Crash
Crash is, without a doubt, the worst film I have seen thus far in 2005. What an egregious oversimplification of the race issue in America. What a ridiculous over-ripe bit of hand-wringing posing as nuanced drama. I'm seriously embarrassed for writer-director Paul Haggis right now. Embarrassed.
After years of writing for TV, Haggis earned acclaim for his adapted screenplay for Million Dollar Baby. That was a well-constructed, if overwrought, genre script with an unfortunately melodramatic ending, one that didn't logically or tonally match up to the rest of the film.
Crash is a different beast entirely. Meant as a social message picture, examining the racial tensions that linger beneath the surface of Los Angeles, Crash is a silly collection of vignettes which have nothing to say about racism except (1) there's a lot of it, (2) it sucks and (3) it's not just the fault of white people like Paul Haggis, but everybody.
What Haggis seems to miss entirely is that Racism (capital R) exists in America as a social construct. Racism is not defined merely as white people clutching their purses tightly when they see groups of black men. That is an individual example of racist behavior. Shameful, yes, but organizational in nature, no. Racism is the cultural and systematic oppression of certain social groups by others. In America, typically monied whites oppressing everyone else.
Nowhere is this more clear than this week in Louisiana. What we have seen is the federal, state and local government purposefully ignoring the impoverished black citizens of New Orleans, allowing them to die needlessly over the course of 4 days. That's Racism. Mexican people getting into arguments with Persian shop owners...that's an unfortunate reality, but it's a pretty narrow definition for a whole film.
Okay, so maybe I'll give Paul Haggis the benefit of the doubt. Maybe his movie isn't even supposed to deal in the large issues of Racism in America. Maybe he just wanted to make a movie about why we can't all just get along, here, in 2005.
His movie's still a piece of shit. Because, like Million Dollar Baby, like most movies dealing with difficult, sensitive issues like racism, Crash can't resist the oversimplification. It can't resist. It's a movie decrying racist behavior in which every single character is a crude racist stereotype and everyone encounter is meant to relate simplistic, generic "racist" attitudes in a negative light. (Helping others of different skin color, good! Using power to reinforce negative concepts, bad!)
The film is presented as a series of interlocking stories, occuring within a 24 hour period. Various characters of different races are thrust together by circumstance, often because of a car crash, and their encounters come to change their attitudes about themselves and their place in the world.
Let's take a look at some of the characters we follow around:
-Detective Waters (Don Cheadle), a black cop with a junkie mother and a junkie brother on the run from the law. He's being asked by the LAPD to lie about an investigation so that a racist white cop can be locked up for a crime he may not have committed against a black cop.
-Sgt. Ryan (Matt Dillon), a racist white cop and bully who, after being annoyed by a black customer service representative named Shaniqua (Loretta Devine), takes it out on a professional black couple (Terrence Howard and Thandie Newton) he pulls over for a traffic violation.
Better yet, the husband, played by hot actor Terrence Howard, directs a racist TV show starring Tony Danza! The cop fingers the wife's genitals and then makes the husband supplicate to him, all in front of his rookie partner (Ryan Phillipe), in one of the film's many scenes that cries out for some measure of subtlety and restraint.
I hate to say it, but this scene (as well as another one where Dillon gropes Newton for another reason) goes on so long, you question whether Haggis finds it maybe titilating, maybe in an inappropriate way. We get the message - this white cop expresses his power over Newton by groping her - about 1/3 of the way through the scene.
-Angry, paranoid Persian shop owner Farhad (Shaun Toub), who buys a gun without knowing how to use it, yells at his tattooed Latino locksmith (Michael Pena) and ignores everyone's advice. He repeatedly insists "this shop is all we have!"-Obnoxious, self-absorbed trophy wife Jean Cabot (Sandra Bullock), who is married to the district attorney (Brendan Fraser) and harps incessantly at her friendly, overweight Mexican housekeeper, whom she will later refer to as her "best friend," in a direct dialogue rip from Driving Miss Daisy, another awkward, embarrassing racist polemic about race.
-Two black thugs (Ludacris and Larenz Tate) who carjack white folks and then argue about why everyone hates black people. They also argue about whether or not country music is racist.
Do I need to keep going?
Let's talk more about those black thugs. Haggis thinks that, by giving Ludacris dialogue about how everyone thinks of black men as criminals, and about how hip hop passes on negative messages to black youth about criminality, that he somehow undoes the stereotype of casting a rapper as a criminal. It doesn't work. It's still racist. It just lets the audience know you're smart enough to know better.
Maybe if Haggis was a more inventive, thoughtful writer, some of this stuff would be more acceptable. But this script is obvious, clunky and above all gob-smackingly silly. SILLY! Now, I know LA has a reputation as a dangerous city full of criminals, high-speed pursuits, horrific car accidents, street crime and vandalism. But come on! Rarely to 4 or more of these things happen to the same people in a single night!
