Comments

1. DEAF FEMINIST PUNK!! wrote:

   why do so many people on Racialicious hate ‘Crash’ (the movie)? I thought it was well-acted, well-written, and beautifully directed. The cinemateography was great, too. Maybe I like the film for cinematic reasons, so I don’t understand the hatred for the movie.

   Posted 22 Sep 2008 at 9:26 am ¶

2. Latoya Peterson wrote:

   @DFP –

   As a movie, Crash was cool. Cinematography was gorgeous, and I liked the concept of four interconnected stories.

   But for me (I can’t speak for anyone else), Crash was not the important conversation about race it was hyped to be. It was a movie. The movie discussed race. But it also fell back into a lot of well worn tropes (like the idea of salvation – how is the guy who sexually assaulted you going to be the guy that saves you from a crash?), ideas around interracial sex (that it is always a combative act), the idea that everyone is a bit racist, so it can’t be that bad, the idea that stereotyping is terrible, unless it turns out to be true ( Sandra Bullock/Ludas roles), and the complete lack of development with the East Asian and Persian characters. There’s also the fact that Crash dealt with racism only on a personal level, looking at individual acts, with no mention of systemic racism.

   Here’s some other discussion:
   http://www.modelminority.com/article1117.html

   http://www.mixedmediawatch.com/2005/05/11/crash-upholds-stereotypes-about-asian-americans/

   Posted 22 Sep 2008 at 9:39 am ¶

3. DEAF FEMINIST PUNK!! wrote:

   ohhhh okay. Yeah I can see your points now that I think about it… damn.

   Posted 22 Sep 2008 at 10:26 am ¶

4. C-Marsh wrote:

   1. “…the complete lack of development with the East Asian and Persian characters.”
   2. “… (like the idea of salvation – how is the guy who sexually assaulted you going to be the guy that saves you from a crash?), ideas around interracial sex (that it is always a combative act)…”
   3. “…the idea that everyone is a bit racist, so it can’t be that bad, the idea that stereotyping is terrible, unless it turns out to be true ( Sandra Bullock/Ludas roles)…”
   Latoya,
   I do agree with your assessments on the first two, but I think that you can argue another way for the third one. I also think that an argument can be made about why the movie was shot from a personal perspective rather than tackling systematic racism. I understand the importance of identifying systematic racism, and Crash would have been that much better if it at least gave a bigger hint of its existence.
   Terrance Howard’s scene at the movie shoot could have been interpreted as the movie’s attempt to identify systematic racism, at least in Hollywood. An example of White guys calling the shots and wanting the Black characters to be more stereotypical. Even as a director, he still lacked control in mainstream America. He was not allowed to defy stereotypes, as he shattered the stereotype himself because he was viewed as the exception.
   He can also be viewed through the lens of “light-skinned privilege.” He was able to attain such acclaim because of his skin tone, but his identity as a Black man is continually called in to question, with the exception of the police (of course). As Kanye points out, “Even when I’m in my Benz, I’m still a nigga in a coupe’. Eventually, Terrance Howard’s character buckles to the pressure to act like his stereotype. He receives pressure from his wife to be a strong [Black] man and his frustration with his colleagues to portray Blacks as they should be portrayed contribute to his shaky identity as a Black man. Throughout the movie, he feels that he is not Black enough and it comes to a head when he struggles against Ludacris’ character during the carjacking and has a stand-off with the police. This is the character succumbing to societal pressure to act Black or an example of a societal self-fulfilling prophecy.
   The use of psychology in this movie was amazing for me. I must admit that it has been quite a while since I have seen the movie, but as I remember it, the movie played with the notion of self-fulfilling prophecy a lot.

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-fulfilling_prophecy

   Another poignant example that I recall from the movie is when Ryan Phillipe’s character kills Larenz Tate’s character. Throughout the film, Ryan Phillipe’s character thought of himself as a liberal and accepting white person who combated stereotypes, but in the end he relied on his personal prejudices to make a deadly judgment. In this case, Ryan Phillipe’s character made, an arguably, poor choice based on poor logic. However in the opening scenes of the movie, Sandra Bullock’s character made a good choice, based on flawed logic. I think that by contrasting these two scenarios alone showed that there is no systematic reliability for profiling people based on prejudiced stereotypes. It’s all chance. How many people caught that message? I don’t know, but I think that it was a film attempted to get people to think about prejudices. There were a lot of dimensions that were left out regarding racism, but I think that it was a great movie! I feel that some of the characters were extremely complex, but I do agree that the Asian and Persian characters seemed to serve as background.

   I’d love to get some feedback because I know that there are a lot of dissenting opinions about this movie.

