Contrived, self-conscious, obvious, repetitive, manipulative, heavy-handed, pretentious--apparently these qualities do not count against a film today, at least as far as critics and major awards organizations are concerned. Roger Ebert called "Crash" his favorite film of 2005, and the Academy Awards gave the film more recognition than I would have thought possible--even considering the large quotient of lowbrows in Hollywood today. To put it as kindly as possible, "Crash" presents us with a shockingly manipulative story and treats delicate social issues with all the subtlety of sledgehammer blows. In essence, it is a bad knock-off of John Sayles, and you would do much better treating yourself to a very fine film like the criminally-neglected "City of Hope" (1991) or "The Sunshine State" (2002).
I should make it clear I wasn't disappointed at all in the performances or the look of the film. No, the trouble is something a bit deeper than that. As far as plot goes, there's this strange obsession in "Crash" with making every character experience a major "reversal." Good cop becomes bad cop; bad cop becomes good cop; innocent, victimized Middle Easterner becomes a perpetrator of violence--etc. And you can see all of this coming a mile away. Can Hollywood get any more heavy-handed and contrived than this? Well, let's hope not. Additionally, the movie seemed to be telling us that everyone in L.A. is a super-charged racist forever on the edge, ready to blow his or her top at any moment. Messages like this only serve to simplify social issues in a disastrous manner.
Essentially, "Crash" is classic kitsch: It shows you something for which you, as a product of liberal modernity, have a pre-loaded response. It makes you feel good about not being a racist and about deploring violence. It requires you to do zero intellectual work and then pats you on the back for having the correct ethical orientation toward the subject matter.
Personally, I don't think there's ever a good reason for talking down to your audience, and "Crash" is full of that. This type of story is every bit as bad as, on the other hand, elitist art that is only trying to communicate with a minute, intellectual clique. The ideal situation, I think, is for artists to treat their audience as thoughtful adults, and for the audience, in turn, to behave like thoughtful adults. Throughout "Crash," I felt Haggis was treating me like, at best, an adolescent who can only be impressed by broad strokes and the most obvious, belabored themes. In his book "The Art of Fiction," John Gardner talks about the bad storyteller being like a playwright who wants to run on stage every few minutes during a performance of his play and point out how every story development and technique is operating--and that is Haggis all over. He constantly shows his "puppeteer's hand."
Finally, I'm just getting exhausted by seeing people beating that dead horse of racism, over and over and over, in the media... For my money, a movie director is going to have to come up with a deeper, more ingenious approach if he wants me to listen to more of these preaching-to-the-choir sermons. Thankfully, there are directors like John Sayles who still have the talent to pull it off, and with panache.
I should make it clear I wasn't disappointed at all in the performances or the look of the film. No, the trouble is something a bit deeper than that. As far as plot goes, there's this strange obsession in "Crash" with making every character experience a major "reversal." Good cop becomes bad cop; bad cop becomes good cop; innocent, victimized Middle Easterner becomes a perpetrator of violence--etc. And you can see all of this coming a mile away. Can Hollywood get any more heavy-handed and contrived than this? Well, let's hope not. Additionally, the movie seemed to be telling us that everyone in L.A. is a super-charged racist forever on the edge, ready to blow his or her top at any moment. Messages like this only serve to simplify social issues in a disastrous manner.
Essentially, "Crash" is classic kitsch: It shows you something for which you, as a product of liberal modernity, have a pre-loaded response. It makes you feel good about not being a racist and about deploring violence. It requires you to do zero intellectual work and then pats you on the back for having the correct ethical orientation toward the subject matter.
Personally, I don't think there's ever a good reason for talking down to your audience, and "Crash" is full of that. This type of story is every bit as bad as, on the other hand, elitist art that is only trying to communicate with a minute, intellectual clique. The ideal situation, I think, is for artists to treat their audience as thoughtful adults, and for the audience, in turn, to behave like thoughtful adults. Throughout "Crash," I felt Haggis was treating me like, at best, an adolescent who can only be impressed by broad strokes and the most obvious, belabored themes. In his book "The Art of Fiction," John Gardner talks about the bad storyteller being like a playwright who wants to run on stage every few minutes during a performance of his play and point out how every story development and technique is operating--and that is Haggis all over. He constantly shows his "puppeteer's hand."
Finally, I'm just getting exhausted by seeing people beating that dead horse of racism, over and over and over, in the media... For my money, a movie director is going to have to come up with a deeper, more ingenious approach if he wants me to listen to more of these preaching-to-the-choir sermons. Thankfully, there are directors like John Sayles who still have the talent to pull it off, and with panache.