The movie relies on constant coincidences, some that absolutely stretch the limits of the film's reality. For example, Dillon and Phillipe are partners one night, when they pull over the black couple, and then they next day they are reassigned. Even so, Phillipe the next day runs into the husband (Howard) and Dillon runs into the wife (Newton) at almost exactly the same time in different parts of the city.
And I haven't even talked about the random explosions, fires, shootings, vans full of smuggled-in Asian slaves, dead siblings, murder investigations, Internal Affairs investigations, a goofy slip and fall down the stairs and repeated verbal attacks on HMOs and the insurance industry. This would be enough material for an entire season of "Dragnet," yet Haggis crams it all into one 24 hour period.
After about a half hour, I thought the movie was stupid. After an hour, I thought it was retarded. Once it was over, I thought it was definitely the dumbest movie I'll see this year.
Haggis utterly fails to understand that the most pernicious racism, and almost all contemporary urban racism, is under the surface. Repressed. Comes out among people when they are alone, or at least safely within the confines of their own communities, away from the actual people they are insulting. When it comes out, it happens quickly, in a flash, as in the LA riots.
People don't usually walk around saying racist things loudly to one another in public. If they do, repeatedly, people soon assume they are crazy and stop taking them seriously. Every character in this film repeatedly insults other people in terms of race, or says blatantly offensive things to their face. Is this how Haggis really feels? Does he think constantly in terms of racial epithets?
"You black people...You must be upset about how these stupid trigger-happy negroes give you all a bad reputation!"
"Why do they always think I'm Arab! I am Persian!"
"Mom, I can't talk to you now. I'm having sex with a white girl."
"You're telling me there's a Chinaman trapped under the car?"
I think his concept was to show each character being both the perpetrator and victim of racism. Cheadle offends his Latin girlfriend by calling her Mexican when she's a mixture of Puerto Rican and El Salvadoran, but he is then offended when references are made to his wayward, junkie brother. Dillon is a bully, a racist white cop, but we find out his father lost his business because of loans made to black businesses.
Phillippe does the right thing and reports his racist partner, but later comes to commit violence against a black man due to a misunderstanding. Ludacris steals from whites, but comes to, I swear, free a van full of imported Asian slaves, and then smiles to himself...Cause he did a good thing...Awwww.....
But that's not depth. That's insulting. It implies that racism is everyone's fault, that it's a facet of all of our lives and of the society in which we live, and that until we all purge it from our own souls it will live on infinitely. What bullshit. As if the infrastructure of our society has nothing to do with it. As if racism is solely a psychological problem.
And even so, the movie's final half hour seems to conclude that, when people are helped by those of other races, when they cut down the barriers between one another, the racism just ends. Bullock realizes Mexicans are A-OK when one helps her after a nasty spill. Newton appreciates whiteness again when her life is saved by a white guy. Phillippe saves a black man, making up for his inability to save the black man at the traffic stop.
What rubbish. That's not life, people. You don't get to right the wrongs you do through good manners, and not every act of racism is repaid in kind. It's bullshit. Racism is very real, and good feelings won't make it go away. It is a function of the way we live, and an interesting movie might try to get at the heart of why we have these feelings, where they come from, how this anger gets channeled and re-channeled, and how the power structure and daily operations of the city of Los Angeles and the nation of America feed the racism expressed interpersonally.
But Crash sure isn't that movie. It's a horribly unpleasant, pedestrian and preachy piece of trash, a woefully juvenile take on racism from a guy who, it seems to me, hasn't really even done that much thought on the subject.
I realize I have written for quite some time, and haven't really talked about it in terms of the movie. I've just kind of harped on Haggis' script. Well, the direction sucks too. It's obvious he's going for kind of a Soderbergh-Traffic effect here. Telling a story about a complex modern issue by showing facets of the issue and how they affect a variety of interlocked characters.
He even rips of Soderbergh's use of various filters and lenses at different locations, to constantly shift the film's look. Haggis takes it one step further and shifts lenses and filters sometimes halfway through a scene, to give you multiple impressions of the same sequence. Why? I don't know. It's jarring and obnoxious, like if he put in subtitles announcing "Hey, check it out, I'm directing here! Isn't that awesome direction, how I changed the colors like that?"
The music by Mark Isham is similarly proud of itself. This is one of those "serious" scores, where there's no recognizable theme or even real music, just stray notes of different tones, struck occasionally to remind you you're watching a film that's terribly, terribly serious.
Man, I hated this movie. What an immense waste of time. Haggis, you better come with something very strong next, or I'm writing you off entirely.
8 comments:
Thank you! thank you!
I agree whole heartedly with your review and I'm linking to it at my blog at Swimming in Champaign.
