Crash-lash

Roger Ebert has a curious article on "The Fury of the Crash-lash."  It seems that calling "Crash" a better movie, which Ebert does, is considered more than a little homophobic.  He gives a helpful response.

The nature of the attacks on "Crash" by the supporters of "Brokeback Mountain" seem to proceed from the other position: "Brokeback" is better not only because of its artistry but because of its subject matter, and those who disagree hate homosexuals. Its supporters could vote for it in good conscience, vote for it and feel they had made a progressive move, vote for it and not feel that there was any stain on their liberal credentials for shunning what "Crash" had to offer.

Comments

[Adam L. Feldman]

i was sad that crash won--and not because i had any feelings toward any other nominated movie. crash was hardly original, the cinematography was almost exactly like magnolia and the theme felt extremely forced. in fact, after watching the film, i asked my wife: "didn't we see that before?" truly surprised that it won...

[Adam L. Feldman]

btw, waiting for the review of "brokeback pastors" to come out...

[Joe Thorn]

Well, Rog' doesn't know what he's talking about anyway. Just ask Russ Moore who thinks the depiction of racism in Crash was unrealistic. Be sure to read his remarks for a different kind of "crashlash" that to me sounds just as ignorant as the other, but with a different flavor.

The movie has its problems, but overall the dialogue rings true, the acting is brilliant, cinematography, editing and score are fantastic, and the movie successfully exposes the imago dei and it's corruption in man. It challenges the audience without giving the after-school special answers Russ claims it does. There is not a lot of redemption in the movie, but quite a bit of honesty.

Perhaps it comes down to how one watches a movie. But that is a whole post in and of itself. Steve, why don't you jump on that?

[Denny Burk]

Boy do I ever disagree with Joe's analysis of "Crash." I thought "Crash" was a wreck of a movie. :)

Click here to see why I'm not a fan of "Crash": http://dennyburk.blogspot.com/2006/03/not-fan-of-crash.html.

[Joe Thorn]

I suppose it depends on where one lives? What one has experienced? Because I have heard/do hear dialogue like this. I can't help but wonder if percpetion and/or reality is different down south. And I think a whole post (or a book) is in order concerning how to watch film.

Lundegaard’s "quiz" you link to expects people to behave rationally - but we don't. Especially when our father is suffering and we aren't getting help. Or after we have been in an accident, ro after a car-jacking, or after years of racial discrimination. I recently watched the film again (third time) with a group of throughtful film buffs/theologians and everyone there thought the movie was great.

In the end, it's only a movie. But a good one IMO.

[AWHall]

Regardless of Crash's merits or faults, I think Ebert's comments are profoundly brave considering that he is exposing the blindness of those who vilify anyone who doesn't support Brokeback Mtn.

[Denny Burk]

Dear Joe,

You may be right about the regional thing. In the South, white racism typically becomes explicit only when one white is addressing another white (like happened to me a few years ago when a white guy complained to me about all the "n------" in our hometown. I was mortified that he thought that just because I was white it was okay for him to talk to me that way).

You don't hear much of that kind of thing spoken directly from the racist to the black person--at least I didn't. The only time I heard such a thing was when a fight was about to start. And I saw some of that too in my little town in South Louisiana where I grew up.

Thanks,
Denny

[Rick Bennett]

acting is not brilliant. It is all over the map. Cheadle and Dillon Brilliant.

Frasier and Bullock not even average.

Editing was a little above average, but not brilliant by any means.

My concern is not the film's politics but its artistic merit. Both films were sorely lacking artisticly (Crash aims higher but attains lower).

I have analysis of both films on my blog.

[Rick Bennett]

If you think Crash was brilliant or original please watch more movies!

If you think its multiple story line and multiple character development try the films of Robert Altman or PT Anderson.

[Steve McCoy]

Rick, are you saying it isn't possible (or probable) to watch more movies and still like Crash and think it got what it deserved?

I watched King Kong too, and if you think that's a top 10 and Crash isn't, something is amiss. I'll take Sandra Bullock's role over Jack Black running for 10 minutes under dinosaurs any day.

[Joe Thorn]

Rickster,

There are many of us who take film as art seriously, are well versed in the medium, watch a lot of it and consider Crash a success. Best movie of the year? Maybe not. Best among the other nominees? Maybe/maybe not. but a very good movie. Not sure how you dismiss Bullock's performance. It was one of her more real roles.

Of course, much of this is opinion, and everyone's an expert when it comes to opinions.

[Rick Bennett]

Joe-

touche. While you would take Sandra over Jack, I would take Kong over Sandra. His character was actually fully developed and not a 1 dimensional shrew with only a glimmer of humanity (be it a small glimmer). Also, Crash is a movie about acting (and she was not up to the task). Kong is about everything else and Jack Black is authentic to the character (based upon the PT Barnum like character of the 33 film).

