We've probably already hit our Crash thread subject max. But hey, look at us, we've totally revamped the Oscar forum after a pretty lifeless month leading up to the ceremony.

And four days after, I'm sitting here wondering.

I saw Crash back in July when I went to go visit my sister in Houston. She really liked it. Her roommate really liked it. I really liked it. I gave it an A-. I thought it was a little too overt but was nevertheless pretty powerful, with some great acting and a complex, intertwining story that really struck an appropriate note.

But as I'm sure many of you have witnessed and may even be able to commiserate with, I've grown to dislike this film. And my dislike started even before its win on Sunday. I think it was andaroo's review that really made me rethink things: Maybe this film isn't so telling; maybe it's a lot less important than it proclaims – and congratulates itself – on being; maybe these scenes with these potent, potentially offensive lines of dialogue concerning Hispanics parking cars on their lawns and white men saying “damn black people” aren’t so much hard-hitting as they are risque for controversy’s sake. And it wasn't just andaroo's review; those who criticized Crash on the boards really pointed out some things that I for one couldn't find myself able to defend.

I guess I’m just wondering whether, when it comes down to it, letting other people’s opinions shape yours—and I'm not saying simply reading reviews, but actually engaging in discourse—makes you spineless. A flip-flopper, if you will.

Does it make me a bad person?

(And yes, I am partly just using this thread to justify my dislike for the film.)

What a question. If their opinions have a basis in truth, and are well-argued, it would be ignorant not to take their views into consideration.

Peer pressure.

If we don't discuss film we may as well never talk about it. I only talk about films that I feel I need to learn something about or that need to be expressed because they are being attacked.

My opinion on Crash is well known here, but in all seriousness, it's really just a matter of whether you buy the emotional landscape that Haggis presents. I do not, for reasons I've stated elsewhere. Others do. It's kind of like comedy, either you laugh or you don't.

Crash is an interesting one for me because it rung so false emotionally and it just snowballed (IMO) with problems. It works the opposite for other people.

Doubting and reconsidering things, while not out of peer pressure (something I don´t think happens often on the net) is, IMO, a sign of intelligence. So you should be proud.

Discusiing films cna also make you appreciate a film you did not like before. Your opinion should never be set in stone, otherwise you;d never be interesting to dfebate with. Members on this forum have casued me to revisit films nad thoughts I had. Reviewing of a film,t hinking abotu a film can all change my mind.

Nope, I never let other people's opinions form my own. I'm quite capable of knowing what I like and catching everything within the story, and my instincts serve me well when it comes to symbolism and what the director's motivations for a given scene were.

I don't generally require having it explained to me. However, somebody can talk me into seeing something that I'm unsure of or don't think I would like.

I wouldn't call you spineless, but maybe not as assured of your opinion as you would like to be. I think your first instinct about Crash was the correct one.

Nah, emotional resonance is tough, but it can be experienced in the moment, but doesn't hold up after the visceral experience is done and the content is dissected. That's just me, but there are alot of movies i cried in, or laughed at, that didn't hold up against the test of time, especially when not directly being viewed.

I went and saw The Circle for the second time yesterday night. I saw it five years ago. My sentiments on it have changed, though my support of it has not. Why? Because the first time I just was so emotionally traumatized. The second time, I knew what was coming, and didn't respond the same way, but got to distance myself from its content and observe style, substance, intent, etc. It was heavy handed and a bit melodramatic. It was expository at parts. But I still responded to its style, which had the passed along the story of female repression in Iran from five women, one hand to the next, like passing a baton in a relay. I also recognized and respected the intent of the director, and applaud its international reception. So I still support the film, though through a different lense.

When you watched Crash once, you responded directly to the image. As I did when I saw The Circle in 2000. Upon revisiting it, in your mind or a second viewing, that initial response might not hold up, and a second one replaces it. The second one could be even stronger (as mine is) if you believe in a film's mission, narrative voice, find its reception amongst audiances interesting, etc. The second viewing (or thoughtful revisitation) once stripped of initial emotional response, might not hold up. Everyone knows I think the intent of this film was misguided, its narrative style silly, and its characters too sanitized.

Rather than respond to Xia's well thoughtout thread about the "homophobia" loss, I'll put it here as an extension of what I think. I do not think the Academy is homophobic. I think tackling issues of race and sexual preference are both demanding. I also think tackling gender roles is ambitious, but that doesn't mean North Country got a nomination, because people realized it wasn't that great a movie, I guess. I do think BBM lost for what some people wrote, "Is the best Hollywood has to offer two men cheating on their wives?" We don't like that. Its not "clean" enough for us. If those two men had been college students with good families who got quartered after going to a bar one night, BBM would have won.But Lee did not make a movie that is easy to sympathize with, and was far more abstract. It was about repression, it was about everyone hurting and being hurt by others under the blanket of sexual propriety.

Crash was not like this, despite coaching itself as controversial. It would have been controversial if the little girl had actually died, and the Iranian had then been redeemed. But we didn't love Dead Man Walking that much. It would have been complex if the Latino father had been involved with drugs, and we would have thought he "deserved" to be punished by having a family member die. It would have been interesting if Dillon wansn't "just" racist but also cam home and beat his wife everyday, so that one could question the social hierachies even within a socio-economic class (poverty). Or if he hadn't "saved" Thandie but had put on a good scene as if to, but could care less. Or if Bullock had freaked out and divorced her husband long before she began higging her maid. Or if the Asian body dealer had an suggestion of redemption (which coincidentally, he didn't). In fact, everyone there had but one flaw, and those flaws were all clearly redeemed upon the wrap-up without actually allowing us to ponder larger issues or such as cheating on one's wife and hurting her feelings. It was so easy, and so easy to pick as a winner, because it lacked untidy ends.

This is just narrative, or course some people, like me, don't even respect the intent of the film, nor did I have a viscerally emotional response to such contrived manipulation as a little girl in an immunity cape. But I saw enough people crying in the theatre. They had a visceral response, and many of them upon revisiting the experience may like it even more, and some, may not. On the other hand, some movies that are not at all emotionally engaging but that you like for cerebral reasons when you first watch it, also do not age well. For those, i tend to crack jokes that they're more interesting to read about in a book than actually sit through. So all movies are like this. The initial response is always replaced by secondary feelings. sometimes they are stronger or weaker, but along the same route, or sometimes they are completely replaced by a different point of view, which can be strong or weak as well.

The short of it (too late) is that there is nothing wrong with thinking, enjoying, or critiquing a movie in the aftermath. If not one did that, we really would just consume movies the way we do fast food hamburgers. The medium would become only about glutton and instant response, and would probably lead to about as much physical, mental, and economic pitfalls as McDonalds does today.

Of course not.

What I think is so great about this movie (aside form my own personal fondness for it) is, now with the Best Picture win, its ability to strike up such great conversation and debate.

Crash is one of the most divisive films I've ever seen and I think it's great we have such split opinions on it, personally.

Yeah. This debate is pretty cool; usually the Oscars air and it's done the next day, but this discussion has continued all throughout the week. I listen to a podcast about TV and even they had a lot of their episode devoted to Crash discussion.