|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
66.43.89.26
'); } // End --> |
In Reply to: Ebert: A Critical defense of Crash posted by RGA on January 11, 2006 at 13:30:33:
I saw this movie and felt that it would have been a groundbreaking film if it was made 20 years ago, exactly as Ebert describes. But by today's standards, IMHO it treats the issue of racism with a sledgehammer, with little or no sophistication, whereas today we even have comedies that "analyze" the issue of racism with more sophistication than Crash does.
Follow Ups:
Which comedies?Crash does not analyse racism -- that really was not the point. Like Munich don't go in expecting an answer -- if it had the answer chances are it would be a bad film.
There is nothing sledgehammerry about Crash. For it to hit you over the head it would have to clearly have something to preach. The film merely is and offers no resolution. Neither, interestingly enough does Munich.
Bulworth, White Men Can't Jump, and even something like Guess Who are the three that popped into my head. Guess Who was below average as a movie, but still IMHO did a great job in treading the line between caricature and real.Perhaps I used the word "analyze" and "sledgehammer" incorrectly here, but I felt Crash was just a collection of racism stereotypes all thrown into one movie, and all the contradictions within the characters were predictable. To me, it didn't raise any new points or change my thinking in any way.
At the risk of starting something here, I wonder if there is any demographic segmentation between the people who thought Crash was a great movie vs. those who thought it was contrived...most of my close friends are minorities in the US, and very few of them thought Crash was anything special...
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: