The polarization of "Crash"

[LSPoorEeyorick]

No, I'm not talking about the James Spader/Holly Hunter sexfest, though surely that polarizes, too. I'm talking about the Paul Haggis film that is an Oscar dark horse this year.

The film, which is a talking-piece about racism in Los Angeles (and at large), seems to me to elicit one of two responses.

Response one: "Beautiful! Thoughtful! Touched me deeply and made me think!"

Response two: "Hated it."

I've only heard those responses from the people I've talked to, and I'm curious to find out why it so polarizes its audience. Have you seen Crash? What did you think? Did it move you, or did you despise it? Or did you split the difference?

There are a lot of hard questions rolling around in my head. Do people who love it love it because of its treatment of race? Do people who hate it hate it because of its treatment of race?

I have problems with the film, and they are mainly threefold. First, I tend to dislike films about groups of people tenuously connected by coincidence, especially if it's a very large group of people and you don't get much time with anyone. Second, I tend to dislike films that are about an "issue," instead of about characters, where everything is fed to you in one conversation after another instead of letting the audience masticate their own thoughts on the piece. And third: the film, written by a self-admitted hater of Los Angeles, is a depiction of a LA that seems nothing like my own city. And I've been to a lot of parts of this city. I've dated a black man from Compton, and had no racial conflicts to speak of. I live in Thai Town and I speak to my Korean neighbors. I work in the Valley alongside people of all kinds of ethnic origins without struggle, and I hug them, I touch people, I walk alongside of them all the time. Crash's LA is not the city I know and love, and I was offended by that.

But I have been digging deep to ask questions of myself. Am I being racist by finding the film's depicted racism to be exaggeraged? Because my experience is different that Haggis'? Because he was in a car jacking and I wasn't? Because I am middle-class and others aren't? Probably, yes. But then, I feel like the movie's point was that everyone is racist to some degree, and everybody needs to keep that in check. And my response to this is: "And? What else is new?"

I am anxious to hear other people's thoughts on the matter.

[innerSpaceman]

I love polarizing pics. I'm usually on the "loved it" side of the equation, and I dig that the same film is viciously "hated" by so many people. It's much more interesting than liking films that everyone else likes, or being lukewarm about films that most people are lukewarm about.

I'm on the "loved it" side of the Crash equation.

I don't hate film stories structured around coincidences if that's the purpose of the story's structure. Meaning, I hate giant apes when they show up in most movies, but I'm ok with that tactic in "King Kong."

Haggis' experience of L.A. may be drastically different than mine, but - um - it's a big, big city with many realities, and many of them quite nasty. Besides, I don't think the critique of racism was a critique of Los Angeles, simply because it was a plausible setting for such a tale.

And while I don't generally prefer ensemble casts with multiple threads, I will accept that it's a genre which naturally produces a bit more "message" in the dialogue. It could be looked upon just a different method of achieving cohesion.

Yeah, I'll admit that the theme might have been expressed a little leadfootedly. But that was cleanly offet by emotionally resonant situations helped along by consistently amazing performances.

Matt Dillon was chilling. Terrance Howard was seethingly good. Sandra Bullock was delightful in a reversal of type, and even Ryan Phillippe turned in good work! Who'da even thunk that possible??



.

[MouseWife]

I loved the movie.

I normally don't like too much stories that skip around but this worked out. I loved how it all worked together.

That said. Hmm. It did make me think about my own racism. I think that while people do get along there is a definite bond between races and also levels of wealth {or lack of}. I know my neighbor was upset that a Hispanic bus driver went against what she said happened in an incident telling me 'And he's one of us, too'. :confused:

And Oh my gosh, Terrance Howard was fantastic. Made me rent 'Hustle & Flow'. Great movie. Felt a little awkward when my friends asked what it was about 'A pimp and his ho's'. :eek: Won't spoil that one.

But, yeah, I was told by someone 'Eh, what's the big deal? They act like this movie gives some revelation. The cast was on Oprah like it was a big deal.' I told his guy 'You didn't see the movie, did you?' And no he hadn't.

