker...but just some other women. Then the point is made that he capable of both good and evil without trivilizing the evil that he did.

I honestly wasn't offended, really. I felt it was understandable, and I think that your reaction was very much like what Haggis was trying to convey, but it was also the same reaction that I had after watching Do The Right Thing. I think Spike Lee is very racist. I'm not alone there, as his preaching lost the white audience. I can understand your reaction more than you know.



I agree with that, but I didn't feel that hope was the message. We are hopeless as people. We are so clan-like, that nothing short of an alien invasion would ever truely bring us to an understanding that we are all human beings, regardless of race, gender, or religion. I hate to say it, but as long as we survived it, something like that would do the world a lot of good.



That is one of the coincidences, and though I loved the movie, I didn't give it a strong A, but an A-, and I could have gladly accepted less of those things, but I think the Newton/Dillon scene was powerful, and had that been just some other woman, it would have lost something. I can understand why you would have been unforgiving, due to your own experience, but not everyone is the same. She was repulsed by the sight of him at first, but had no choice but to put her life in his hands, and he risked his own to save her. That's gotta count for something, even after what he did. I wouldn't consider what he did to be quite on the same scale as rape, although it was disgusting, but I can understand how he redeemed himself in her eyes.

I can understand you feeling he is racist, but if you think he's racist, then I think you might find you find alot of minorities racist.

One of the major reasons I like Do the RIght Thing is its bsaed in reality, the argument over the picture's on Sal's resturant si about so m uch more then the pictures...but I could see that fight happening. I have felt alot of hostility from white people in my life who ave assumed that I got were I ddi moreso for my race then my intelligence. Rarely do they come out and say that though, not to my face. The people in Crash had no subtely, at all. Most people make racist comments, but they don't see themselves as racist, they are not so blunt as this film. Loyal made a comment that the movie felt revelent for 1994, and I have to agree. In the argumetn over the picture you can see where both side are coming from, even if they cannot see it themselves, it more complex then right or wrong, and that was lackign from Crash. In every racially tense situation Haggis clearly gave you a right or wrong, and racial tension in this country is far more complex.

Another thing is the scene where Mookie goes and asks Sal for his money, there is a realism in to that. It completely in line with Mookie's character.

If this is the reaction Haggis wanted me to have, then I find that odd, as now if I se ehis name attached to a film my interest in it is going to do down, way down. I've recommened to anyone who asks that they skip this movie. That seems like the opposite reaction you want when you make a movie. I don't mind if I leave a movie and that its racist, but at least want that movie to say something, to me Crash said nothing.



It might, or it might not, I would argue that there is no guarantee an alien invasion or something of that universal natuer would bring people together...we spend so much time culturally highlighting our differences and joining groups that who knows if anything would ever get people to see themselves as people first. That's an idea that works in childhood, but not much beyond that. I'd lke to say that I don't know race when I meet people, but when I am the only black person somewhere (like at this party I was at last night), I notice...because in almost every situation in my lifetime where I was the only black perosn I was reminded of it. Part of it becomes second nature, sure while fighitng the laines we might all get along, and see things different, but its not jsut race and religio, gneder...we look for people with the same political leanings, morals, etc. There is comfort in similarity.

When I look my friends it is not race that unites them but the fact that they are all college educated...we all have things we look for in people.



Given the way the female body works, insertion is a form of rape, regardless of what you use. I realize that my seem like a strict definition, but what if he used an object and not his hand, insertion is where the line shoudl be drawn. Had he just groped her that would have been one thing, but once Haggis went there the event should be classified as rape.

I think another woman would have been more powerful, b/c as the scene stodd I thought it was pure silliness, her reaction after...I wanted to laugh. I found it totally unbelievable, and hence that whole arc lost all power and interest. It felt like an insult to my intelligence as a viewer. Crash to me was like a bad action movie that uses fast cuts and things blowing up to hide a lack of story, Haggis hid behind silly coincidences in the second half of the film as if he didn't know how to finish what he started. Halfway through the film I probably would have give it better then a D, but the whole second half..I can honestly say there wasn't more then 15 minutes that I didn't find silly, stupid or boring.

Overall my interest in movies is just down, I have yet to see a 2005 movie this year that was great, its been alot of decent (Fever Pitch) and alot overwhelming disappointing (Crash, Sin City). I'm staying out of the theater till Star Wars, at least that as Vadar...and if I see Vadar I'm a happy gal.

I would. Guys like to downplay physical violations of women. I think this came up in a bj thread once too. Gendered violence gets shit respect pretty globally. I'm not even going to debate this back-n-forth, because its degrading.

As to the point. Sure, that very well may happen, but what was Haggis intention for doing it then? More so doing it in that order.

Picture this. A cop saves a woman from an exploding car. She responds as newton did. Thankfully, I would too. Lets say the next day the cop pulls over this suv, and the woman is inside of it. She recognizes the cop and gets out of the car to thank him again profusely. She has laid her trust in him after his actions the day before. When she gets close, he manipulates her trust to put her at a disadvantage, and then abuses her and throws racist slurs. maybe he even says retrospect he wouldn't have saved her. Now there are the same two scenes, but that leave one with a completely different aftertaste as to Dillon. I think its beyond the point of argueing convincibility at this point, and its time to argue motive and reception. MOTIVE & RECEPTION.

I also don't think its wrong to do a character study of someone with alot of conflicting emotions that is neither good or bad. That is why I earlier recommended The Believer (and from what i hear, though haven't seen, American History X). Its a great two hour exploration of a Jewish neo-nazi. Its really quite intense, and you don't come away being able to classify him as a "good" or "bad" guy. The character exploration is too complex. Crash is not that movie. it bit off more than it could chew. A dozen characters were each one got less than 15 minutes of screen time in allegorical "race" vignettes. Its not explanation, its mini-lectures, and the dual events fail to do anything other than get him "off the hook." Something I've noticed everyone has said here. Its hard to read much more into it, because Haggis didn't give it anything more. The interaction got 10 minutes, and in the order I already mentioned could have been manipulated to turn out differently. Realism or emotional manipulation arguements aside.