However, Kong attempted to do 1 thing- wntertain. It is in my Top 10 because is accomplished its task and was a wonderful expression of high level entertainment, while adding much more depth than you would expect.

How did it add such depth? By taking the time to tell a story and develop characters in the midst of its 3 hours. It gained trust. Altman flicks that Crash copies gain your trust before messing with the characters. Magnolia did the same thing.

Crash tried to cram a 3 hour movie into 1.5 hours. While I can say it attempted a lot. This caused it to fail its ultimate task, in my opinion.

Is it 1/2 to 3/4 of a great film. That is not good enough. It is like great meat but no veggies. It is incomplete.

I have mentioned before my serious issues with the lack of development of some characters and lack of consistency of Mr. Witherspoons character (which is the key to the film). You cannot give someone the SUV scene with Terrance Howard and have him kill a young black man in such a short time. It is disengenuous (I would compare it to the cheapness and lack of trust from Peter Weir in Dead Poets Society with the suicidal student). One does not exhibit such care, safety and patience and then shoot someone in his own car (even if the movie depends upon it). the more I write about this flaw the more glaring it is and the angrier I get about it!

Does the movie aim high? yes. Does it have a great point? yes. Does it ilicit good conversation? yes.

(sorry to ramble- I have thought way too much about this movie, because I wanted to think it was amazing- the liberal I am on race).

As for Ebert- brilliant!
As for Moore- out of touch and missing the point as usual (how can a guy so darn smart miss the point so much- is he that hijacked by his piolitical agenda?).

That all said, this was an incredibly weak year. But, many good films went unnominated. Of the 5, I would pick Capote (1), GNGL (2).

[Rick Bennett]

by the way- thanks for challenging my opinion on CrashJoe. There is nothing I would rather debate than film (followed by music, sports and politic- as long as no one is emotionally tied to their opinions).

I enjoy the interaction.

[J.Gray]

I'm sorry...but I don't understand why Russ Moore is "out of touch" and "ignorant".

Is his opinion of the movie LESS valid than that of those here?

Please enlighten me.

[Joe Thorn]

Ignorant means uninformed or lacking knowledge. Since I used the term let me explain where I think he is lacking knowledge. On the dialogue. He assessment is that it is unsubtle, preachy and unrealistic. Hang out in Chicago, or LA - get out of KY for a bit and I think you'll find that people do talk this way - interact with people this way. Not in church circles, but in the world.

I also think where he believes the dialogue is preachy (Flanagan's attempt to persuade Graham on how to proceed with the case) is a misunderstanding on how to read a character. His dialogue is supposed to be preachy, he believes he has something to say, but perhaps does not realize that his recitation of race/stats is common knowledge to most. He comes off like a tool.

Rick,

I agree that there are problems with the movie (there always are). Length was on. It should have been longer, but I still felt that the character development remained strong enough for most of the characters to sustain the film.

I also thought Bullock's performance as a "1 dimensional shrew with only a glimmer of humanity" was dead on. That is what the character was.

I agree more was needed for "Mr. Witherspoon's" (hilarious BTW, just caught it) character development. But I do not see the movie hinging on him. He is a necessary part of the whole, but no more than the others IMO.

[Rick Bennett]

I am not sure who called Moore ignorant. It was not me and I haven't the energy to look through the comments to find out who.

As for "out of touch" and "missing the point" I will defer to Joe Thorn's 1st comments about Moore's comments. He misses the point by thinking the movie is attempting to solve racism or simplistic.

He misses the point by thinking the point of the film is to tell us how to deal with racism (why else would he compare it to an after school special).

Even though I did not love the film and I have no PhD, it was my understanding that the film was not trying to do anything but put everyone's racism in front of everyone so people could talk about it and be confronted by their own racism, as well as that of others.

It does succeed at that aim, just not as a fully developed artistic piece.

[Rick Bennett]

Joe,

I must admit I went into this film with high expectations and Haggis showed he could deliver.

The blame could be with the executive that said, "it is too much talk" "no one will see a long movie" or something like that.

I guess I put a lot of stock in Mr. Witherspoon's character (maybe too much) because the film begins and ends with his extreme actions and the consequences.

He was also one of the more heroic people in the film. It would be like John C. Reilley's cop in Magnolia shooting William H. Macy's character because he thought he had a gun. Can you imagine what this would have done to the film, or Phillip Seymour Hoffman's nurse doing something shocking like that. It just did not fit his character.

I also had issues with the development of Cheadle's character (not Cheadle's fault. He has been one of my top 5 actors since 1996). It was like some important scenes were left on the cutting floor.

I am hoping, in light of the Oscar, that there will be a directors cut and we will see Haggis' vision fulfilled with 30-60 more minutes, filling in the gaps.

I will go back and watch the film. I may end up liking it more this time around. Last time I wanted to love it and merely liked it (but loved the point).

Thanks for the dialogue.