   Posted 22 Sep 2008 at 11:05 am ¶

5. Tom wrote:

   Crash sucked.

   And that’s my reasoned contribution for the day.

   Posted 22 Sep 2008 at 11:17 am ¶

6. Winn wrote:

   C-Marsh,

   You brought up some interesting points and I appreciate that perspective. I actually agree with you about the treatment of Terrence Howard’s character, and I thought his was the most complex and well-realized in the film.

   That said, I felt overall the film was simplistic and one-dimensional, and the fact that the racism in the film was so personalized and individualized overall makes it easy to dismiss discussions of systematic, infrastructural racism and privilege. This is subjective, but for me, bias, prejudice, discrimination and racism are not all the same thing, they manifest in our lives, economy, and politics in different ways, and they operate on different levels for different groups. The film confuses them and equates them with being the same social phenomena, which I find lazy and intellectually irresponsible. When I watched the film, I felt as if screenwriter Paul Haggis got the idea for the film while sitting in a traffic jam listening to the “Avenue Q” song “We’re All a Little Bit Racist”.

   I was also very bothered by the treatment of Matt Dillon’s character. His father’s backstory is presented as a justification for his treatment of Loretta Devine’s character, which then feeds into his assault of Thandie Newton’s character and humiliation of Terrence Howard. But he’s not all bad! He loves his dad and saves Thandie Newton at the end, right? More probing and courageous writing could have given us a complex, multidimensional character without setting up this superficial angel/devil dichotomy, which actually is applied to most of the characters in the film. I guess as an antiracist activist, it pissed me off that this film was praised as some kind of honest, raw exploration of race relations instead of the feel-good, “we’re-all-flawed-so-can’t-we-all-just-get-along?” tripe is it actually is.

   Plus, I really wanted “Brokeback Mountain” to win Best Picture!

   Posted 22 Sep 2008 at 11:58 am ¶

7. Reiter wrote:

   I think we need more films where Ludacris saves some poor helpless Asian illegal immigrants because, you know, it’s not like they can save themselves or anything. (\sarcasm off)

   My main beef with Crash was that it’s very forced in its message and tries so hard to pass itself off as honest, open dialogue about racism when it’s not. I mean, Bullock’s character spouts dumb racist bile just five feet away from the room where the Hispanic locksmith is within earshot. I mean, who acts like this in real life? At least put up appearances like most white people really do, and THEN talk about the POC behind his or her back, which is closer to the truth.

   Crash is ultimately disingenuous (we’re shown how white people in Hollywood would like to think we all act in real life in overly simplistic and broad strokes of the brush, rather than the reality of it). And melodramatic. Oy, the melodrama. The scene where the Hispanic locksmith believed his daughter had been shot was a prime example. I know it was supposed to have been this poignant and moving scene but I just came away with disbelief over how contrived and forced and just silly it was (I saw the use of blanks in the gun from a mile away); a tearjerker for the sake of drama.

   At least with Luda, it was a black savior who saves the mute, faceless Asians instead of the white savior we’re always used to seeing. Again, you know, because us Asians can hardly think or act for ourselves, now can we? It’s still the same tired old trope.

   Babel suffered from this exact same defect, to a lesser extent. It also claimed to be this whole eye-opening, life-changing experience that would open up lines of dialogue among all the races, when all it did was again show (in a forced and heavy-handed manner) what Hollywood would have us believe is the reality of how races interact with each other.

   The presence of Brian Tee’s character in the series is a step in the right direction, though I’m still wary of the whole concept of the show.

   Posted 22 Sep 2008 at 12:26 pm ¶

8. DEAF FEMINIST PUNK!! wrote:

   . I mean, Bullock’s character spouts dumb racist bile just five feet away from the room where the Hispanic locksmith is within earshot. I mean, who acts like this in real life? At least put up appearances like most white people really do, and THEN talk about the POC behind his or her back, which is closer to the truth.

   um, that actually happens a LOT where I live. There are rich white privileged folks saying racist stuff in front of non-white people. Believe me, I’ve been there.

   Posted 22 Sep 2008 at 12:33 pm ¶

9. Paz wrote:

   *People think Ludacris was the savior? He brought the “Chinamen” to Chinatown, because supposeduly all Asians are alike.
   *I don’t think Matt Dillon’s father story was a justification of his racist behavior. I think it was just to show a little depth. He’s not just “the bad guy.” There’s a reason behind it, even though it may not be an acceptable one.
   *I don’t think the movie delivered the message that all people are racist, so it’s ok. I think it just shows that it’s not as simple as white people are racist to minorities, etc. And it’s not as simple as the PC message of “Let’s not stereotype!” I don’t think that it’s condoning stereotypes because tragedy results from prejudice (i.e., Ryan Phillipe situation).
   *Babel didn’t pretend to be about race. It was about language and communication and misinterpretation.
   *A 2 hour movie is a very limited frame to explore something as vast as race relations. I agree that it would be good to look at systematic racism. I sincerely hope the TV show is good and explores different characters. Although I am sure there will always be someone to bitch about its faults.