[€uroMeinke]

Let me know when we can talk about the James Spader/Holly Hunter sexfest - that scene in the Mercedes dealership was hot - oh sorry, haven't seen the remake.

[Gemini Cricket]

'Crash' is not a good movie.

I understand what the movie was trying to say, but it just didn't say it very well. The characters were weak, the dialogue was unrealistic and the acting was terrible (but I will lay the blame on this with the director, I have seen all of these actors in better roles, so maybe I should say this movie was poorly directed).

First and foremost, the film felt like it was written and directed by two people who have never experienced racism firsthand nor seem to know what it actually feels like to be on the receiving end of it. (There's a wonderful scene in the not-so-good 'Poetic Justice' where Maya Angelou and another older actress berate Regina King's character when the late-teens King says she's in love. One of the older women says, 'What do you know about love?') My question to these filmmakers is 'What do you know about racism?'

Now I'm not saying one should be a minority to write/direct a movie about racism. But what I'm saying is that it helps to know your subject matter. That is why 'Do the Right Thing' accomplished a lot more with fewer characters, a simpler story and smaller budget.

First off, in one of the first scenes we see Jennifer Esposito's chastize an Asian lady for the way she drives. Anyone in a high profile position would never, ever talk to someone like that and expect to keep their job. Yes, she might talk that way behind the lady's back, but never to her face. Sorry, that would never happen. And if it did, that person would have never gotten as high as she did in her dept without being exposed as someone idiotic early on in her career.

Secondly, Matt Dillon's character is beyond liking the moment the frisking scene occurrs. The director did get an effective performance in this scene from Thandie Newton. But it was so good that nothing, and I mean nothing, Dillon's character could do in the film could possibly redeem his character. Including saving her life later on in the film, including helping his father take a dump...

The dialogue in this film was so unconvincing that it became laughable. No one in LA, no one in the world talks like the people talk in this film.
At one point, William Fitchner's character says, 'Black people, huh?' in a wink wink knowing way to Don Cheadle. They were illustrating his bigotry, yes. But who talks like that? Someone might say, 'Typical' like it just slipped out. Oops. But what he said was diliberate and hokey. (Not to mention that he says it to an African American.)

And this happens throughout the film!

ie. An owner of a gun store calls Shaun Toub's character 'Osama' and kicks him out. Um, if he didn't like people from the Middle East, wouldn't he just refuse to help them period? But he does it well into a sale. Wrong. Not only this, but after that his daughter buys a gun from him anyway. Anyone who was treated like that would not buy anything from this man.

ie. Brendan Fraser's character stomps around saying, 'I'm the District Attorney of Los Angeles!' The script should show us that not have the character announce it. Someone should introduce him as the DA, not have the character tell us. That's just lame. (What's more is that Brendan Fraser is a 'George of the Jungle', he is an 'Encino Man', he is a Warner Brothers Security Guard... but a DA? I don't buy it.)

ie. Ludacris: 'I ran over a China Man.' Who says 'China Man'?

ie. Sandra Bullock's character is unaware of anyone else existing in her universe. To totally go off on a guy that's in the room without talking to him is weird.

ie. Bullock's maid's performance made her seem like English is her second language (yes, we get it) but also that she's somewhat mentally challenged.

The deal with racist people is that most of their racist tendencies are never overtly displayed to the people they are targeting. It happens inconspicuously. It's a snide whisper to a friend, it's a defiant look at someone, it's not listening to someone, etc. Yes, the in-your-face attitude comes out in anger directly to the target, but according to this film everyone in LA is a volcano and everyone targets everyone all the time. If that were the case, in anger management terms, the venting would be healthy for the venter and the victims would learn to just get over it just to cope. Racism is a problem because a lot of it is covert. If it were out in the open more, it would be easy to target and avoid the racist. Racist people aren't always out in the open.
(I also believe everyone has it in them to be racist. The one thing I agree with the filmmakers on. There are good and bad people in every color.)

And if this post weren't long enough already, I'd like to say that the scene between the locksmith and his daughter in her bedroom was fantastic. Great performances.

