I know that there are many who love "Crash", and who would take offense to any discrediting of this film. I'd ask that they take a closer, open-minded look. I believe that the film was so greatly praised and received only because there is a lack of any real in depth discussion about the topic and many people wanted to like and praise this film before they ever saw it. But, let's look at the characters.
The character that stands out the most for a majority of the audience is that of Officer Ryan, played convincingly by Matt Dillon. This character is racist, not only in thought but in action. And, with the power his badge gives him, he is allowed to get away with practicing his racism without immediate consequence. We see him commit the heinous act of sexually abusing a woman. To make the act more deplorable, he uses it to not only hurt and debase the woman, but to emasculate her husband who has to watch, knowing that he could be jailed or even killed were he to step in. The ramifications of something like this are barely touched upon in the film, but I think any reasonable person can agree that this act was deplorable with long reaching effects.
As the film goes on we find out that this man is taking care of an ill father. This is supposed to give the audience a feeling of compassion for this man. Later, in what is one of the most contrived scenes I've seen in a movie that has reached this status, the officer has the chance to save the same woman he victimized from possible death due to a car accident and an impending explosion. He is redeemed.
Wait. A police officer DOES HIS JOB, so he is redeemed for a CRIME that destroys the life and self esteem of this woman. So, a racist of this level, in this position, should be excused because there is good and bad in everyone , and we don't know what this man has to go through in his life at home. Only someone who has never been affected by this sort of racism would dare try to redeem this guy in such a way. (And yes, redemption was the obvious goal.) Lives are changed and destroyed by instances like the one in which he molested this woman. Some communities are in dishevel, in part, because even the majority of the community who are good citizens are more afraid of police abusing their power than they are of the illegal criminals. There are deep issues within these men, and we need to see this character come to terms with them or know that he will continue to destroy lives.
Next, there is Sandra Bullock's character. She represents an upper middle class woman who has an ingrained fear of young black men, as many do. Still, judging by this film, you certainly can't blame her. After all, her fear was confirmed when she was carjacked by the same men she feared. She even had a monologue where she admitted that she was afraid that night, but she didn't want to look like a racist so she said nothing. Then, she's jacked. Message? I won't go through every character, though there is a skewed point of view about every one. But, there is one more character that I must mention.
Ludicrous plays a character named Anthony. This guy was a carjacker. (I'm not complaining about the thug black character because I understand the reason for that character in the film.) What was appalling to me is how this writer/director, who wanted to show redemption in everyone, chose to use the scenario of human trade in the situation of Anthony. Anthony's redemption comes when we see that he doesn't take money, from an obvious scumbag, for a truck load of human beings. What??? What kind of monster is Anthony that we would believe he would have sold human beings to this guy? It was simply human to make the right decision. It's as if the audience was to think so lowly of this young black man as to think he would do such and egregious thing. Nothing in his character showed him to be that kind of person. But being a young black man we were supposed to think him that monstrous.
What's the message? This movie says to me that: racism by white people is either warranted or should be excused, because after all they really are good people; people of color, even professionals, have an uncontrollable rage in them that will cause them to kill (store owner) or lash out until they are killed (Terrence Howard's character) themselves; and yes, young black men may be criminal, but maybe they are not the absolute monsters that some believe ... just watch your stuff.
I've heard Paul Haggis speak on more than one occasion. I believe that he had the best intentions at heart when he made this film, and it was those intentions that likely attracted Don Cheadle as producer and much of the cast. The problem is that Haggis, like most of us, has his own internal racism and preconceived notions. Instead of recognizing that and realizing that he could not likely write a balanced film on the subject by himself, he took on a task too big for most to handle. He should have either written a film that was intentionally from a white man's point of view, or collaborated on the film with writers from varying backgrounds in order to truly get a more balanced view. He had such an opportunity with this film. And unless his goal was the numerous awards bestowed in largest part by other white men with his point of view, he missed the boat.
The character that stands out the most for a majority of the audience is that of Officer Ryan, played convincingly by Matt Dillon. This character is racist, not only in thought but in action. And, with the power his badge gives him, he is allowed to get away with practicing his racism without immediate consequence. We see him commit the heinous act of sexually abusing a woman. To make the act more deplorable, he uses it to not only hurt and debase the woman, but to emasculate her husband who has to watch, knowing that he could be jailed or even killed were he to step in. The ramifications of something like this are barely touched upon in the film, but I think any reasonable person can agree that this act was deplorable with long reaching effects.
As the film goes on we find out that this man is taking care of an ill father. This is supposed to give the audience a feeling of compassion for this man. Later, in what is one of the most contrived scenes I've seen in a movie that has reached this status, the officer has the chance to save the same woman he victimized from possible death due to a car accident and an impending explosion. He is redeemed.
Wait. A police officer DOES HIS JOB, so he is redeemed for a CRIME that destroys the life and self esteem of this woman. So, a racist of this level, in this position, should be excused because there is good and bad in everyone , and we don't know what this man has to go through in his life at home. Only someone who has never been affected by this sort of racism would dare try to redeem this guy in such a way. (And yes, redemption was the obvious goal.) Lives are changed and destroyed by instances like the one in which he molested this woman. Some communities are in dishevel, in part, because even the majority of the community who are good citizens are more afraid of police abusing their power than they are of the illegal criminals. There are deep issues within these men, and we need to see this character come to terms with them or know that he will continue to destroy lives.
Next, there is Sandra Bullock's character. She represents an upper middle class woman who has an ingrained fear of young black men, as many do. Still, judging by this film, you certainly can't blame her. After all, her fear was confirmed when she was carjacked by the same men she feared. She even had a monologue where she admitted that she was afraid that night, but she didn't want to look like a racist so she said nothing. Then, she's jacked. Message? I won't go through every character, though there is a skewed point of view about every one. But, there is one more character that I must mention.
Ludicrous plays a character named Anthony. This guy was a carjacker. (I'm not complaining about the thug black character because I understand the reason for that character in the film.) What was appalling to me is how this writer/director, who wanted to show redemption in everyone, chose to use the scenario of human trade in the situation of Anthony. Anthony's redemption comes when we see that he doesn't take money, from an obvious scumbag, for a truck load of human beings. What??? What kind of monster is Anthony that we would believe he would have sold human beings to this guy? It was simply human to make the right decision. It's as if the audience was to think so lowly of this young black man as to think he would do such and egregious thing. Nothing in his character showed him to be that kind of person. But being a young black man we were supposed to think him that monstrous.
What's the message? This movie says to me that: racism by white people is either warranted or should be excused, because after all they really are good people; people of color, even professionals, have an uncontrollable rage in them that will cause them to kill (store owner) or lash out until they are killed (Terrence Howard's character) themselves; and yes, young black men may be criminal, but maybe they are not the absolute monsters that some believe ... just watch your stuff.
I've heard Paul Haggis speak on more than one occasion. I believe that he had the best intentions at heart when he made this film, and it was those intentions that likely attracted Don Cheadle as producer and much of the cast. The problem is that Haggis, like most of us, has his own internal racism and preconceived notions. Instead of recognizing that and realizing that he could not likely write a balanced film on the subject by himself, he took on a task too big for most to handle. He should have either written a film that was intentionally from a white man's point of view, or collaborated on the film with writers from varying backgrounds in order to truly get a more balanced view. He had such an opportunity with this film. And unless his goal was the numerous awards bestowed in largest part by other white men with his point of view, he missed the boat.