Is that the movie where Dillon is addicted to drugs and all that, cause if it is, that was a good movie and great acting from Dillon.

quote:

Originally posted by Brian:
Is that the movie where Dillon is addicted to drugs and all that, cause if it is, that was a good movie and great acting from Dillon.

Yep. It was also the film that put Gus Van Sant on the map as a great director.

I don't think Dillon's career has been that shabby though. He's done some really fine work in films like The Outsiders, To Die For, Grace of My Heart, Wild Things, and Albino Alligator, not to mention his hilarious turn in There's Something About Mary.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: EricG75,

Screen Actors Guild awards its best ensemble award (its equivalent to best picture to Crash Way to go!!!

This is the worst film of 2005.

And I'm not sure I can reprint this here, but I'll take the chance. The quote below is taken from Slant Magazine and their commentary on what will happen in the Best Original Screenplay category. It's a hysterical, acerbic criticism of one of the most bafflingly overhyped movies in the past 10 years.

"Got Haggis? AMPAS does! Crash's mantra is laid out in the opening minutes of the film like a thick piece of cheese being hoisted to the heavens—even if there was a golden ticket inside, the film's fans wouldn't have to dig too deep in order to find it. I quote: "In L.A., nobody touches you. We're always behind this metal and glass. I think we miss that touch so much, that we crash into each other, just so we can feel something." Some of the sanest people in the world are confusing Paul Haggis's arthouse After School Special for modern-age poetry, and though we think it's all pretty ridiculous, we'd be lying if we said we didn't relate to this one part on some level. We don't like being touched, but even behind the metal and glass that guards the Slant Magazine office, we sometimes feel like crashing into other publications, just so we can feel something. You may ask, "Why is Crash a shoe-in here?" Because, silly, Entertainment Weekly thinks Matt Dillon's character "boasts the best character arc of the year." It's easy to see how dunderheads who prefer to see events in a film pan out along schematic lines can confuse this sort of epic-scale, Screenplay 101 bullshit for greatness, let alone reality. Everyone has their favorite quotes from the film, and they trade them with fellow Crash-heads like authentic baseball cards. Our favorite? The casually tossed-off retro delight of "There's a Chinaman under the truck!" Earth to Dave Karger! Let's say we catch you talking to a friend outside the EW building on Broadway and 53rd Street after a matinee screening of The Color Purple next door. We slap you around a bit before sticking a few fingers up your butthole and running away. A few days later we see you outside Boy's Room vomiting up a storm, hands-to-heavens Indian techno music blasting from the bar, and Amanda Lepore beating the living daylights out of you while trying to take your invisibility cloak. Throw a few "Why God!"s our way and we'll gladly help a sister out, but that's not going to stop us from wanting to shoot your ass...with fake bullets. In short: Saving a black person from a car accident will not make a freedom fighter out of a white supremacist. Watch your back around anyone who tells you otherwise, because chances are they employ Chinapeople to dust off their ivory towers."

- Ed Gonzalez and Eric Henderson, Slant Magazine 2006


Oh, and as for my favorite line: the ever priceless conversation between Matt Dillon's character and the HMO woman:

"What is your name?"
"Shinequa Johnson"
"Figures."

Such laziness on the screenwriters' behalf is deplorable. Instead of building ANY sort of dimensions to its characters, Crash takes pleasure in making its subjects mere caricatures of stereotypes, fitting them into a mold of such extreme emotional convictions as to make the film's denunciation/admiration of them all-too-easy.

Wow, I hate this movie.

I feel both worried and concerned when critics and others can't immerse themselves in this movie the way the apparently more empathetic actors and actresses of the Screen Actors Guild did when they voted Crash as the best performance ensemble of 2005 and for good reason - its searing depiction of discrimination in America. However, it is just because of discrimination's insidious hold on societies around the world, including America, that it is my hope that this movie continues to generate more discussion and debate. We have such a long ways to go in regards what this movie's deepest insight is all about. I just hope that more people can open their hearts to the true nature of this movie as the actors, directors, and producers intended instead of missing the fundamental value and critical acclaim for its strong depiction of a social disease that continues to plague the United States.

I don't feel that there is anything genuine in Crash at all: everything seems so.... superficial and depressingly hackneyed.

The movie is, essentially, an amalgamation of bloated scenes where Haggis directs people to be the most basic, derivative characterizations of stereotypes IMAGINABLE -- and all to promote his provocative, but horribly (can't emphasize that enough) handled idea that all people are prejudiced to some degree. Seriously, for Haggis and his co-screenwriter to assume that people should accept this garbage as profound truth is incredibly insulting and infuriating. I haven't been so strongly opposed to a critically acclaimed movie in years (A Beautiful Mind comes to mind a few years back). I live in Los Angeles and yes, at times the racial tension is palpable, but this movie is completely, utterly preposterous in its depiction of "real life."

Scott Foundas, the head film critic at the LA Weekly (he also lives in Los Angeles) has also denounced the film entirely, listing it as one of the year's worst movies. His argument is very strong and he wisely mentions Caché, which is a far more subtle and intelligent look at the development and consequences of racial prejudices (though the movie is about much, much more -- it's FANTASTIC). It's a great little article.

The motivation behind making a film like Crash is respectable, but the execution of the film is simply awful. Considering the gravity of the subject matter, it deserved a better film. As it is, Crash is about as provocative and insightful as week-old potato salad.

Gross.

I don't really want to defend Crash, but I do believe that the first half is well-written, with some satirical dialogue. I also think that the film is very well-acted, but I do believe that somewhere along the way, they dropped the ball. If Haggis wanted to make a powerful film about racism, he needed to write a powerful second half to his film. Instead, he hoped that his cast would pull you along with his set-up to believe that you were seeing something important and serious. It's the second-half of the film which seems lazy and ridiculous, so no matter what Ebert & Roeper say, it's not worth any awards. However, my love for good acting and dialogue leads me to NOT write off the movie as a COMPLETE Polemic.

Mark F, I think you're being too kind...

But yes, the second half is probably worse than the first half. I honestly have no idea where people are saying these "character arcs" came from... Like the guys from Slant said, "saving a black person from a car accident will not make a freedom fighter out of a white supremacist" -- especially when the setup for such an act is so hysterically preposterous.

Still, one could definitely argue that the acting in the film is strong, but when the words coming out the actors' mouths are so poorly-conceived, it becomes difficult to appreciate any of their performances. I mean, with a cast of such hysterically overblown characters, Arrested Development's over-the-top, racist, drunk, and selfish Lucille Bluth would fit in so perfectly into a movie like Crash. The sad thing is that people might not recognize the silliness of the film even with her inclusion...

Sorry, but I think the whole thing just sucks, despite some acting and cinematic fluorishes. The credibility of the film is thrown out the window in the first few minutes:

"In L.A., nobody touches you"?

Oh puh-lease.

For reality and authenticity try documentary. For a provocative and geniune emotional response towards an important social issue try a fictional drama like Crash. I don't feel this movie presents over-the-top acting or bloated scriptwriting here because when it comes to reality, from my social practice and experiencing what I do from victims of domestic violence, it seems that Crash is closer to the mark. I don't know from what world some people critical of this movie come from but here in Utah, one of the most conservative states in the Country, I hear about emotional and situational crises that given a dramatic cinemagraphic script could easily transfer to the big screen like those situations in Crash. Plus taking into account of the hundreds of millions of people in this Country, I don't doubt that the intersection of events in this movie are not that implausible to have occurred somewhere in this country already in real life.

