Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Can White Hollywood Get Race Right?

By Jeff Chang and Sylvia Chan, AlterNet. Posted July 19, 2005.


Film critics proclaimed 'Crash' one of the best recent movies about race. Our cultural critics disagreed; so they sat down, Ebert and Roeper-style, to make their case.
Crash
Advertisement

Oscar award-winning screenwriter Paul Haggis' directorial debut, "Crash," is the movie many people are still talking about this summer. Writing in the New Yorker, David Denby said it "makes previous movie treatments of prejudice seem like easy and self-congratulatory liberalizing." Ella Taylor of Los Angeles Weekly hailed it as "one of the best Hollywood movies about race."

Set in post-riot, post-9/11 Los Angeles, "Crash" literally slams together a number of racialized "crashes" that drive the film forward. It openly draws on L.A. films like "Grand Canyon" and "Falling Down," as well as the works of Spike Lee. Although studios have shied away from dealing with race since 9/11, "Crash" is being marketed as "a provocative, unflinching look at the complexities of racial conflict in America." It is meant to challenge its viewers "to question their own prejudices" through the multiple perspectives of its star-studded, multiracial cast.

So what does it mean to be a post-9/11 race movie? Is "Crash" better than its Hollywood predecessors? Is Hollywood finally dealing with race? Cultural critics Jeff Chang and Sylvia Chan sat down, Ebert and Roeper-style, to figure it all out.

Keeping it Real

Jeff Chang: They're pitching "Crash" as a "race movie," a genre that has been anathema to Hollywood after 9/11. There isn't any explicit reference to the Iraq war, but I think the war is what "colors" the entire movie.

Sylvia Chan: What is a post-9/11 race movie? How have perspectives on race changed since 9/11? Besides the fact that there's an Iranian shop owner, this film could very well have been made before 9/11. What does it mean to be a good "race" movie, period?

JC: To begin to answer that, we have to go back to the 80s. After the blaxploitation era, a particular kind of race movie really took off: stories that were essentially about blacks or people of color redeeming whites. Start with Spielberg and "The Color Purple" and move on to "Mississippi Burning," "Cry Freedom," "Driving Miss Daisy." "Grand Canyon" is the crowning point of this genre.

SC: It continues to now with "Monster's Ball."

JC: And let's please ignore most of Queen Latifah's recent work. At the end of the 80s, Spike Lee says that he wrote "Do The Right Thing" to confront exactly this kind of movie. In turn, "Do The Right Thing" opened up the door to Black films being financed by the major studios, a trend that accelerated after the Los Angeles riots in 1992.

The other thing that happened after the riots is that Hollywood naturalized race by actively casting non-white co-stars or supporting actors. Race but without the racism, or as Greg Tate would put it, "everything but the burden." These days, the subtext of most movies is that we're all working and shopping in this beautiful, multicultural America together. It's the suppression of racial conflict through easy images of pluralist capitalism.

So "Crash's" neo-realistic take on race--the slurs, the appropriation of hip-hop, the tensions that refer back to pre-Rodney King Los Angeles--can be received literally as the real deal.

Black and White and Everyone Else

SC: I thought "Crash" was so unrealistic. Matt Dillon's cop character Sgt. Ryan walks into that HMO office and says, "My father helped black people and you just have a job because of affirmative action and that's why I don't like you, you bitch. Now give me what I want." If people spoke like that it would be great, because then you would know exactly where people stood. But it's not like that, and that's what's so unrealistic. Most people don't even know how to talk about race like that.

JC: For Haggis, the "crash" is the metaphor that holds everything together. He seems to believe race is only discussed when we collide with each other, and friction starts. It's a very interesting concept that resonates post-riots, post 9/11. But there's very little character development in the movie, and even less insight into race.

SC: The entire notion that racism can be instigated by "crashes" and collisions is steeped in a certain perspective: if I don't crash into you, I'll never get to know you, because you don't live in my neighborhood, and I don't have any friends that are not of my race or class.

The whole idea that you don't have to think about race until you "crash" into it is not what most people have the luxury of doing. And that is what white privilege is. White privilege is not having to think about race. Which is why I think many people have the reaction they do of coming out of the movie and bawling, thinking they've learned something.


Digg!