I disliked the film and felt it unrealistic with zero characters that I could identify with much like another highly touted film, Closer.
Good job.
This is why Roget Ebert is one of the worst critics of our time. His top film of 2005. Big surprise, right?
1. "Crash": Much of the world's misery is caused by conflicts of race and religion. Paul Haggis' film, written with Robert Moresco, uses interlocking stories to show we are in the same boat, that prejudice flows freely from one ethnic group to another. His stories are a series of contradictions in which the same people can be sinned against or sinning. There was once a simple morality formula in America in which white society was racist and blacks were victims, but that model is long obsolete. Now many more players have entered the game: Latinos, Asians, Muslims, and those defined by sexual orientation, income, education or appearance.
America is a nation of minority groups, and we get along with each other better than many societies that criticize us; France has recently been reminded of that. We are all immigrants here. What is wonderful about "Crash" is that it tells not simple-minded parables, but textured human stories based on paradoxes. Not many films have the possibility of making their viewers better people; anyone seeing it is likely to leave with a little more sympathy for people not like themselves. The film opened quietly in May and increased its audience week by week, as people told each other they must see it.
Yeah, Jason, I saw then when it came out...Very disappointing, if only because Rog' used to use his end of the year list to highlight a worthy film from the year that has been overlooked. This year, he's got all these empty-headed, bullshit studio pictures on there like "Crash" and "Cinderella Man." And last year, his choice was the misguided "Million Dollar Baby." I fear he's lost his mind.
You make some valid points. However, as much as you condemn Haggis of stereotyping racism, you do the same. You say that most people are more likely to partake in racism in their own homes or communities, which shows that you've had a lack of racism in your life (which is wonderful), however, having grown up in a few racialy troubled areas around the United States, I can tell you that there are streets, neighborhoods, and even big cities in which people cast not a second thought when speaking, or screaming racial slurs.
Furthermore, you gripe on the fact that so many racial incidents happen in a 24 hour time period, and yes, that is quite unlikely to actually happen, but after all, this is a movie. Having it happen in 24 hours creates a lot more dynamic situations to help tell the story. And ultimately, that is what you should critique, the story. Now you may think that the 24 hours did not create a very good dynamique, and that is understandable.
Lastly, I'm glad the movie didn't explore the reason why racism is an issue, and where it comes from. There are many movies that have already done this. One of my personal favorites is American History X (which I have a feeling you dislike). If I want a movie that explores the heart of racism, that's what I put in my DVD player.
Oh, and one last thing before I sign off, I congratulate you as you are one of the few people who disliked Crash who can actually come up with some sort of reason for not liking it. And for the record, I thought Million Dollar Baby was absolutely horrible. Thank you, and good day.
Well-spoken, Anon. We disagree, but I must say that, of all the Crash fans from whom I've heard, your response is the most lucid and well-composed.
But I still totally disagree.
First, I did not say that people do not experience the sort of inter-personal racism that Haggis describes. I said, merely, that this is the most obvious, superficial and shallow form of racism - the kind of racism almost all Americans already know to dismiss as mere ignorance. I feel it's kind of cowardly to make a film that points out only this type of racism as problematic, when really, it is the social structures around us that take the greatest toll on minorities and the ostracized. Honestly, can you tell me that people calling one another "beaners" or "kikes" on the streets is as large and complex and dire a problem in America than the unspoken barrier that keeps whole large minority groups impoverished and disenfranchised?
(As for me experiencing racism in my personal life, please know that it has happened, not infrequently, but that I try not to let such unpleasantness cloud my judgement on the Big Picture issue).
Finally, though I have some gripes with the overall movie, I do like a lot of aspects of "American History X," and find it to be a compelling and highly watchable (even rewatchable) film with much more to say on the issue of race than something like "Crash."
Thanks for reading and commenting!
The only consolation after last night's win was knowing I could find an intelligent, spot-on post like this somewhere on the web.
I agree with you 100%.
Now if you could just take the seat of Roger Ebert and the other out-of-touch windbags reviewing movies.
I just watched Crash for the first time recently. I agree with much of what you said. I am going to assume that most people didn't look at the film very critically and see what you saw (you brought up a lot of very good points that I hadn't even thought of). It's really sad. Most people will watch this movie and their takeaway is 'this is the way it is', which just perpetuates a bunch of crap stereotypes.
Thanks for the great write-up!
I kept wondering if Crash was supposed to be a modern day rip-off of Spike Lee's "Do The Right Thing". But without the content.
It definitely borrows conceptually from "Do the Right Thing," but that's a film that refuses to oversimplify or provide an audience with an easy way out. It's challenging, and it's an attack on traditional views of race relations.
"Crash" plays into every pre-conceived notion Americans already have about race. It "flatters" the audience, tells them that just because they've watched this film and considered these issues superficially, that they are now better people. Bullcrap.
Post a Comment