If Crash was JUST about Don Chedle's character or just had one or two cooincidental racial crossings it could have been berable on a story level. It's not about the subject, it's the pre-school way in which it treats the subject. Anybody who has reached beyond a surface level interaction with the issue of race can see how soft and silly the points are that it is trying to make.

The movie is completely about surface racial issues and says nothing about it. In that sense, it is (to me) about as empty as an action film. It is "safe" for Oprah while Downfall and Munich are dealing intelligently with MUCH more complicated topics and emotions.

I don't think I'm better than anybody here because I say the following (just so everyone doesn't htink I'm being a dick), but personally I think I am beyond Crash, I do not need to visit Crash's emotionally manipulative landscape in order to learn anything there.

I would say Million Dollar Baby was the same way (manipulative). The difference there is that the story concentrated on fewer characters and really what I love the movie for is not the end plot but the interaction between those two as a father-daughter relationship. And it's not like Magnolia which has cooincidences but much more vague characters coming to different kinds of conclusions.

Well said, to me the movie was still entertaining and well acted. It could've been a fantastc and much more important movie if it had more depth to it. Traffic & Magnolia are much stronger movies and deal with the issues they have and all the chacracters in such a better way.

I consider Crash to be a very flawed masterpiece (yeah, I know, a paradox). I think that beneath all the flaws lies real gold. The effort to tell this story, the ambiguous nature of the movie, the way the topic is handled is more complicated than many give it credit for. There are flaws. There are way too many characters in the movie so not all of them are dealt with properly. There are way too many coincidences (even though that's the point of a movie like this one). Yes, it is not perfect (Downfall is *almost* perfect), but there is something truly great about it once you get past its flaws. It might not end up in my Top 5 of the year, but Top 10 is assured.

BTW, can we please make a Capote bash thread out of this?

Capote deserves one more than Crash.

I thought Capote was seriously just alright other than Philip Seymour Hoffman and a solid supporting performance from Keener.

What is the deal with that now? Ugh.

How deep is my hatred...

If Christine was to suddenly tell me that she loved Crash, I would divorce her.

And I'm being serious.

Didn't you only give it a C-?

Maybe he just wants a divorce

Crash will win. That's all I have to say about the oscars.

Yeah, only.

But anyone who said they loved that film, has serious mental issues. And I can't stay married to that sort of chick.

Well, whoever says that there are too many characters and sub-plots in Crash is missing the point. The film deals with the collision of different races, classes and cultures (hence the metaphor in the title). Take the opening sequence for example: two black men highjack an SUV that belongs to a white DA and his wife. Right then and there, those four people are all impacted and react with their own subjectivity (which is, for the most part, downright ugly).

I really don't see where people are coming from when they call the film "juvenile" or that it lacks depth. In fact, Crash is one of the few movies I have ever seen that actually deals with racism in a truly complex and interlocking way. Perhaps its detractors are putting too much of their own subjectivity in their assessments. But then again, that's one of the reasons why it resonates so strongly.

And I get really tired of people telling me that I'm missing the point and the film is really a stroke of genius and all of us who don't absolutely love Crash are just missing it and don't understand.

Roger Ebert (poor Ebert) is doing the same thing, going out and trying to defend his baby Crash, and as much as I love him, he's really annoying me.

I like to quote what Scott Foundas said, only because it's something that I can use to prove not everyone has gone ga-ga over it. Infact, I believe he called it the worst film of the year.

I didn't hate the film as much as he did. In fact, I don't hate the film. I give it a B/B+. But I don't think it's nearly as great as some people tout it to be, the film has screenplay problems in my opinion, and is definately not deserving of an Oscar nom.

But I don't think I have ever gone around trying to put down other people's opinions. Not once. I have openly expressed my frustration for it being nominated for awards, but have never told anyone who loves Crash that they "don't get it" or are "missing the point". That just bugs me beyond annoyance.

PEACE, Mike.

I was just responding to those few who put down the people who like it. But yeah, I see your point. Setting an example is better than firing back

I don't think anybody here has put down people in a serious manner who like it. Nobody should be threatened.


Because we can never connect with the characters (because there are far too many) they are drawn in very broad stereotypical strokes, by the screenwriter himself. So we have stereotype reacting against stereotype. The problem with this is (for example) you have Terrence Howard's character who is bouncing out of every serious situation and right into another story, there is no reflection until the end. There is no time to probe the deeper feelings of being emasculated by his wife during their talk about the cop or the deeper meanings why he saved Ludacris.


It only interlocks because of an insaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaane series of cooincidences and connections during a very closed off time period. There is very, very, very little time to reflect from character to character about what the other characters are feeling. In many ways it is a very selfish movie on racism.


You could say this of the supporters too.

Crash does not reflect a reality except in very broad strokes, which to me, completely defeats the purpose. The same effect could be reached by completely exploring a section of that story in true depth. I don't think saying that Crash wasn't deep is a very controversial statement, even among people who like Crash.

Now why did this topic become serious again.

Can someone help me pick out a knife. I need to get one from Amazon so when Crash wins BP I can end my painful life.

Maybe this should be the Crash/Capote thread. Because Capote (probably) getting in is pissing me off even more than Crash.

Title: Capote is not forte.

Yeah, it sucks.

I have not seen Capote. I can't cooperate.

Someone needs an anti-Crash avatar. It's only fitting.

That would be going OVER THE EDGE.

So is the tone of the thread

Anyway, I respect your opinion. I think we're both choosing to look at the film in a different light. A lot of people point out the plot holes and the amazing coincidences, while others tend to focus on the bigger picture and the main ideas behind the screenplay.

And btw, my subjectivity comment wasn't necessarily intended as a negative. I was just pointing out that the movie opens up a forum for discussion and can be interpreted in many different ways. True the movie doesn't really go into detail with the characters, but that's not always necessary...especially since the movie tackles racism with sociological instead of psychological reasoning.

Some people who think Crash dealt with racism in a realistic fashion know very little about racism.

It's the cliff notes for white people. It's so safe and cuddly and packaged.

Hehehe, I wouldn't say so.

I would actually see that is a movie much more about prejudices and group mentality (us/them) than about racism itself.

That's a very presumptuous thing to say.

and true.

I know, it stings.