Jeff Chang is the author of Can't Stop Won't Stop: A History of the Hip-Hop Generation (St. Martins Press, February 2005), which today won a 2005 American Book Award!! AlterNet congratulates Jeff! Sylvia Chan is a Ph.D. candidate in Ethnic Studies at the University of California at Berkeley.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Hollywood has It's Own Crash to Worry About
Posted by: FlapJackSeven on Jul 19, 2005 4:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At the Box Office. No one pays attention to Hollywood anymore because the movies no longer have moral themes that the public can understand. Attendance is down across the board and a remake of Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory is doing OK. I think people are tired of having other people shove their attitudes in their face and I think that's the reason many liberal causes are facing an uphill battle.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Interesting analysis
Posted by: philame on Jul 19, 2005 6:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Jeff Chang & Sylvia Chan do a very thought provoking analysis. It is true that it was a very feel good movie in the end because it kept racism on a personal level and avoided looking at the structural/institutional level. What does make Crash unique however is that it is one of the only films I've seen that uncovered that although we live in a white supremacist society, reinforced by white privilege, racism is not something that whites only exercise on non-whites but that everyone operates from stereotypes and acts in racist ways. That is the films main acheivement, but yes, I agree it was a feel good movie, was written from a white perspective and yes, Hollywood doesn't really speak to anyone and when did it ever? It's all about fantasies and daydreams.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» 'Denial' is what sells Posted by: Sojourner
» huh? that's an achievement? Posted by: Michelle
crash is about humans, not race
Posted by: headexplode on Jul 19, 2005 10:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It seems the reviewers of "Crash" exhibit more racial prejudice than the film they are discussing. For me, this is meant to be a portrayal of human beings who happen to be of certain ethnicities and how that manifests in their daily lives and interactions. Though race plays a large thematic role, I think the reviewers are, quite frankly, reading way too much into whatever statements the director is trying to make. The characters, all of them, are deeply flawed, regardless of their race, and I believe that is the underlying point. Each character represents some type of worldview, and each one exhibits the capacity for prejudice, and each one exhibits the capacity for harm. As for this being a happy-go-lucky "race" movie, well, that is absurd on its face. I left the theater feeling a lot of things, and I can't say that "happy-go-lucky" was on that list. The major case the reviewers seem to have against this film is that they would've made a different "race" movie than the director intended. And I think they should. But this film is about the complex, mean, racist, idiotic and yet sometimes beautiful attributes of human beings, and how that affects the way we deal with one another. It that respect, I think the film did quite well.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Art imitating life?
Posted by: AppleJack on Jul 19, 2005 12:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
She says, "This is the type of narrative Hollywood needs to keep putting out there right now—the black man as the symbol for our nation, the guy who’s going to provide order for not only the U.S., but for the world. And let’s be real: this isn’t happening in real life." How different is this from the role that Colin Powell was assigned since 1989?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Art imitating life? Posted by: philame
» RE: Art imitating life? Posted by: ChicanoThinker
» RE: Art imitating life? Posted by: Multi-P
» RE: Art imitating life? Posted by: Phenix
» RE: Art imitating life? Posted by: YBFREE.com
Disagreement
Posted by: Tommy on Jul 19, 2005 10:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With all due respect, I'm not sure what you were expecting "Crash" to achieve. I saw the movie and genuinely liked it (other than the horribly manipulative scene where Pena's daughter gets "shot"). One of my dear friends saw it and didn't like it (she thought it was simplistic and it left her cold). I think the writer wanted to talk about things that most movies don't like to address, but I think the hype built around the movie was created as a way to sell tickets. I don't think it's fair to judge this movie by the "buzz" created to sell tickets. Unless I'm seriously off the mark, this movie wasn't meant to solve all the world's problems or erase the problem of racism. It was meant to reflect one person's anger and frustration at a society that ignores racism while bathing in it.

Is this the definitive study of racism in post-911 America? I don't think it comes close. But it uses an extremely effective soundtrack and specific quotes and scenes to reach an audience that will never watch a Spike Lee movie or visit the ACLU website. It would be wonderful if someone could make a movie that people that don't belong to the preacher's choir would see and realize that prejudice is stupid. But until that time, I'm glad "Crash" exists and I hope it encourages other movies in the same vein.