Reactions to Crash seem to fall into two very divided camps. Is it possible that the reason for this is that the movie is one which "preaches to the choir"? I, like others who are perhaps not in the choir, found this movie contrived and unconvincing. People in the choir seem to see it as some stirring portrayal of social realism. I know that blatant racism exists in America and is a problem. However, every character in this movie except one is blatantly racist and that really strikes me as contrived. I wonder if the people who admire this film really identify with the blatant racists in the movie, or if they view it from the safety of some remote choir loft. I really don't think blatant racism is as prevalent in America as it is presented in the film unless LA is a lot different from where I live. Racism in a subtle form is still very widespread in America and the world. Unfortunately I feel Crash only deals with blatant form of racism.

quote:

Dale M. posted:

Reactions to Crash seem to fall into two very divided camps. Is it possible that the reason for this is that the movie is one which "preaches to the choir"? I, like others who are perhaps not in the choir, found this movie contrived and unconvincing. People in the choir seem to see it as some stirring portrayal of social realism. I know that blatant racism exists in America and is a problem. However, every character in this movie except one is blatantly racist and that really strikes me as contrived. I wonder if the people who admire this film really identify with the blatant racists in the movie, or if they view it from the safety of some remote choir loft. I really don't think blatant racism is as prevalent in America as it is presented in the film unless LA is a lot different from where I live. Racism in a subtle form is still very widespread in America and the world. Unfortunately I feel Crash only deals with blatant form of racism.

Your comments about the reactions to Crash are valid. I admit that I share the choir mentality when it comes to this moive. As an ethnic minority as to what is currently occurring and perceived by various racial groups in New Orleans reconstruction expresses the vastly divergent perceptions generally by racial grouping in America in perhaps that same way that racial groups perceive Crash. While not all members of one minority ethnic grouping will experience the same racial discrimination with as much sensitivity, there are general groupings of members of discrimination who will experience the same set of circumstances markedly different and with more or less blatant racism than the general majority population in America. I don't feel that either camp is wrong about this movie as they perceive it as well as how they experience the movie Crash. What's more disturbing is how polarized the feelings are which only leads me to believe that a serious problem regarding blatant racism still exists and the reactions from this movie demonstrate how much of a problem it continues to be.

quote:

What's more disturbing is how polarized the feelings are which only leads me to believe that a serious problem regarding blatant racism still exists and the reactions from this movie demonstrate how much of a problem it continues to be.

Blatant racism is undoubtedly a problem in the world. However, I feel that a much greater problem exists with subtle forms of racism in America and that, in many respects, blatant racism is less a problem in America than in many bloodier parts of the world. Interpreting the polarity created by Crash as an indication of the depth of the problem may be misleading. The film Birth of a Nation portrays a need for the KKK and roused similar polarity. To say the polarity of feeling created by Birth of a Nation in the early 20th century was an indication of the depth of the problem it presented is hardly correct. The question is whether Crash is mere propaganda and caricature or if it is a viable artistic interpretation that sheds new light on reality.

Very nice posts Dale. Welcome to the site. Saying that a split reaction to Crash proves that it accurately depicts a racist divide in the country is comparable to saying that a split reaction to Plan 9 From Outer Space accurately depicts a split reaction to UFOs/zombies being real.

There's a split reaction currently happening with Munich. Does that convey that the movie is perhaps good/bad or that people are more sensitive to some issues than others are? Or perhaps, some are more predisposed to some ideas than others are? Oh, by the way, just as many people seem to "hate" Munich for the exact reasons that others "love" it. I've heard Munich called Palestinian propaganda, Israeli propaganda, even-handed, hard-edged, sentimental, etc.

The bottom line is that we're all individuals, and we should share and respect other's opinions.

Peace.

Since I'm sure your comments regard my posts, Mark F., I apologize if my posts were a little aggresive. Still, I'm sticking by my position adamantly, guns blazing

And for the record, I'm in the middle on Munich. My view kind of matches your comments on Crash, forum moderator: I liked the beginning, but the second half fell apart. Oh, and as far as the big "emotional release" is concerned (you know, that controversial juxtaposition of events...), it just didn't work for me at all - badly handled, I must admit.

All in all, I felt it was too... safe.

Great response, Platy, but no, I wasn't referencing you at all, even though your posts have always been thoughtful. I was trying to go through Dale to tabuno.

