Tantrum Time
Thank God for the activists over at the Motion Picture Academy. Without their elevated consciousness, we otherwise racist dumb-fuck Angelenos would never have been slapped with the “reality check†that Crash provides. At least, so says Tom Hayden in a sophomoric rant that should make all fellow liberals and lefties grimace and hide under the desk.
What the hell has happened to Hayden? He lectures us on the “racial and economic fissures†in Los Angeles and then proceeds to paste an ad hominem tar on a local activist who disagrees with him. In lauding the agit-prop winner of this year’s Best Picture Oscar, Hayden denigrates Joe Hicks – who was quoted in the L.A. Times (and on my blog) criticizing Crash—as “a local African-American who has become something of a David Horowitz in blackface, a former black communist who has degenerated into a virtual neo-conservative propagandist.â€
Jeez, Tom. Let me see if we got this right: L.A.’s a Racist Hell and lacks tolerance but anyone who disagrees with you is a former communist yada yada in black face? How ironic that Hayden winds up sounding just like one of the bigoted cardboard characters in…um…Crash!
A little inside baseball: For three decades, Joe Hicks has been one of the most prominent and reasonable voices when it comes to L.A. race relations. Hicks – as former revolutionary Hayden notes is, indeed, a former Communist — but he’s also a former Communications Director for the ACLU, a former Executive Director of the SCLC, a former founder of the Multi-Cultural Collaborative and the former Human Relations Commissioner for the City of Los Angeles. In the last five years, Hicks has moved rightward but his views on race – while perhaps no longer overlapping those of Hayden’s and his Brentwood neighbors—are nevertheless quite reasonable, legitimate and worthy of real debate.
Hayden, who retired in 2000 after two decades as an effective state legislator, has since directed much of his attention to the pressing issues of youth and gang issues. But this sort of stuff he posted is beyond the pale. Get a grip, Tom.
Meanwhile, Erik Lundegaard does a great job over at MSNBC reminding us why Crash so sucks. It’s not only a mediocre film, but its politics are obsolete:
This is the worst best picture winner since “The Greatest Show on Earth†in 1952. It may be worse than that. “Greatest Show†was a dull, bloated romance set against the backdrop of a three-ring circus but at least it didn’t pretend to be important. “Crash†thinks it’s important. “Crash†thinks it’s saying something bold about racism in America.
But what is it saying?
That we all bear some form of racism. That we all “stereotype†other races. That, when pressured, racist sentiments spill out of us as easily as escaped air.
Here’s my take. Yes, we all bear some form of racism — that’s obvious. Yes, we all “stereotype†other races in some fashion — that’s obvious. (Particularly obvious in the Los Angeles of “Crash,†where so many characters are stereotypes.) But, no, we don’t easily give voice to our racist sentiments. And that’s why “Crash†rings so false.
Last month I wrote an article on the best picture nominees (called “Anything But ‘Crash’â€) in which I talked about how the most potent form of racism in this country is no longer overt but covert. Once upon a time, yes yes yes, it was overt, which is another reason why “Crash†sucks. It’s doing what simple-minded generals do: It’s fighting the last war.
Please make sure you read the entire piece as it is certainly worth consideration. Lundegaard also has some speculation as to why such a stinker was able to win the top prize. Maybe it’s because some of the moth-haired mummies in the Academy balked at embracing a gay cowboy flick (though they did give Best Actor award to another on-screen queer). Or maybe it’s because the distributors of Crash inundated Academy voters with a record number of DVD’s. Or perhaps, as others have mused, the vote for Crash reflected an L.A.-centric Academy membership who was reluctant to give the prize to a flick filmed in Canada.
Whatever the motivation, we know two things for certain: It wasn’t because Crash was really the best film of the year. And it wasn’t, as Hayden preposterously argues, because “Hollywood, despite a deserved reputation as fantasy capital of the globe, apparently chose Crash for the realities it dramatized.†Puh-leeze.
March 7th, 2006 at 5:08 am
Let go of it…
You’re sounding as obsessive on the Crash win as the gay activist quoted in my morning Chron who claimed that the Best Picture outcome was evidence of Hollywood’s homophobia.
Incidentally, Crash dealt rather, uh, overtly with “covert racism”, as well as the ambiguities of manifestations of racism. But, aside from that dimension of the film, anybody who thinks casual racial slurs and stereotypes are a thing of the past is completely out of touch with reality.
Is Crash “about” Los Angeles ? Nobody outside of Los Angeles cares…
March 7th, 2006 at 5:25 am
“anybody who thinks casual racial slurs and stereotypes are a thing of the past is completely out of touch with reality.”
While I’m counter-ranting, I’ll add that they’re almost as out of touch as any psuedo-sophisticate who thinks the issue of homosexuality - certainly if taken out of the context of a handful of urban enclaves - is “hohum”. (An outlying suburb of the “homohum” Bay Area recently had a wrenching trial of teeanage boys who murdered a transexual - a person who they’d had “dalliances” with - as one example. And you can bet your ass that the love affair and it’s consequences portrayed in Brokeback is a perfectly credible narrative in large segments of America.
(You know what’s “hohum” ? People who claim “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party left me.” It wasn’t “hohum” when Strom Thurmond originated the concept, but it has been now for about twenty years - ever since Commentary and The Committee on the Present Danger started recyling it. An irritable aside that has nothing to do with you, of course, Marc, but a comment from another thread.)
March 7th, 2006 at 5:37 am
Marc,
Did we watch the same movie? I thought Crash was great, certainly the best acting performances I’ve seen all year. You’re certainly right that Tom Hayden went way overboard in his rants, and you’re also right that politics had a lot more to play in this pick than a lot of us are willing to admit, but come on..That was a good movie. Critics and fans alike praised the film, long before Oscar-season come around.
To each his own I guess.
March 7th, 2006 at 6:06 am
Hello Rafique.. welcome aboard. Crash, you know, probably had fewer viewers than any other Best Pic in recent history. There’s a reason.
Reg… hey… if I can’t obsess on my own blog, what’s the point of having one?
March 7th, 2006 at 6:13 am
“Reg… hey… if I can’t obsess on my own blog, what’s the point of having one?” Good point. And I appreciate the opportunity to obsess on your obsessions.
“Maybe it’s because some of the moth-haired mummies in the Academy balked at embracing a gay cowboy flick (though they did give Best Actor award to another on-screen queer).”
Marc, take all the issue with Crash you want. Badmouth the film to your friends, put up three more posts to make sure that we get it that you think the film sucks, take Tom Hayden to task for calling this guy a “former communist” without a hint of irony - or for that matter for suggesting that the movie is some rosetta stone for solving “race relations” in greater L.A. - etc. etc. But please don’t treat us to the suggestion (one I’ve seen bouncing around in quotes from the Bay Area’s gay activist community) that Brokeback didn’t win an Oscar because of Hollywood’s ingrained homophobia. The film’s screenwriters and director were singled out for Oscars - both rather significant awards. I also have trouble believing that Hollywood is more of a hotbed of homophobia than greater Los Angeles is a terrain marred by racial tension. Could be…but I doubt it.
Brokeback obviously lost by in the Picture category by a hair.
If I were to bet on why Crash beat Brokeback - other than the possibility that people were voting on percieved merits - it’s because there were so many prominent members of SAG appearing in the film delivering solid performances that all it would take is for most of their friends to vote for this actors’ ensemble to edge out the cowpokes. I also think that Brokeback would tend to be the screenwriters’ Best Picture of choice. Presumably the only people in Hollywood who’s ranks approach the legions of actors would be folks who’ve successfully hawked a script or two.
March 7th, 2006 at 6:15 am
Ooops. I meant “Crash would be the screenwriter’s Best Picture of choice.”
March 7th, 2006 at 6:21 am
Reg… I dont think the Academy is homophobic. I dont think that had anything to do with the vote for Crash.
March 7th, 2006 at 6:27 am
This preoccupation with racial mental hygeine, as defined and determined by rich white people working for major American multi-national corporations is getting pretty sickening, I must say.
Look how the Academy defines the Race Issue: Best Film to a movie that depicts African-Americans as either dumb-shit hoodlum car-jacking murderers or impotent conflicted sell-out Uncle Toms. Best Song: “It’s Hard to be a Pimp.”
Well — no, it’s hard to be a school teacher, a post office clerk, a grocery store owner, a full service insurance agent, a research scientist or a high corporate manager. It is real fucking easy to be a pimp.
But it is even easier to shit all over our African-American middle class and high proletariat as we celebrate and reward what Stanley Crouch has called, and Spike Lee has agreed to call our New Minstrel Show.
Yo, whatsup Nigguh?
March 7th, 2006 at 6:30 am
I thought that’s what you were driving at with the comment I quoted. Anyway…
I’m gonna have to “quit you” on this particular topic.
March 7th, 2006 at 7:36 am
Hey!!! What is with this Hollywood homophobia bull-crap?
Brokeback Mountain and Capote split up a lot of votes. The Crash cult stayed tight…what is wrong with that?
March 7th, 2006 at 9:26 am
Cooper has his head up his ass on this one. Crash was actually a lot more complex than just about overt racist comments, though Cooper’s approving MSBNC quote is a wrong on the point as well. Crash, IMHO, was about how racism and prejudice plays on our minds and drives us all a bit crazy. Crash also has a great interplay of different stories and characters. Not too mention the excellent acting by Matt Dillion.
As far as overt racism– twice today, at the adult school where I teach at, I had adult(Latino) immigrant students openly make anti-black comments. No blinking on their part.
Think I’m lying? Go poll a few immigrant Mexicans about black people, crime, race relations ect. See what they say.
March 7th, 2006 at 9:33 am
Okay, so Hayden didn’t like what Joe Hicks had to say about the Best Picture winner, “Crash.. .and said so on Huff Post.
Meanwhile, at a rather larger media venue there was another outraged Oscar commentary. To wit:
Since poor Jon Stewart was still recovering from his Academy Awards trauma, meaning the Daily Show was again in reruns, I flipped over to MSNBC instead and caught a long segment on Scarborough Country in which ol’ Joe said, in all seriousness, that George Clooney’s Syrianna “…promotes terrorism.†Then, as Joe nodded thoughtfully, his guest waxed eloquent about how the views promoted by Clooney and his film were “dangerous in time of war….” ….
For roughly ten minutes this Clooney and Syriana bashing went on unabated…… “….blah, blah “hates America….†….blah, blah, “…says that the CIA kills innocent women, children and kindly Arab princes…â€â€¦. blah, blah… “…. says that America is filled only with fat, greedy oil men….†(Proof positive these fools didn’t see the film since raw-boned, lanky Chris Cooper plays the Syriana’s primary greedy oil man…)
I believe at one point Scarborough actually affected shock and outrage that Clooney (and other Oscar winners) had not only failed to thank the troops for our freedoms in their various acceptance speeches, they also neglected to mention and thank Martin Luther King. (Sadly, I’m not kidding about this.)
I think that was the moment when the whole thing began blending creepily in my mind with tonight’s two episode broadcast of “24,” in which a Cheney-like character is trying to persuade the weakling POTUS character to declare preemptive, un-Congressional-sanctioned martial law in Los Angeles….. (Although I feel fairly sure the Oscar telecast wasn’t mentioned in the plot of “24.”)
Anyway, Marc, next to this kind of neo-McCarthyite crap running rife thought the… um…MSM, Tom’s one-sentence mean guy take down of Joe Hicks seems….pretty tame.
March 7th, 2006 at 9:55 am
Drydock’s got a point.
At the various community forums I’ve attended over the last year and a half in South LA—events featuring an array of community activists, pastors and law enforcement types, plus just folks from East and South LA neighborhoods—-the most persistent topic of concern, has been the growing problem of racial tension—specifically the black/brown tensions that are jumping off in the schools, in the jails, in the streets….and are being, unfortunately, perpetuated in a lot of homes in a manner that we just weren’t seeing in quite the same way ten years ago.
Meanwhile, all too many of the city’s leaders (Antonio and some others excepted) seem to be doing little or nothing to address the causal pressures that Hayden mentions: a 50 percent plus dropout rate in inner city schools, 93,000 LA young people out of school and out of work…. And so on.
Not that I think Tom’s rant held together logically. It didn’t. But, even though Tom didn’t connect the dots. We can.
March 7th, 2006 at 10:59 am
It is true that “Crash” is not very accurate in its political and social depiction of Los Angelas.
However, I am not one to necessarily say that this alone makes it a bad film (there are other aspects as well).
With all due respect, people, I have to ask: What do you expect from the big Hollywood system? Since when has Hollywood ever made a big budget film that was both politically ambitious, as well as accurate?
Is “Crash” anymore innaccurate than the dishonest (but well acted and directed) “On the Waterfront” (1954)? As much as I liked Brando’s performance in that film - and Kazan’s direction - the relatively unknown film “Salt of the Earth” from that year is a much better film. In “On the Waterfront,” the overlying message is that unions are bad and corrupt, and organized labor has no redeeming qualities. “Salt of the Earth,” on the other hand, is a very dramatically compelling story of a group of miners who go on strike for better working conditions and pay….naturally, “On the Waterfront” got all of the attention, while “Salt of the Earth” was relegated to cult status.
In 1958, Hollywood turned Graham Greene’s novel “The Quiet American” into a pro-war movie which gave a completely positive spin to American influence on American involvement in Vietnam (then called Indochina), even though Graham Greene’s novel was the complete opposite: Greene’s thesis criticized American involvement in that area of the world. The 1958 film was a hit.
But in 2002, when “The Quiet American” was re-made to accurately follow Greene’s novel, Miramax - two years before they deep-sixed Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 - decided to shelf the film, afraid of the heat they would get in the post-9/11 environment. So, the more politically accurate version of “The Quiet American,” of course, tanked.
Marc, you are naive to pin your hopes on an industry-based institution to discern political and socio-economic realities from fiction. We should be careful about relying on Hollywood for these kinds of truths. We make our own truths, film makers construct a different kind of truth.
March 7th, 2006 at 11:03 am
film makers within the big Hollywood system, I hasten to add to that last sentence. There are many good independents out there.
March 7th, 2006 at 3:30 pm
Let’s not forget that Forrest Gump also won a best picture award.
But anyway, I second Marc’s Crash bashing. Even if it was not social realist in style it was pretentious drivel. An ABC afterschool special (racism is bad kids, mmmkay?) with arthouse flourish.
I don’t expect the Academy to pick the best film. I’m still quite annoyed Grizzly Man wasn’t even nominated for best documentary and don’t get me started on that credit card commerical “Fog’oWar winning the other year. But now this awful movie with lofty social justice pretensions and no substance or insight has the imprimatur of Best Picture.
And just so I don’t end up on a sour note, the other great little film that could this year? The Wild Parrots of Telegraph Hill. Loved that! Then I went to SF and saw them all and it was the coolest thing ever.