I'll let you two argue politics and ethnic examples and such. Me, I'm just happy when people are exposed to the radical notion that racism isn't a political movement, it's a disease that hurts specific people, real people, people everyone knows. Argue semantics all you want - if a movie likes this makes people think about their own prejudices and illogical behavior, then I personally applaud the creators of "Crash" and pray they'll ignore the liberal puppets and keep making movies that reach people that normally wouldn't consider watching films that deal with race.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why I Hated "Crash"
Posted by: lrhink on Jul 20, 2005 4:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I read what the cultural critics had to say and I agreed with some of it and dismissed quite a bit. For example, I'm not really certain where they saw the bit about Whites being the redeemers in the end. If they are referring to Matt Dillon's character saving Thandi Newton from the fire, I thought there was a lot of the Black woman there redeeming the White male from his descent into nihilism. "Saving Ms. Newton" (this would be a great title since she always seems to require some saving from a White male hero in her movies) is what causes Dillon to realize how far away from protecting and serving he's become through his racism and extreme hatred. But that's not the point of my comment. I absolutely hated "Crash." It was, in my opinion, very transparent, very simplistic. I'd been pumped up by the New Yorker review as well and was mightily disappointed. I was also suprised by the response of the audience, crying in places that I couldn't help guffawing. Perhaps this is because this is a movie that is made with a specific audience in mind, one of which I am not a member. Maybe as a Black female immigrant with working class roots I already know that we all have prejudices, that the people to fear the most may not be the rampant racists but the ones that hold their arms out to us in friendship and brotherhood, only to be turned on when fear gets in the way. Maybe I take for granted that when you inhabit a world that is all White except for yourself that there is this dual place you inhabit (a la DuBois and Fanon) and that without a certain understanding that you are always, on some level seen as "other" then you set yourself up for a life of self-loathing, of self-denial, and ultimately of imploding with rage. Given the audience this was targeted to affect, I can understand the impulse to show the world the "humanity" of the African Americans and especially the Latinos to the audience, especially in stark contrast to many of the stereotypical White characters (i.e. Sandra Bullock). But at this stage in the game, shouldn't our humanity be a given? Perhaps the point of the movie was to show that we are all victims of racism. It should be stated that most of the Whites in the movie are victims of it as well but not in the direct way that their darker counterparts are. If this is the point the movie was trying to make, it could have been done much more effectively, with greater grace, without many of the cheap shots it takes to bring the point home.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Crash and burn
Posted by: hotlipsin61 on Jul 20, 2005 11:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Jeff Chang and Sylvia Chan did a pretty good dissection of the movie "Crash" and I'm not about to reply to their analyses, but what did I learn from the film? I think we're all victims of our own ignorances about different races.
Many of us Americans probably never dealt with anyone outside their race and in a city like Los Angeles, we have a collision of cultures, each one unique in its own way.
I knew going in that the characters were stereotyped. That's the way we MAY see or imagine a minority to be. These portrayals are burned into our collective psyche. But we seem to love these same ethnic stereotypes in film because it reinforces our belief of deviant, societal behavior by association. (Just because we see someone dressed like a gang member or someone who wears A&F is not a summary of the collective behavior of a group.)
In the end, I hope Americans could overcome its racial differences and not parade the same old stereotypes in film.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Race is America's problem and we're stuck with it
Posted by: Tracey on Jul 20, 2005 12:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What exactly do you mean by describing Terrence Howard's character as "bourgeoisie, white-indentifying" and shedding "oreo aspirations." I found that comment to be troubling. I hope this isn't "the real black people" debate again because I'm sick of that one. What made the character "white-dentifiying?" Are you saying that successful blacks who have different aspirations than the usual suspects, entertainer or athlete, is "white-indentifying" or "oreo?" Is the character "white indentifying because he spoke without ghetto slang and didn't connect with the hood anymore?

Wow! A succesful black person that is consistently under seige in EVERY aspect of their lives. Fighting the white producer over "how real black people talk" to being expected to turn into "super thug" to defend his wife from the police to being "held up" by one of your own people for your car. Then on top of that, you have your "blackness" questioned? His confronting the police had nothing to do with shedding his "oreo aspiriations" it had a lot to do with just being feed up.