   Posted 22 Sep 2008 at 12:50 pm ¶

10. C-Marsh wrote:

    @Winn

    “…bias, prejudice, discrimination and racism are not all the same thing, they manifest in our lives, economy, and politics in different ways, and they operate on different levels for different groups. The film confuses them and equates them with being the same social phenomena, which I find lazy and intellectually irresponsible…”

    Thanks for your comment. I completely understand your points, but I think I still view them through a different lens. I agree that bias, prejudice, discrimination, and racism are not all the same thing, but they do overlap. It is never cut and dry and I think that is why this movie is so hard to swallow. Again, it has been a while since I have seen the movie, so perhaps I should watch it again. However, I think there was a lot of good in the movie as was there bad.

    Thinking about it, this movie reminds me of how I felt after watching “Do the Right Thing.” There was a lot that I didn’t necessarily agree with at first glance and I still have to analyze how I truly feel about the movie, but it made me think. Was Mookie right or wrong of breaking the window at Sal’s? Were Willy and his old crew wrong for hating the Korean store owners? There is a lot that was explored, but not probed enough to make my mind up for me. This movie made me decide for myself.

    I think Crash did the same thing, in some instances, more specifically with Don Cheadle’s character. His conflict was left unresolved to me, but I don’t even really know what his conflict was anyway. Ryan Phillipe’s fate was also left unresolved. Although some character’s had their fate handed to me in a nice wrapped package, others were left to the imagination. That’s how I remember it anyway…

    I also think that Matt Dillon’s character was interesting. I do agree that he was presented with this angel/devil dichotomy, but as LaToya pointed out in a post last week, “I think one of the biggest fallacies about racism is that because a person is racist it means that they are purely evil, vile beings.” I think that Matt Dillon’s character harbored resentment toward Blacks and it influenced his actions at points and didn’t at other points, which is completely plausible. I think that he was purposely contrasted with Ryan Phillipe in the sense that Ryan Phillipe appeared to be one who would do the right thing in tough situations; however, he faltered when presented with an opportunity. Conversely, Matt Dillon’s character made the decision to save life despite his prejudices. I think that Dillon’s character is more nuanced than “bad racist man being vindicated by saving those he hates,” especially when his character is viewed in tandem with Ryan Phillipe’s character.

    I can’t say that I thought the movie was sloppy. I think that it was balanced as far as presentation. For every undeveloped character, there was an extremely developed character. For every lose end, there was a resolved conflict, etc. I still have to say that I liked the movie and it was the closest thing that we’ve had to a real presentation about race in a movie in a while, especially from Hollywood. I also think that the “realism” was also why there were some loose ends left dangling at the end of the movie.

    But for me, the movie ended when the little girl doesn’t get shot. I can’t remember too much past that and may be contributing to my biased opinion.

    So from one biased commenter to another, as much as I wanted to like “Brokeback Mountain” it was boring. I wanted to fall asleep sooo many times. In my book, “Crash” wins.

    Posted 22 Sep 2008 at 1:00 pm ¶

11. Winn wrote:

    @Paz

    “I don’t think Matt Dillon’s father story was a justification of his racist behavior. I think it was just to show a little depth. He’s not just “the bad guy.” There’s a reason behind it, even though it may not be an acceptable one.”

    I agree that was the intention. I just didn’t think it was successful in its mission. You’re certainly entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine.

    “I think it just shows that it’s not as simple as white people are racist to minorities, etc. And it’s not as simple as the PC message of “Let’s not stereotype!” I don’t think that it’s condoning stereotypes because tragedy results from prejudice (i.e., Ryan Phillipe situation).”

    Once again, my problem is the confluence of racism, prejudice, bias and discrimination as the same phenomena, rather than overlapping but different phenomena delineated by gradations of power and privilege. Is it really a big revelation that minorities may hold prejudiced views about whites and other minorities, as well as whites holding prejudices about people of color? Thank you Paul Haggis and Hollywood, for imparting that great revelation to the rest of us! And of course, there’s no chance that using this heretofore hidden piece of information might be a means of ignoring, diminishing or absolving arguments about structural inequities and white privilege? Even if Haggis himself wasn’t making this argument, I’ve seen in blogs and forums in which “Crash” has been invoked to suggest that we all hold the same level of responsibility for racism, and talking about power, access, inclusion and representation is holding on to a “victim mentality” and refusing to accept that people of color “can be racist too”. So whatever the original plan was, I think the “we’re all a little bit racist” trope definitely made it through to somebody.