Oh, and Ryan Phillipe looked like he was twelve wearing a cop uniform...

I don't mind the intertwining stories and characters. It's cool. But you have to buy the premise first. If you don't, none of it works.

[Ponine]

I am actually in the middle for this movie. I didnt love it, I didnt hate it... it disturbed me, and it made me laugh. That said...


Secondly, Matt Dillon's character is beyond liking the moment the frisking scene occurrs. The director did get an effective performance in this scene from Thandie Newton. But it was so good that nothing, and I mean nothing, Dillon's character could do in the film could possibly redeem his character.

Agreed. Though I so identified with Thandie Newton I cried almost everytime she was on screen, and that scene killed me, and I had to walk away.


ie. Brendan Fraser's character stomps around saying, 'I'm the District Attorney of Los Angeles!' The script should show us that not have the character announce it. Someone should introduce him as the DA, not have the character tell us. That's just lame. (What's more is that Brendan Fraser is a 'George of the Jungle', he is an 'Encino Man', he is a Warner Brothers Security Guard... but a DA? I don't buy it.)

ie. Ludacris: 'I ran over a China Man.' Who says 'China Man'?

ie. Sandra Bullock's character is unaware of anyone else existing in her universe. To totally go off on a guy that's in the room without talking to him is weird.

ie. Bullock's maid's performance made her seem like English is her second language (yes, we get it) but also that she's somewhat mentally challenged.



wow...I disagree with you...

Brendan Fraser... YOu dont buy that? Am I the only one that does stand up in my cube, or walk outside and say loudy.. G@@ Dammn it... I am the payroll tech. I am a payroll tech, I know what I am doing....
I was sold on that speech

China man... I still hear that. A lot

Bullock... nope, I've seen people do that, heard about it, and done it myself.

Bullocks house keeper... nope I didnt get that impression at all.
I saw a woman who was afraid of overstepping her bounds who has been treated as a second class citizen by this woman, when in fact she knows thats not the way it has to be.
She wanted to help, but knew that she would not be allowed because of the prior history with Bullock.

[Gemini Cricket]

Bullock... nope, I've seen people do that, heard about it, and done it myself.
Yes, but I doubt very highly that Jana Cooley (Steve Cooley's wife) would act the same way in the same circumstance even after being carjacked/mugged.

Bullock was so foul, why would anyone want to work for her?

Nope, didn't buy that at all...

[innerSpaceman]

Sorry, G.C., but you and I simply did not see the same movie.


If you think racism is only displayed covertly, than perhaps it's because of your own limited experience with it. Now that you're living in a bigger city, maybe you'll see some of it in its purer form.

I think this is a case of you simply not buying into the premise and style of the movie, and nothing worked for you from that moment on. That's perfectly legitimate - - - but hardly the definitive truth of this widely acclaimed film. Many others had no problem buying into the film's premise and style and, for them, everything worked from that moment on.

You're opinion is as valid as anyone else's, and it contributes to the polarizing factor which makes my enjoyment of 'Crash' even greater. So, um, thanks for hating it.


btw, where does anyone get the idea that Matt Dillon's character is supposed to be "redeemed" in the eyes of the audience? I think his character is supposed to be given some dimension, not receive forgiveness for what a vile person he remains ... despite good works as a cop and as a son.


I'll grant that subtlety was not in any way the style of this film. But why would it have to be? (I wanted a giant hamster to ravage New York in the new King Kong, but most people seemed fine with the same old giant ape .... sometimes you have to accept the style that the filmmaker chooses, and judge it on those terms rather than on standards that simply don't apply.)

[Gemini Cricket]

If you think racism is only displayed covertly, than perhaps it's because of your own limited experience with it.
Don't assume too much, iSm. If I didn't know you, I'd call you out of line. I'm not going to qualify your quote with a laundry list. And don't expect to see a smilie of any sort after this sentence.



This film is widely acclaimed because no one has had the guts to touch this subject in a long while. Someone did, and that's great, but that someone didn't do it well.