What exactly made Ludacris' character a black nationalist? Spouting some pro-black sentiments? I don't think so. This was one of the worst written characters in the film, who is only getting attention because of Ludacris' solid performance. The character reminded me of black rappers talking about racism, then in the next breath saying how "gully" or "hood" they were and how they would bust a cap in your ass over just about anything. Hell, I'm black and I'm afraid of that kind of talk. I seriously doubt that the majority of black people viewed that character as political or nationalist.

Sounds like to many ph.d classes to me - "racism is structural and institutional more than it is personal and sentimental." Get off Berkeley's liberal campus and go visit a civil war park in the South. There is nothing more personal or sentimental than watching packs of white peope shed tears for their civil war ancestors while refusing to discuss the enslavment of black people or even attempting to understand black people's hatred for the confederate flag. When people say racism is structural and institutional, they are implying racism can "fixed" by changing social constructions, that's crap. Racism is handed down in personal relationships like grandma's silver set.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I disagree
Posted by: jennoschmello on Jul 24, 2005 10:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"But to me, a good movie about race would be one where white viewers walk out angry, confused, and frustrated, because for once, they would get a chance to look at the world from a non-white perspective."

Apart from the rest of Chang and Chan's commentary/article, I completely disagree with this comment. If people of mixed decent are trying to promote tolerance then why call for a movie that would make 'white viewers walk out angry, confused, and frustrated"? That would mean the movie is meant to target them, to make white people feel bad for behavior that NOT ALL WHITE PEOPLE ARE GUILTY FOR. Showing a racially motivated film to piss off a section of the audience is hostile and it targets viewers, as I said before. As a biracial person myself, I always thought the most influential message to 'changing the times' was passive activism, like Martin Luther King. Martin Luther King’s approach was not to single out white oppressors by calling them names or making them angry. He used the concept of passive activism to send a message. And he spread that message without insulting people! I mean, didn’t Chang and Chan learn anything?! Isn’t there a reason why so many people respect King?! Come on!

Chang and Chan's call for singling out white viewers is a blatant attack. Their comment is more like a commentary, an angry rant, than a qupte to read, absorb, and take heed from. You can't change people by attacking them. You can't make white stereotypes angry and expect for them to change. In fact, it only makes them bitter.

So NO! I don't think racial allegories should point fingers! You want a good film about racial allegory then stick to family films like Bend It Like Beckham instead of 'mature' character studies like Crash. Maybe then you'll learn something and stop blaming the world for your prejudices! You yourself can make the difference but not by pointing fingers at others, especially when you generalize. When you generalize, you are no different than the people who do. So, for once, take your experiences and learn from them.

All right then. That’s it, I’ve said my peace.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I disagree Posted by: fpc
» RE: I disagree Posted by: Phenix
Monster's Ball -- don't forget to boycott this movie!
Posted by: Shalimarali on Jul 26, 2005 3:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I realize that the review is about Crash; but since Monster's Ball was mentioned, I wanted to urge you to boycott Halle Berry.

A movie like Monster's Ball would have been totally acceptable 200 years ago, when black women and girls had to sexually service white slave masters.

Making a movie like Monster's Ball in the year 2002 is an insult to every black women and girl in America.

There is already so much disrespect for black women in Hip Hop lyrics that it seemed like Halle Berry wanted to jump on the bandwagon of disrespect black women.

I wonder if she plans to show the movie to her son or daughter if she ever has kids one day.

She has not given birth to any children yet, but I can you I am mad as hell that my granddaughters will have her as a role model of the first black women to win an Oscar.

This movie was the most offensive movie about blacks since Birth of a Nation -- but did you notice there was no outcry from the black community? Why? Because black people see Halle Berry as beautiful and the buck stops there. Never mind that beauty, civil rights and respect are entirely different things, most blacks stop at her beauty and instantly forget about how damaging this movie is to our image.

The NAACP did a ban on Song of the South, even though the lead actor (James Baskett, a black man) won an honorary Oscar. They had the backbone to boycott this movie because of the negative image of blacks. And it took about 20 years for the movie to be banned.

The year prior to Halle Berry and Denzel winning their Oscars, the NAACP threatened to ban the Oscars due to lack of representation of blacks. I guess they very well could not try to boycott the Oscars for this horrid movie after the Oscars gave them exactly what they asked for -- black representation.

Shame on Halle Berry for F**king a white man to get an Oscar. After she turned that trick, I refused to watch any movie she made after Monster's Ball. And with her box office sales so low, I guess she turned off others as well.

Blacks need to work on self respect and demanding respect. When entertainment disrespects us, let's boycott and raise a fuss, just like we did with Stephen Fetchit.

No black girl in America neeeds to be shown how to make a white man feel real good, 200 years after Slavery.

Boycott Halle Berry!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Crash and burn
Posted by: miro26 on Jul 28, 2005 8:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I recently watched Crash and found it to be a tedious. I didn't recognize the LA portrayed. Simplistic portrayal, predictable. Hated it!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sandy
Posted by: shwilkins on Aug 8, 2005 5:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"My father helped black people and you just have a job because of affirmative action and that's why I don't like you, you bitch.

You need to leave California and come to the 'real' US. The person who said this to me just didn't add the words - 'you bitch'. The rest of your article is based on your perspective - and I respect that - as limited as it appears to be.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hated Crash
Posted by: savvysearch on Feb 4, 2006 10:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maybe if this movie took place sometime in the 1950s it would be relevant. In the multicultural melting pot of Los Angeles, Crash completely misses the point. Even calling the film simplistic is giving it too much credit. What's even more ridiculous is how it's boosters are claiming it to be true to life. It's anything but realistic.

As an Asian American, I don't get into many argument where people end up calling me a slanted-eyed, laundry shop owning chink. In fact, I haven't worried about this type of hysterical overt racism in over 20 years, so calling Crash a "feel good race movie" hits it perfectly. The movie avoids the important issues of racism that actually affect us today in the year 2006. Instead, it focuses on obvious hysterical racism that is easy to see as being wrong, so that we can easily dismiss and judge characters like Matt Dillon and Sandra Bullock without identifying with any of them. Racism exists in many forms. Crash focuses on the easiest one that has the most consensus , the hysterical type of calling each other racial slurs. This is why Crash is "feel good" because we can say "I am definitely NOT this person." The movie keeps the viewer safely in this position of moral superiority. So they can point the finger without seeing the three fingers that are pointing back at them.

The racism that Crash avoids is the form that is more insidious and affects most of us today. It's the type that we feel in our everyday lives and that we know exists, but it's subtle and difficult to prove. I call it the "I'm-not-a-racist" racism. It's why New Orleans isn't getting the money it needs. It's why there are so few people of color getting lead roles in television shows and movies. It isn't a conscious racism perpetrated by angry racist people. It is, as Chang described, structural and institutional.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hated Crash Posted by: Phenix
» RE: Hated Crash Posted by: Kym525
crash a let down
Posted by: bennicotera on Mar 6, 2006 3:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, it's a good movie, but the unrealistic dialogue allows for neither meaningful subtext nor elaborated context. Racism is nearly universal to the characters, a point well taken, but the treatment of the issue is more existentially insipid than dramatic or critical, something the critics I've read, for and against, all got wrong. On the bright side, the acting is strong and emotive, making up for the acontextual dialogue, melodramatic cinematography, and the weak story. The story's threads are not "interlocked" as Roger Ebert claims, at least not in any way that makes for a coherent plot, but only loosely connected by apparent coincidence and the similarities between mistreatment in general and racism in specific.

This is not, by any means, the height of expression in the collaborative artform of filmmaking, nor is it even a rollercoaster of emotion. Instead of a rollercoaster, as an audience, we get the privledge of an outside perspective-- just because the confrontational type of racism we see in the movie is by far the least common type. It's perpetuated by institutions and communities, sure, and racism is a personal problem for far too many, but these days, racism is just not as out in the open as it has been in the recent past. Consider the power of the anti-holocaust backlash in the 1940s and the civil rights movements of the subsequent decades. It's almost impossible to have an openly racist political standpoint, and-- I'm sorry-- racists are extremely unlikely to do anything around the people they are discrimining against that can prove discrimination. It's called self-preservation, my friends, and it's absence in the movie is more attention getting than any diatribe on social problems.

In terms of execution, Crash's L.A. look and sound is tolerable, but about as cliched as they get, similar to the also potentially amazing Heat a few years back. In fact, the films share one or two key crew in the cinematography department. I must admit that I didn't see Crash in the theater, and it may have looked better on a huge screen.