As far as Munich goes, I love it. I think it's a great Hitchcockian thriller with more insight into how the world really is than most all the other "important" films of the year rolled into one. As far as your qualms about the sex/murder scene goes, I can accept it. To me, Avner will never be able to forget the Munich massacre, no matter what he does. No matter how wonderful a husband or father he is, it will always be with him. No matter how many more children he and his wife bring into this world, he will always think of the massacre, what it means to his people and what it means to his family. He and his family, from now until eternity, are interwoven with the Palestinian-Isreali situation. Or at least as long as he and his family live before being lost to a "terrorist attack".

Hmm.... interesting. I almost felt like Spielburg was equating the acts of violence and sex to me........

But talk about a Hitchcockian thriller! Did you see Caché?? BRILLIANT!!!!!

(and a far more tactful and provocative look at racial relations, I might add )

quote:

mark f posted:

As far as Munich goes, I love it. I think it's a great Hitchcockian thriller with more insight into how the world really is than most all the other "important" films of the year rolled into one. As far as your qualms about the sex/murder scene goes, I can accept it. To me, Avner will never be able to forget the Munich massacre, no matter what he does. No matter how wonderful a husband or father he is, it will always be with him. No matter how many more children he and his wife bring into this world, he will always think of the massacre, what it means to his people and what it means to his family. He and his family, from now until eternity, are interwoven with the Palestinian-Isreali situation. Or at least as long as he and his family live before being lost to a "terrorist attack".

I don't want to diverge too much on a thread regarding Crash but Munich handled its material in a very different and quite effective way that was more mood and feeling without the covert and blatant action and depended more on the atmospherics, the performance and acting and feeling than actual things happening making it as Mark f mentions Hitchcockian. I enjoyed the "mood" experience of Munich that brought me into the mood and tied into the very inside of the individuals of the movie whereas Crash accomplished its emotional impact by the actual behavioral events directed towards the actors and in the case of many minority group audience members directed vicariously towards us as well.

Crash was completely unrealistic because racism at this point in history is rarely as bold, obvious, insidious, or uninhibited. Racism has taken on much more subtle tones nowadays. Granted, the issue of racism in America is a serious problem worth examining, but things are not as clear cut and "black and white" (no pun intended) as this movie pretends they are. There are incidents worth examining because of the bold, racial prejudice on display (L.A.'s Rodney King; N.Y.'s Abner Louima and Amadou Diallo; Jasper, TX's James Byrd whose brutal death at the hands of two white men who dragged him from the tailgate of their pickup truck led to hate crimes legislation in Texas; any number of videotaped police incidents in Los Angeles and New Orleans). But for middle-class to upper-middle class people to be so overt is a rarity in today's society. The entire film is a time-capsule of racism leftover from the active duty days of Mister Tibbs. Things are much more complicated nowadays because people understand that they cannot say overtly racist things without repercussions (e.g. Bill Bennett). This movie seems to exist in a place that bears no resemblance to any reality I've ever experienced. Maybe that makes me lucky or it's just because I'm white (or, most likely of all, because I'm not one of or surrounded by the high-strung, reactionary caricatures that populate Crash's universe). For that reason, there was absolutely no way for me to relate to this movie.

If a film had successfully addressed the subtler shades of modern racism on as grand a scale as P.T. Anderson's Magnolia or Robert Altman's Short Cuts, that film would definitely deserve to be praised as the best film of the year. However, Crash deals in cliches and antiquated (i.e. "white liberal knee-jerk guilt") ideas of racism.

Maybe Crash is the best film of the year...if the year's 1967.

quote:

There are incidents worth examining because of the bold, racial prejudice on display (L.A.'s Rodney King; N.Y.'s Abner Louima and Amadou Diallo; Jasper, TX's James Byrd whose brutal death at the hands of two white men who dragged him from the tailgate of their pickup truck led to hate crimes legislation in Texas; any number of videotaped police incidents in Los Angeles and New Orleans).

Perhaps Crash instead of being a throwback to the old days doesn't go far enough in reflecting reality that you yourself have described.

Right when I was starting to recover, I stumble upon this thread again and suddenly, almost uncontrollably, I am overwhelmed by my hatred for this inane, insulting, and overwrought piece of garbage. All my nasty feelings about the movie are surfacing again... Thanks.