    I certainly agree that a film with a limited running time is a proscribed framework in which to explore very complex issues. Perhaps I am biased by the marketing campaign for the film, which portrayed it as some revelatory, incendiary examination of race relations that would change minds and hearts. Aside from that being a tall order for a movie, I felt the film was slick and glossy, rather than deep and insightful. The marketing campaign worked in a way that the actual film, for me, did not.

    I sincerely hope the series does a better job with a more flexible narrative framework and more time to spin out stories and add layers and substance to the characters. After all, for five seasons, week in and week out, The Wire showed it can be done.

    Posted 22 Sep 2008 at 1:47 pm ¶

12. Meredith wrote:

    What happened with Ryan Phillipe’s character was the most powerful part of Crash in my eyes. It reminded me that, no matter how many anti-racism blogs we read from the comfort of our office chairs, it’s the choices we make when we’re scared or when we actually stand to lose something something that will show what we’re truly made of in the end.

    Posted 22 Sep 2008 at 3:01 pm ¶

13. Reiter wrote:

    (Babel didn’t pretend to be about race. It was about language and communication and misinterpretation.)

    Semantics aside, language is a huge part of racial identity. I don’t believe that Babel quite made the difference between the two, at least to me.

    In either case, I found both movies to be highly pretentious and just rang false somehow to my sensibilities.

    Posted 22 Sep 2008 at 3:44 pm ¶

14. A. wrote:

    Crash was god-awful.

    If you want to make a movie about racism that makes a big statement, it’s best to start by making a film that ACTUALLY MAKES WHITE PEOPLE UNCOMFORTABLE ENOUGH.

    Posted 22 Sep 2008 at 4:52 pm ¶

15. Pookumssays wrote:

    Two white 30 something lesbians called a trio of adorable, quiet, well-behaved Asian American kids, sitting next to them at the subway station with their mother, “dirty little chinks.” NYC (Manhattan), beautiful Sunday afternoon. This was yesterday. I overheard it loud and clear. I stared at these women and they had the nerve to smirk. People (of all backgrounds) think racism against Asians isn’t racism. Movies like Crash encourage anti-Asian hatred. Out of 14.5 million of us, they couldn’t have one normal Asian American character with a redeeming personality. Crash sucks! This is why.

    Posted 22 Sep 2008 at 8:19 pm ¶

16. gatamala wrote:

    good point Winn

    I wish Eddie Choi would come give me mouth to mouth.

    Posted 23 Sep 2008 at 9:29 am ¶

17. Paz wrote:

    @ Winn:
    I don’t understand how language is a major part of race. (Although I recognize that language barriers can fuel racism.) Different languages aren’t specific to any race…each one has a multitude of them, so I don’t quite understand your argument there.
    Re: Race in Babel– Although you can argue that race had a major role in the Border Patrol’s treatment of the nanny and her nephew, I’m not sure what race had to do with the Moroccan and Japanese stories.

    Posted 23 Sep 2008 at 12:06 pm ¶

18. Winn wrote:

    @Paz,

    I assume your response regarding Babel was directed at Reiter, not at me, as I did not address either that film or the relationship of language to racial identity. Although even a cursory examination of linguistics shows that there is an overlapping dynamic between language and racial and ethnic identity, I will assume Reiter can handle that argument for him or herself, since I was not the one who raised it.

    Posted 23 Sep 2008 at 3:34 pm ¶

19. basbleu wrote:

    Oh no. I had no idea this was going to become a TV show.

    I disliked the movie. The most horrifying aspect of it was that the black woman’s sexual assault was a device to show how hard life is… for black MEN. She and her husband go home and she lashes out at him for not protecting her. Poor guy. It’s ye olde double castration of the black male. Meanwhile, you know, she just got sexually assaulted…

    Posted 24 Sep 2008 at 9:11 am ¶

20. brownstocking wrote:

    @19 but then got SAVED from her white oppressor! All better now! (/sarcasm)

    I hated Crash with a passion. Most of the reasons have been explained here, so I’ll just leave it with a cosign!

    Posted 27 Sep 2008 at 8:47 pm ¶

21. Ada wrote:

    I saw the movie Crash after hearing the hype and I was SO dissapointed. Simple doesn’t even begin to describe it. From the first 10 minutes, I could tell the movie was going to be about obvious-as-hell racism that nobody in their right mind practices anymore. Everything else about the movie was great, the storyline was so stupid though. People liked it because it didn’t deal with everyday racism and I’m sure as a result made a lot of people feel good about themselves =P

    Posted 02 Oct 2008 at 12:14 am ¶