This year, the Academy got the Oscar nominations surprisingly right for the most part, giving well-deserved nods to ballsy dramas ('Good Night and Good Luck,' 'Munich') and even a gay love story. Even 'Capote,' a film I found skillful but often tedious, is a smaller film with sincere artistic intentions. But there's a whirling controversy over 'Crash,' Canadian writer-director Paul Haggis' racially fueled ensemble drama, and for this Oscar race, I'm going to have to shoot down the little indie that could.
'Crash' opened to rave reviews as early as last May, and Haggis' debut is by now a certifiable hit and a popular favorite. Many of our highest regarded critics have gushed over it, most notably Roger Ebert, who named it the top film of the year (as he did with last year's 'Million Dollar Baby,' which Haggis also wrote). But it is a fiercely divisive film, and its most vocal opponents, especially L.A. Weekly's Scott Foundas, assail it as dangerous, sanctimonious filmmaking. Foundas writes, 'Not since 'Spanglish,''which, alas, wasn't too long ago'has a movie been so chock-a-block with risible minority caricatures or done such a handy job of sanctioning the very stereotypes it ostensibly debunks. Welcome to the best movie of the year for people who like to say, 'A lot of my best friends are black.'' Ebert and Foundas had a hilarious back-and-forth online debate, with Foundas repeatedly ripping into the film and Ebert basically accusing him of being angry and cynical.
I saw 'Crash' last March at the Orpheum with Haggis and New Yorker film critic David Denby in attendance, and I was amazed at how one-dimensional and heavy-handed it was. Haggis was gracious and humble during the Q&A afterward, but everybody from Denby to a number of the audience members shamelessly gushed about how important and wonderful his film was. I was dumbfounded by the ecstatic reaction it received, and I would never have guessed it would be highly praised by the Academy only one year later; in fact, I felt the urge to ask, 'Mr. Haggis, do you honestly believe this is an even semi-accurate representation of how people act'? For me, 'Crash' has the authenticity and subtlety of an episode of 'Walker, Texas Ranger,' which is appropriate, because Haggis was one of that campy show's creators.
The problem with 'Crash' is that it makes the same thunderingly obvious point over and over again: We are all prejudiced toward some minority for some reason, and we really shouldn't be. Defenders claim that the film is complex because the characters shift between victim and victimizer as a result of their racist tendencies, and our preconceived notions about race define our actions, yadda yadda yadda. It all boils down to this message: remember, kids, if you're racist, it'll come back to bite you. 'Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle' navigated racial terrain with more skill, and that was between jokes about anthropomorphic bags of reefer and rabid raccoons. In order to make his important point, Haggis amps the racism up to 11. We're supposed to be moved by the film's 'honesty,' but Haggis's film is anything but truthful. Its characters'from a couple of eloquent carjackers to a man who can't remember his girlfriend's ethnicity'are caricatures interacting in laughably improbable coincidences.
I will admit that the subplot with Oscar-nominated Matt Dillon's racist cop sexually harassing a black woman (Thandie Newton) and later saving her life is fairly superb. The scene in which he rescues her from a fiery car wreck is absolutely beautiful, but Haggis repeatedly undermines its power with his sermonizing and cheap manipulation, which is particularly evident in the poster-featured scene with Michael Pe??a's daughter. Despite a few riveting sequences, 'Crash' is a mediocre film. If you haven't seen 'Crash,' you should do so, if only to participate in the discussion. I respect everyone's opinion, but I do feel strongly that this is an overblown movie unworthy of its excessive praise. But maybe that's just because I hate those damn Canadians.
