"Crash", part 2
I feel we have pretty much exhausted our topic of "serious vs. entertaining" - a topic I had hoped would lead further into the movie, but actually seems to be a dead end... because it is an easy question to answer. So... for the follow up discussion to "Crash" I want you to click here and read the reviews first, and then respond to them (so far nobody has followed that line). Agree, disagree, amplify, delve! Get into what makes this movie work so well. Yes, it's obviously both entertaining and serious... but in what sense? How does it entertain and yet remain serious? Specifically, I am hoping for more mention of "nuts and bolts" film ingredients, such as editing, plot sequencing, camera work, script, lighting, acting, and all the other good things which go into a good movie. So, let's take it to the next level. Read and discuss.
posted by Anonymous at 8:11 AM
4 Comments:
Lots to think about here.... Elaine, I agree with you that the cast of actors was top notch. For me the strongest part was Don Cheadle's. His face conveys a range of emotions very powerfully, and his part was possibly the most conflicted in the whole movie. The biggest surprise was Sandra Bullock, who was cast against her type - a bold move that paid off.
Jazzy - I agree that the flipside movie emporium's rating of "Crash" is just plain silly. I did not see this as a dumbed down movie. Now "Remember the Titans".. that's a dumbed down movie. "Crash" is strong and intelligent.
12/12/05, 12:31 PM
To Rachel - thanks for quoting Roger Ebert's review, specifically the part about accident vs. ritual. Most movies are so ritualistic that it is literally impossible for anything of meaning to break through. "Crash" works differently, and although I don't adore the movie I do rate it very highly.
Ty Burr from the Boston Globe is, in my opinion, just being smug when he describes "Crash" as "one of those multi-character, something-is-rotten-in-Los Angeles barnburners". Since I can't quite locate his review, I can only assume what he might comparing "Crash" to, but it's the oldest, laziest trick in the book for a reviewer to cast one movie in terms of another, thereby missing the point of what is actually in front of him and saving him from actually having to think deeply.
As to your point about movies which we are automatically supposed to take seriously, simply because they are SERIOUS... again I agree. I can think of lots of movies which people drool over which I personally find second rate. Examples: "The Passion of Christ", "Citizen Kane", "Space Odyssey 2001", and more. However, I would argue my point based on evidence. You are on dangerously slippery ground when you say "Just because someone gives "Crash" a C- or an A doesn't mean that anyone is any more right or wrong in my opinion." If that's the case then why are we wasting words? If anybody's film review is as good as anybody else's then why not just give up and say nothing? And ... why navigate us to the "major" film reviewers instead of reading the "small websites that think they have an opinion"? I would say that we should judge a film review on its merits, not on the reputation of the newspaper. The fact that I normally agree with Roger Ebert, for example, doesn't mean that I will give him a free pass when I think he is wrong, and the fact that some of the best film reviews come from small outlets just means that those writers are young, strong, and undiscovered.
12/13/05, 8:44 AM
Daina - good quote from Mick LaSalle. He seems to be objecting to the "cleverness" of the role reversal in the first scene: the two young (apparently) harmless black men turning into carjackers without warning. I think that scene works. It surprized the heck out of me, that's for sure, and (as you say) set the stage for what happens in the rest of the movie. What happens in the rest of the movie is like an extended riff on that theme which is developed initially - that nobody is truly noble, or truly bad, and that the complexities of racial stereotyping are... complex!
I agree with you that the scene worked well. Sometimes I wonder what it takes to impress people. It's like when you talk to someone who has just watched a scary movie and they say, "Nahhh... that part was so lame... I wasnn't even scared," but you SAW them jump, and you know it worked!
12/13/05, 8:54 AM
Good point, Sarah. Although, I don't think the funny parts are "thrown in" to "lighten the mood", so much as to give authenticity to the characters. People actually do talk this way, and to pretend otherwise would undermine the authenticity of the script. That seems to be the point of your quoted author.
12/14/05, 10:29 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home