Still, a lot of people love this movie. It *is* sort of daring and, again, sort of innovative in it's emphasis on the story of the emotions rather than accomplishments or relationships as most movies are. Emotional expression, however, is a part of all Hollywood films, and it seems like the movie makers just saved on story work by embracing "boundary-pushing."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Conservatives must be laughing...
Posted by: Kym525 on Mar 7, 2006 11:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here's an idea - let's pit white liberals against black liberals by making 'Crash' the winner of the 2006 Academy Awards!

Let's make white liberals so upset that a supposedly 'groundbreaking' film - Brokeback Mountain - gets snubbed in favor of a film with racism as its theme - Crash. Hmm, let's pit homosexuals against blacks and watch them tear each other apart while the powers that keep both groups down watches from the sidelines with fiendish glee.

Amazing - it worked. I guess no one learned a damn thing from either film.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's terrible when Liberals eat their own
Posted by: skyloaf on Mar 7, 2006 9:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here's a movie that focuses on the evils of racism, and all these two can say is that it's disingenuous or it doesn't go far enough.

Well, I am SO sorry that the writer/director and I just don't get it. Yes, we are white, which may make it impossible for us to get it. But at least we're trying to get it. AT LEAST we recognize that racism is bad and we try to understand.

For God's sake, educate us. But don't tell us we're wrong or bad or misleading. The effort is plain to see.

Further, the critics show themselves as left coasters by criticising the dialogue. Yes, it's true real LAers would probably not speak like that, but I certainly have heard those exact words in the midwest.

And what the hell is this about racism being institutional and structural? DUUUHHH! But people -- you know, those individual life forms -- they are personal and sentimental. And if your going to make any progress, you make it person by person by person.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Too much ado about a F-I-C-T-I-O-N story
Posted by: DaBear on Mar 29, 2006 9:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The "reviewers" who penned this critique make the fundamental flaw of the typical Amerikaan moviegoer, they expect fiction to be real life ("realistic" was mentioned no fewer than two dozen times in various ways bordering on the absurd), to be obejctively documentary (this is fiction, metaphor, non-realistic, something film admittedly has a tough time doing not because of its essential nature but because of mis-aligned user-expectation), and to be their social salvation from all woes and cares (no film can ever fulfill such fantasies, Hollywood's marketing war-chests notwithstanding). With expectations like these no wonder the authors seem to despise and eschew white filmmakers, writers, and the artifacts they produce. It's every bit as absurd a critique as the ave. Xtian-Fundie critique of Hollywood itself. Look, when critics begin screwing up interpretations of "crashes"-as-metaphor for literal crashes-as-realistic-kernel event (as moments for society-wide racial healing), you know we're all in big trouble.

Critique on this level is unhelpful in the furtherance of the cause these two critics purport to uphold. But then all this has been said in the comments so far decrying the sloppy but progressively ultra-PC penchant of the authors. "Crash" is a problematic film but well crafted and told, its narratoglogical and cinematic flaws and weaknesses included. It cannot be judged on the expectations of marketeers, fans or critics. I don't think it's too many Ph.D.'s, although that was a good use of humor, just a lack of experience actually producing relevant, focused, intelligent critique of fictional material.

Besides, why is it that people expect Hollywood, a capitalist corporate globalist bastion, to save them from corporate globalist capitalism and all its attendant cultural, class and ethnic traumas? Why are we waiting for racial salvation to come on the silver screen? Why are we still using the 20th century term "race" when we really mean body morphology/ethnic supremacy urges? "Race" is the convenient linguistic cover for the very real Amerikaan crisis manifest in our absurd and profound inability to hear or see Other as Us and, to define "Other" and "Us" purely on the basis of ethnicity or skin pigmentation/body morph, both individually and institutionally/culturally. If there is any broader societal value to "Crash" it is in its ability to present a version, limited as it has to be to live within its inherent narrative frame, of this crisis. But to have any broader urge for the film or ascribe overly broad redemptive value or qualities to this film is just an exercise in stoopid. I want donuts to fulfill all my nutritional needs to the exclusion of all other foods too but that isn't "realistic" either.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]