Just as general note I guess: don't let Crash discourage you from seeing Paul Haggis' other film, In the Valley of Elah (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0478134/). It was really slept on film when it was released, maybe because the rest of America was angry with Crash winning an Oscar.

And I guess, just to chime in, I thought the movie was actually pretty good. Yes, it is a tad pretentious, some plot points are a little too coincidental for my taste (although, I think that was to make the story more "fable like), but I don't think that makes Crash a terrible film. I think a lot of people really misinterpreted the movie. It's not a movie that says "Everyone is racist, so bah." I think it's a movie that shows the consequences of racism; how the judgements you make about a person based on a generalization, the way they look, how the media has portrayed them, can often be tragic.

It's kind of ironic. Once everyone started claiming it that Crash was terrible, overrated, and not worth any of the Oscars it won, a lot people would preemptively judge it before they even saw it. I guess it pushes the films point home, since a lot of people missed out on a pretty good movie. Call it movie-ism, I guess.

I just got really irritated when everyone said they liked it mostly for the crazy original multiple stories converging plot thing, when it had been done so much better prior. Like in Amores Perros.

Actually, Robert Altman had created what is now called the "hyperlink genre" with his ensamble cast films (Nashville, The Player) long before Magnolia, Traffic, or Amores Perros made them popular. Personally, I'm a bit skeptical on the value of using interconnected stories, mostly because it's become a bit of a gimmick in films nowadays, a selling point for "artsy" or "intelligent" cinema.

Also, I'd just like to say that I think Crash used the "hyperlinking" device really well. I think it was the best way to show the varying points of view of the characters and flipsides of racism, being racist and being the one the racism is directed at. It was an interesting dynamic, mostly because the racism happened between the main characters which, while not always sympathetic, had their reasons for their narrow mindedness. It really highlights the complexity of racism.

But then again, maybe I just watch movies differently than most people do on GW. I mean, it's hard for me to believe this movie didn't make anyone here think about racism and how it has affected the modern day society. When I saw the movie it really made me think about why these characters were the way they were, and the film really shows the characters as people who have their reasons to be racist. It made me think of the way racism has shaped who these characters were, which stemmed on to thoughts about how racism has shaped me and the people arround me.

But you know, whatever the fuck! Maybe I should go watch Iron Man and be entertained for two hours! Cause then I wouldn't have to think about all the terrible stuff that happens in the world!

I didn't think the film did anything but point out the bloody obvious

Maybe there could be more of a discourse if you explained what you thought was so obvious?

Also, I was implying that an escapist film like Iron Man is much more easier to digest than a film which, at its least, attempts to communicate a message which not everyone will find pleasant.

well for the starters the issue of racism should be very apparent in most people's lives. I don't think this film was an 'eye opener' to show that racism still exists. Secondly the director has completely spoon fed the audience in showing this. There's no subtlety in showing that racism is a big part of the film. All the characters have direct conversations about being racist and it's so damn shallow.

If you watch a film like No Country for Old Men you will see what subtlety is. The film has a face value of a B movie chase/robbery film, but also has many different levels that include other themes. For instance Sheriff Ed Tom Bell's Cowardice, the changing times of America, the comparisons of good and evil. Much like Kubrick's movies it has all of these themes tightly woven behind a plot driven story.

Crash is just a load of one dimensional characters out right talking about racism, whilst committing racism. There's nothing else to it than that. You can't really read much more into it because it's such a shallow film with only one purpose; to show the world that racism is still out there and it's not there. The problem is most informed people already know this and don't need a second rate film to shove it in our face.

I think it's pretty obvious that Crash isn't trying to subtle or naturalistic. To quote Ebert: "Haggis is telling parables, in which the characters learn the lessons they have earned by their behavior." The bluntness of the characters serves a purpose, and I think it helps to presents the films commentary. I already attempted to explain why it was more than a "racism is still out there" message in some of my previous posts, you could read them if you wanted to.

Just to discuss a bit: The film is an examination of (1), the consequences of racism (or maybe I should say the consequences of making a judgement about anyone or thing, whether that judgement is good or bad), (2) the blurred line between right and wrong, moral and immoral, (3) how the world and environment around them has shaped the judgements of the characters portrayed in the film.

Some examples: The fact that every character is portrayed as either good or bad at first, but then quickly changed. One of the initial scenes has Ludacris and the other guy discussing about racism as they exit a coffee shop or something. I watch and make a judgement about them: they're two seemingly normal guys, even intelligent, thoughtful, until they rob a car from two people at gunpoint. Every character is portrayed at some point as both moral and immoral. The film even asks itself why these characters are racist. I remember Matt Dillon, a morally empty character at first (he sexually abuses a woman he pulled over), until we see how he cares for his sick father, who can't get insurance. When his father's HMO officer denies him medical care, Dillon throws a few racial slurs at her. Racism is a product of anger, but what connection does racism have to anger? Even later we see Dillon save the life of the same woman he groped, does this still make him a despicable character, despite him saving a life?

I think looking at the films message as "racism exists" is more so the opinion of the uninformed viewer than the informed one. Trust someone who reads into and analyzes a good majority of the films he watches: while the films characters can certainly be shallow at times, the film isn't. I don't think a film that asks so much of its viewer can be.

holy shit it looks like it's a USA ORIGINAL SERIES.  seriously that looks terrible.  like not even conceptually; it is just really bad acting/writing!

dear god save TV.