[innerSpaceman]

Um, Hawaiian discrimination? If it's true ... and I cannot doubt your word ... that's a new one on me.




(oh, and if it's the homo thing ... well, that's not exactly racism, but I'll grant some similarities)


Or are we talking racism from the giving end???

[Gemini Cricket]

To say that if someone didn't like this film it's because they have never experienced racism is preposterous. One can make a distinction between how a film is made and its content. Also, if you read the post again, I never said it only happens covertly. I said that a lot of it is.

I'm not answering your above questions.

[innerSpaceman]

First and foremost, the film felt like it was written and directed by two people who have never experienced racism firsthand nor seem to know what it actually feels like to be on the receiving end of it. ... My question to these filmmakers is 'What do you know about racism?'

The deal with racist people is that most of their racist tendencies are never overtly displayed to the people they are targeting. It happens inconspicuously. ... Racism is a problem because a lot of it is covert.
It just seemed to me that you were implying a familiarity with racism was important to creating a film about racism, and one of the reasons you disliked the movie is that you believed the filmmakers misunderstood the nature of racism in having their 12 characters display it so obviously.

If I read you right, you weren't buying it because it didn't seem "real" to you. Well, it seems real to plenty of people living in L.A. To think that you couldn't find a dozen people who are over-the-top racists in this town is laughable. Certainly a story involving near-impossible coincidences in plot as its structure can be allowed the coincidence of involving overtly racist characters to be involved in that plot.

I'm not the one who claimed you needed a familiarity with racism to make or appreciate this film. I'm sorry if you were offended that I found your own experience somewhat limited if you think it has to be covert to smack of reality. Try being black or Korean in L.A. and then tell me how covert the racism is in this town.


BTW, the anachronistic term "China Man" was speficially chosen by the filmmakers to be the most insulting term applicable to a Korean. Yeah, no one really says it anymore. It was intended to be jolting and noticeable. A story where 12 characters are connected by vehicle incidents in a series of unlikely coincidences is not going for reality in every aspect anyways.


* * * * *

Ooooh, and look how polarizing even a thread about 'Crash' is!!! Gemini Cricket and I are having our worst message board fight since ... well, since our discussion of 'Rent.'

(Maybe we can strike a bin Ladan truce over our mutual love for Brokeback Mountain.)

[Gemini Cricket]

It just seemed to me that you were implying a familiarity with racism was important to creating a film about racism, and one of the reasons you disliked the movie is that you believed the filmmakers misunderstood the nature of racism in having their 12 characters display it so obviously.

You're telling me that I haven't truly experienced racism because I'm Hawaiian. Okay, with that logic... the director and writer of this film are white.

If I read you right, you weren't buying it because it didn't seem "real" to you. Well, it seems real to plenty of people living in L.A.

I find that to be a cop out. I've lived in LA for 8 years. I've seen it.

The portrayals were not realistic. If an LA cop fingerbanged someone while frisking them, they would lose their job (not to mention that every formal complaint of an LA officer goes in their file). If a CSI investigator (or whatever she was) spouted overtly racists remarks to someone, she would lose her job. If a DA's wife was deemed as a racist (and witnessed as one by several people in her house), the press would have a field day bringing that DA down. That's how it works now and these people in their jobs know that. They would not say these things outloud to their target for fear of repercussions.

Certainly a story involving near-impossible coincidences in plot as its structure can be allowed the coincidence of involving overtly racist characters to be involved in that plot.

Not if your point is to mirror every day life. I'm not saying all racists are covert. But what are the odds that all 12 of these people are?

Try being black or Korean in L.A. and then tell me how covert the racism is in this town.

So the filmmakers need not be experienced in being on the receiving end of racism in order to be credible, but I do?

(Maybe we can strike a bin Ladan truce over our mutual love for Brokeback Mountain.)


Yeah, but you were bi-sexual and now you're not. What do I care about your opinion on two rumpus rangers who were born gay.

(Okay, that last one was a joke.) :D

[tracilicious]

Um, Hawaiian discrimination? If it's true ... and I cannot doubt your word ... that's a new one on me.


I have Samoan in-laws that have certainly experienced racism. I think anything that varies from the norm is sometimes discriminated against.

I haven't seen Crash, but I will now.

[tracilicious]

Um, Hawaiian discrimination? If it's true ... and I cannot doubt your word ... that's a new one on me.


I have Samoan in-laws that have certainly experienced racism. I think anything that varies from the norm is sometimes discriminated against.

I haven't seen Crash, but I will now.

[Gemini Cricket]

I don't know if this thread is polarized about racism. It's polarized on whether the film was made well or not. I say not.

(Btw- I'm seeing double posts... Am I drunk?) ???

:D

[Ponine]

OKay, I have to pull this out and question it...


The portrayals were not realistic. If an LA cop fingerbanged someone while frisking them, they would lose their job (not to mention that every formal complaint of an LA officer goes in their file).

But thats the kicker isnt it? She didnt press charges, she didn't file a complaint.
She chose to live with it, and attempt to deal.
Who knows why. Becuase it could ruin her husbands career?
Or did I miss that she filed a complaint?

I know that I wouldnt have had the nerve to tell ANYONE if that had been me. It wouldnt have been worth it to re-live it just to file a complaint.

GC?

[Alex]

Of course Hawaiian discrimination. Most people couldn't tell a Hawaiian from a Samoan from a Tongan (and most could tell general Polynesian traits from general Asian traits).

Many haoles suffer under the same misconceptions of Hawaiian laziness as exist for Mexicans and other tropical populations.


As for China Man being the worst thing you can call a Korean, I don't doubt they'd find it insulting, but in my experience calling them Japanese is worse (and conversely, calling a Japanese person anything other than Japanese will be considered quite insulting).

I haven't seen Crash and probably won't for a couple years (it's in my 400-movie-long Netflix queue) since I have no particular compulsion to move it up in the queue. From what I've read and what little I've seen it just doesn't interest me.

[Gemini Cricket]

GC?
Me? Oh, I'd say something. But no one wants to hear me brag.
'Me and Matt?' I'd say. 'We're like that.' Then I'd cross my fingers.
Ha ha. :D Joking! That was a joke. No flames!


Seriously though, I'd report him. My husband would survive.
:)

[innerSpaceman]

The portrayals were not realistic. If an LA cop fingerbanged someone while frisking them, they would lose their job...If a CSI investigator (or whatever she was) spouted overtly racists remarks to someone, she would lose her job. If a DA's wife was deemed as a racist (and witnessed as one by several people in her house), the press would have a field day bringing that DA down.
We are living on different planets.

Cops in particular, get away (quite literally) with murder, and every crime in between that and pencil theft.

I'm not saying all racists are covert. But what are the odds that all 12 of these people are?
About the same as all 12 of these people being interconnected by automobile incidents. Either you accept that coincidence is the essence of the story or you don't. But since it IS, the presence of coincidence is simply not a legitimate criticism (any more than my criticism of King Kong is that I would have found a giant hamster more realistic).

So the filmmakers need not be experienced in being on the receiving end of racism in order to be credible, but I do? No, you miss my point - which is that you shouldn't hold the filmmakers to different level of racism-familiarity than you have yourself. I was pointing out that your own familiarity seems limited in respects, so why can't the filmmakers' be limited in others?




Oh, and since Jake and Ennis are both as bisexual as I am, I am quite authoritative on BBM. :D

[LSPoorEeyorick]

I guess I just find the whole thing so stilted that I can't get over it. It smacks of "weighty." iSm, I know you had the same problem with Million Dollar Baby last year (i.e. it was a tearjerker with "give me a shiny phallic statue" all over it)-- to me, this film was a "let's repeat racial insults back and forth for two hours and pretend we actually address the problem and people will shout hurray, they're talking about race, and not notice we're not addressing the problem, and give us a shiny phallic statue."

I know it wasn't that way to everyone, but then, I was touched by MDB-- and to me, it didn't cry out as Oscar-yearning, but rather as a lovely depiction of truly interesting characters in a moving situation. Tohmaytoh, tohmahtoh.

[MouseWife]

I agree with Ponine. I wouldn't have reported it. It was more than just what had happened but also that her husband was present. And to prove it? I mean, talk about date rape and people doubting your story, would they believe your husband was standing right there and saw what happened and that you didn't object and he didn't stop it?

Prejudice in L.A. I may not find the right words to explain it. It seems like there are a lot of labels. It seems there are very seperated communities. I don't know if they consider this living with their cultures and being respected for it but I would think prejudice follows.

As far as the quality of the movie, I loved it. But, since MDB was brought up, I thought that movie was very well put together. Smooth. Like reading a great book or watching it happen.

Perhaps was the style of 'Crash' but it didn't go smoothly and some of the characters seemed flat. To me. But I still got a message from it.

[Stan4dSteph]

I just watched the movie on DVD tonight. I found it very thought provoking. It makes me think about my own attitudes toward people of other races - how I act and what I say to them or about them. I know I have some thoughts similar to the characters in this film.

I don't think that because the director was white, he can't make a movie about racism. So white people don't experience racism? The point I got from the movie is that we all have prejudices.

[Gemini Cricket]

I don't think that because the director was white, he can't make a movie about racism. So white people don't experience racism?
I don't think anyone's saying that. I don't think this director ever experienced racism directed at him.

iSm ~ My dad's an ex-cop of about 33 years. I know about cops and their skeleton filled closets...

[Gemini Cricket]

Here's my summary of my take on 'Crash' and I'll let it speak for itself:

'Crash' is a poorly made film about a very important subject. One can dislike 'Crash' and not be a racist. If a person dislikes 'Crash', it does not mean he/she is not experienced on the subject of racism.

:)

[MouseWife]

Maybe it was such a hit because it was poorly done. That it didn't go too deep. Maybe this movie was enough to open eyes but didn't go deep and raw so that it didn't turn people off? Sometimes if it is too much people just go into denial. This was enough for those who would never admit to/realize any prejudice to watch it and say 'Well, maybe...'

That it wasn't too strong in anyones favor kept everyone balanced?

[innerSpaceman]

I don't think anyone's saying that. I don't think this director ever experienced racism directed at him.
Here's another point I believe you are missing ... the director experienced racism eminating from HIMSELF. He experienced a carjacking, which was the gestation point of creating the film. If he himself experienced racism in his heart and soul, he has plenty of knowledge with which to create a film.


The film has polarized the critical community as well as many audience humans. Love it, hate it. Both going on. As one who loves it, I can disagree with - but understand - some of the criticism lobbed at the film. I would hope that those in the hate-it camp - seeing how the film is lauded by many as one of the year's very best - can acknowledge that they can't be completely "right" about the film having no merit.

[lizziebith]

Because I am ALWAYS late to the party:

Well, I finally rented and watched "Crash" yesterday -- I didn't really have an interest in doing so until reading this thread. I must confess that I have a bias against films that come out swinging in "I hate L.A." mode. So I wasn't all that interested in subjecting myself to this movie, and was fully prepared, as I set the disc in the player, to hate it. [/disclaimer]

I watched it twice, just to be sure I hadn't missed something, but I didn't hate it. I didn't like it either. It made me feel cold and alienated and depressed. It rang false to me from the git-go: we're so isolated and self-absorbed here in L.A. that we crash into each other to connect? Puh-leeze. That is an embarrassingly pretentious device to utilize at the beginning of a piece of freaking film.

I didn't see anyone I've ever met in this film: I wondered who all the fantasy people were. I was amazed at the phoney dialogue and the stilted feel of it. It looked so "staged" -- even the big scene with the fingering. I didn't buy it at all. I'm kind of shocked that I have this much of a disconnect with a representation of Los Angeles that resonates with so many others...

Still, I actually really dig the style of films like this: all the artificial intersections and threads...(Altman-esque! A director you either love or hate -- I love!) But I think the style was wholly inappropriate for the subject matter, and contributed to the sense of ummmmm what planet is this supposed to be taking place on feeling I had all through both viewings. Or maybe it was not inappropriate for the subject matter -- maybe it just plain wasn't well-executed. :shrug: It was pretty, though, I'll give it that! I loved the shots of the valley. Although I'm a sucker for pretty valley shots -- because I loves me my valley. All the people in it were pretty, too. Maybe a little too pretty? Again, I didn't find that realistic. This film maybe needed some gritty, not pretty. Only the Middle-Eastern shopkeeper looked real. Oh, and Matt Dillon's dad. More of that and less of Sandra Bullock's carefully-ironed hair, please. I know that was supposed to illustrate the rigidity of her character, but I just hate that visual hammer-on-the-head manipulation.

Bottom line for me: it didn't succeed. Two viewings. I tried. And I just felt "meh" about it. As I said to the Mr.: A Good Rental. I enjoyed the pretty. I was reminded that I miss Altman. I like my fantasy clearly labeled as such. Won't be buying it.

EDIT: The next post better be all about how I'm wrong, wrong, WRONG! :D

[Alex]

I finally saw it as well. I liked it without loving it. It was simply too blunt and I really don't understand why Matt Dillon is the one who got picked out of the cast to represent the ensemble acting. I'd far prefer several other cast members.

I love the format of the movie and generally do when used in movies (unfortunately, this one too strongly echoed Magnolia even including something unusual falling out of the Los Angeles sky).

I try not to criticize people for making the movie they wanted to make rather than the movie I wanted them to make. A couple of the storylines were compelling (the carjackers, the locksmith, the D.A.) but this was counterbalanced by stories I hadn't much interest in (the shopkeeper, Ryan Phillippe, Dillon's involvement with dad).

I do wish that Haggis hadn't explained the ending of the locksmith storyline so explicitly. I knew immediately what had happened but leaving out the explicit camera shot would have retained a mystical edge that would have been better.

[innerSpaceman]

Talk about polarization. Love it or hate it.

How 'bout love it, then hate it? Cause, that's where I'm at right now. Sure, maybe it's a Brokeback disappointment backlash, but I think I've actually seen the light about Crash.

It's trash.

[Kevy Baby]

Talk about polarization. Love it or hate it.

How 'bout love it, then hate it? Cause, that's where I'm at right now. Sure, maybe it's a Brokeback disappointment backlash, but I think I've actually seen the light about Crash.

It's trash.Well, that was out of left field.

What brought this on? Did you see it tonight?

[innerSpaceman]

I'd seen it again recently, and decided it was too hammerhanded and pompous. I think I was just accepting its theatricality as a device, not unlike the storytelling device of bringing people together via vehicle incidents.

But the stupidity of everyone lecturing everyone else, and displaying their overt racism too absurdly directed at the people they are trying to get somewhere with was just too much for me on this repeat viewing.

I appreciate what the film is trying to say, and I really do admire many of the acting performances ... but it's a very sophmoric film.

[Not Afraid]

It won best pic and I STILL don't want to see it.

I guess I must be racist because the "Africian/American racial and cultural theme" films just don't interest me much. Maybe I truly am a white aerodyte snob. And, that really isn't something I strive to be.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

Here's the funny thing: it's not an "African/American racial and cultural" themed movie. Written/directed by a white man, edited by a white man, produced by white men, about all different kinds of races. And everyone comes out looking horrible in it-- especially the Asians in the film, who have nothing redeeming about them whatsoever. I don't understand why Oprah Winfrey was calling it "her" movie-- a movie about/for the black population. As far as I can gather, it says nothing flattering (or really "real"--ie not exaggerated) about anyone. Every person in that film was depicted as despicable racist. Not that the film was about people, per se. I feel that as far as narrative and construction, it's completely artless (aside from some performances.)

I'm glad that the second viewing affected you so, iSm. Not that I wish unpleasant viewing experiences for you, just that I couldn't--for the life of me-- understand why you liked it so.

On the other hand, BBM is an example of a film that I can completely understand would affect so many people, even though I didn't feel affected in the same way.