March 7th, 2006 at 4:03 pm
“ol’ Joe said, in all seriousness, that George Clooney’s Syrianna ‘…promotes terrorism.’ ”
This is particularly noxious if one is familiar with Bob
Baer, the ex-CIA man who Clooney’s character is loosely drawn from and who’s book, See No Evil, inspired the film. Baer has been a harsh critic of Clinton, Bush and the CIA itself in their poor performance in dealing with terrorist threats. He’s been particularly critical of America selling its soul to Saudi Arabia and recognized early on what an ill-conceived endeavor the Iraq war was. He also routinely risked his life in the ground war against terrorists. Baer doesn’t fall neatly into the stock “liberal/conservative” versions of the issues, primarily because he’s speaking from extensive experience of a complex reality. Meanwhile, Joe Scarborough is one of those moral cowards and blustering fools who drive around in their SUVs with a “Support the Troops” sticker and have been reduced to trash-talking anyone who had the audacity to anticipate just how degenerate and dangerously deluded the Bushnik and neo-con crowd have now proven themselves to be.
March 7th, 2006 at 4:43 pm
I didn’t see ‘Crash’ but deeply resent the slur on ‘The Greatest Show on Earth’. I loved that move, still remember it vividly. And I’d be more than willing to thank the troops for making it all possible. And of course, the Reverend. Dr. Martin Luther King.
March 7th, 2006 at 4:46 pm
We’re never going to resolve the various disputes here, but perhaps we can better define the battle lines.
First, Crash and the Academy. The Oscars are INDUSTRY awards, first and foremost, so we’ve got to ask ourselves what film-makers saw in this that appealed to them. And I don’t think the answer’s so mysterious. (Reg is on to some of this in his post.) First, it has a screenplay that doesn’t follow the same old hackneyed Bob McKee formula but offers at least a framework for something more ambitious, without the standard hero/heroine/ adversity followed by happy ending structure.
Secondly, it offers a chance for a big ensemble cast to show off its acting chops. Although I personally loathed the film, for very similar reasons to Marc’s, I do think the actors do a fine job, and people in Hollywood are quicker to recognise that than the rest of us.
Secondly, Crash and its audience. My big beef with Crash is that I think it is grossly dishonest about its subject matter. Reading the various posts here over the last couple of days, it’s clear that one person’s dishonesty is another person’s poetic departure from strict realism. That’s the nub of the debate here. I happen to believe that dishonest films are occasionally great films — On The Waterfront being a prime example — because the bad faith of the film-makers ends up being so damn interesting. Crash, I would submit, is not one of those movies.
(Speaking of dishonest movies, I think Capote is also massively dishonest. Reading the various biographies of Capote, which I’ve done, it’s clear that the biggest betrayals of the killers that the film depicts never actually happened. So a film that purports to have meaningful things to say about the moral price of messing with other people’s lives and reputations… seriously messes with other people’s lives and reputations.)
The other, purely cinematic observation to make about Crash is this. If the Academy was really interested in profound ensemble movies about Los Angeles, why didn’t they honor Short Cuts, or Magnolia, both of which I’d count among the very best, most groundbreaking films of the 1990s? Answer: they are afraid of novelty and stuff that’s really out on the edge, always have been, and Crash, for all its pretentions to outspokenness, felt strangely safe to them.
You can still like Crash and also accept that its thematic explorations are not, in the end, all that profound. Racism exists? It screws up American society? To quote the great Italian cartoonist Altan (about the United States): Wow, man, wow.
March 7th, 2006 at 4:58 pm
John Dicker -
You’re right about Grizzly Man - a terrific movie. How in the world did that get left out? Was it the usual nativist, anti-ursine bias. It’s rarely acknowledged, in fact often no more than a subtle gesture, but scratch beneath the surface and you’ll find it in most Hollywood films.
March 7th, 2006 at 5:08 pm
No one is even talking about the obvious speciesism in shutting King Kong out of the big awards. Tell me you didn’t cry when you saw the big lug go down for the count even though you knew how it ended already. That gorilla got totally snubbed, not even nominated, sheesh!
Seriously, though, I think Reg is right about Crash. It must have barely edged out Brokeback, and probably because of the many great acting performances by it’s big time cast. But Hayden’s reaction was dumb, and I’d say that alot of Hollywood types are under the illusion that Crash was right on the mark in its portrayal of race relations. Crash was a good movie, but it wasn’t the Best Picture. I’d have been more comfortable with Capote or Brokeback getting it, which I thought were more deserving. That said, I do think King Kong deserved a little more credit. Profound social message? Nah, but a damn good movie still.
March 7th, 2006 at 5:21 pm
I think Crash is inaccurate hyperbole. In short a bad portrayal of real life. Brokeback was the opposite; an accurate protrayal. One is populist propaganda and nothing more. Actors will play anything. That’s the gig. For the 100 members out of 120,000 in SAG who can get work that is. The film promotes the myth that people are more racist than they are. Some are, but is this who we choose as spokespeople for the species?
March 7th, 2006 at 5:39 pm
“Presumably the only people in Hollywood who’s ranks approach the legions of actors would be folks who’ve successfully hawked a script or two.”
Successfully? No the real legions are the ones who have them to hawk unsuccessfully. I know about that firsthand too since it’s been six years I’ve been trying to sell two. McMurtry and Ossana spent ten years on this before selling it and getting BB produced. That’s the average for most films with the exception of Crash written on a whim and sold immediately by an insider already hyper rich and connected.
Good films can be made but like the history of Capote by Dan Futterman in a first effort, but tough even with powerful friends, Brokeback was a long shot. Original screenplays usually are inferior to adapted ones. The best of those mirror the literary work and are rare.
It still earned the major recognition but it’s still an insult to art that this sort of plagiarised crap (from Kasdan) can equal and even beat it in the top spot.
March 7th, 2006 at 6:00 pm
When I speculated on Crash’s win, I didn’t realize that the Academy was such a relatively small, self-selecting group within the industry. I’m not sure what that means, other than explaining how Cecil B. DeMille won an award for “Greatest Show on Earth” back in the day.
For what it’s worth, Haggis screenplay was inspired by his own experience of a carjacking in which his assailants - as an afterthought - came back and approached his terrified wife only to snatch the Blockbuster rental video she was still holding. He used this as a point of departure for imagining an admittedly woolly tale that had more plot points and disparate characters than Syriana.
March 7th, 2006 at 6:11 pm
Yeah but still it’s identical to the breaking down in Inglewood fear fest in Grand Canyon. And what IS the reality of coming back for a rental video?
March 7th, 2006 at 6:17 pm
From today’s New York Times, a sample of the thinking that went into the choice, from John Calley, who’s been producing movies for over 40 years: “Nobody likes to think of themselves as being from Los Angeles. I don’t know anybody that wants to be buried here.†Screw the carpetbagging bastards.
March 7th, 2006 at 7:47 pm
Look…I’m not defending Sunday night’s win for “Crash.” As I said months ago when we discussed the film here at more length than it likely deserved, that I saw it on opening weekend without reading reviews and thought it to be a rather terrific and very affecting fable, despite its considerable flaws.
Would I have picked it as best picture? Never.
I’m also creeped out by a lot of the Westside folks who embrace it for self congratulatory and culturally blindered reasons that make me extremely uncomfortable.
Still, there was much in the film that I found quite nuanced, insightful, emotionally affecting and accurate. Others didn’t feel that way. So, okay, fine.
Yet, where I believe Hayden is right—even though he made the point with absurd clumsyness—-is that there is much about race, and racial disparities, in LA and elsewhere in this country that isn’t talked about adequately at all.
Watching Dave Chapelle’s rather amazing appearance on Inside the Actors Studio…the most striking statement he made over and over in different ways is how we need to have a dialogue about race in America and that, at the core of it, that’s what he tried to do with his comedy…..is to stimulate that dialogue.
I think—-for better or for worse—that’s what Haggis tried to do, albeit with less grace than Chapelle. “Crash†may not have worked brilliantly in all ways—-and, again, no, the film didn’t deserve the Oscar—-but at least it’s gotten us talking.
I’m also a bit creeped out by the way it’s been embraced by westside types who—
March 7th, 2006 at 7:49 pm
Ooops. I don’t know how that last sentence crept in. Didn’t see it when I posted.
And forgive the wandering sentence structure for the rest of it.
March 7th, 2006 at 8:03 pm
Proof positive I should be working, not blogging.
March 7th, 2006 at 8:10 pm
Crash is a film for sentimental masochists. I would urge you to read the LA Weekly’s Scott Foundas on the subject:
Admittedly, Paul Haggis’ directorial debut wasn’t one of those so-bad-it’s-mesmerizing debacles, like Town & Country or The Bonfire of the Vanities… [If] it had been, it wouldn’t have made my blood boil nearly as much. No, Crash is an Important Film About the Times in Which We Live, which is another way of saying that it’s one of those self-congratulatory liberal jerk-off movies that rolls around every once in a while to remind us of how white people suffer too, how nobody is without his prejudices, and how, when the going gets tough, even the white supremacist cop who gets his kicks from sexually harassing innocent black motorists is capable of rising to the occasion. How touching. Haggis is trafficking in much the same territory here as Michael Haneke is in Caché, only he lacks the guts to pull out his paring knife and fillet his bourgeois characters with the mercilessness they deserve. (Instead, when Sandra Bullock’s pampered Brentwood housewife accuses a Mexican-American locksmith of copying her keys for illicit purposes, Haggis doesn’t condemn her reprehensible behavior so much as he sympathizes with it.) People who say that Crash is an insightful portrait of life in Los Angeles clearly don’t live in the same town I do. Watching it, I wondered if Haggis hadn’t sat down with a copy of Thom Andersen’s brilliant essay film Los Angeles Plays Itself and deliberately written a script that reinforces every bogus assumption about life in the city—from the thesis that the only way people in L.A. connect with one another is by getting into car crashes to the depiction of the untold dangers of driving south of the 10 Freeway—that Andersen so skillfully shoots down. And in a year that brought many (and in some cases justified) accusations of racial insensitivity against movies from King Kong to Memoirs of a Geisha, it was Crash that gave us Larenz Tate and Ludacris as carjackers who view their actions as a form of civilized protest, and Terrence Howard as creepy embodiment of emasculated African-American yuppiedom. Not since Spanglish—which, alas, wasn’t that 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.”
———–
Personally, I think it is pointless to speculate about why a film won anything in a process as impure as that of the Academy voting system. The Academy rewards talent accidentally; a cursory glance at Oscar history will tell you that (consider the people who never won). As if we were in any doubt already, the success Miramax had in paying for their Oscars (Shakespeare in Love, Chicago etc) with outlandishly extravagant marketing campaigns suggests that the use of the word ‘Best’ in any of these categories is at best meaningless, at worst utterly corrupt. I am surprised that regular visitors to this site, who are normally (hyper-)sensitive to the slightest linguistic imprecision, worry themselves with this silly charade at all.
I would be happier if the Academy just came clean and inaugurated votes for Best Marketing Campaign, Best Agent, etc. That way we could celebrate the achievements for what they are (industrial politics) rather than what they are not (a celebration of artistic excellence).
March 7th, 2006 at 8:14 pm
” don’t know anybody that wants to be buried here.â€
You mean Forest Lawn has lost it’s cache ? I blame Cassevetes, Altman, Woody Allen, Tarantino and the Weinstein brothers…
March 7th, 2006 at 8:18 pm
Here’s why Crash won, and why movies LIKE it will ALWAYS win.
It give guilty liberals a way of somehow proving that they are sensitive to racial problems. People who really like this movie are trying to say, “look! See? I get it, man! I’m down!”
Just like in the 60’s, when white liberals desperate to prove how hip they were flocked to jazz clubs in Harlem.
The act of championing this movie has become an act of political declaration. It’s the equivalent of wearing an issue button on your lapel, or slapping a bumper sticker on your Volvo station wagon.
The problem with that thinking is that it’s not that easy. You’re not a better person because you like Crash. You’re not making the world a better place by watching it, or liking it, or blogging about how amazing it was. Watching Crash, and talking about it incessantly in every freakin’ Starbuck’s from Marina Del Rey to Silverlake isn’t going to make LA’s problems go away.
Hollywood is patting themselves on the back for their own ham-handed political hack work, and the white liberal legions who worship them are standing in line to pat them on the back, too.
March 7th, 2006 at 8:34 pm
“best movie of the year for people who like to say, ‘A lot of my best friends are black.’ ”
I was under the impression that the old “A lot of my best friends are black” crowd had been liberated by Shelby Steele and John McWhorter from having to genuflect at the altar of race and have since taken to choosing their friends soley on the content of their character.
I have a funny feeling that most people who’s friends and families actually ARE black (the overwheming majority of whom are black themselves, of course) and who saw Crash felt some resonance. One of those folks, who’s also a film critic and film historian, is Elvis Mitchell, who thought Crash was honest and timely.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5189442
March 7th, 2006 at 8:40 pm
“You’re not a better person because you like Crash.”
You’ve really managed to boil discussion of this movie down to it’s essence…and of course you are wrong. I am a better person than you are and don’t ever forget it…if for no other reason than that you don’t know that by the ’60s people seeking the best jazz flocked to the Village. The hippest ones ventured over the Lower East Side to Slugs, but that was pretty much the whole deal. Harlem, of course, was still the place to go for great R&B,
March 7th, 2006 at 8:54 pm
“…I have a funny feeling that most people who’s friends and families actually ARE black (the overwheming majority of whom are black themselves, of course) and who saw Crash felt some resonance….”
Or brown, while we’re at it.
Exactly. Thanks, reg. You got to what I was fumbling to say but failed.
This is the weird irony of this film, that people trashing it don’t seem to get. Yeah, a whole swath of guilty white liberals liked it TOO, and for all the wrong reasons….and it may be that it got rewarded on Sunday because of this phenomenon (combined with a reactionary queasiness about rewarding the far superior “Brokeback Mountain”).
But that’s not the fault of “Crash,” nor is it a measure of its worth….or poetic accuracy. (NOTE: I’m using “poetic” loosely because I’m too lazy and rushed to search for a better word, so please don’t jump on me for this.)
March 7th, 2006 at 8:57 pm
Big Daddy -
Can’t we have a moratorium on Volvos and Starbucks when it comes to eviscerating liberals? At the very least, try to conflate the cliches and get them out of the way early. Why not stick the liberals into a Volvo with lattes in hand, put some guilt-assuaging jazz on the car radio and let ‘em drive off, blathering effetely. If you want, you can then get them into a two car pile-up with a bunch of truth-spouting tough eggs like youself. Spill out their coffees and lay some hard-earned wisdom on them. Then go back and steal their foreign rental videos.
March 7th, 2006 at 9:04 pm
For what it’s worth, I had an experience a few months ago that portended directly to what “Crash†is all about. I was rear ended by two Mexican guys who spoke little English and probably had a few beers in them. No racial slurs we’re bantered about, we exchanged insurances numbers amiably and went our separate ways. It reaffirmed my general sense that the L.A. populace is quite comfortable with its diversity. Yes, one example does not make a trend but my take was that “Crash†was an aesthetically pleasing but morally pompous film that did not represent the city it criticized.
March 7th, 2006 at 9:08 pm
Evets, you made my day.
March 7th, 2006 at 9:12 pm
That was terrific, evets. The funny thing about this whole discussion of Crash is that the people who’ve most turned the question of how much one likes a dumbass movie into a noisy political debate are mostly, of course, the right-wing simpletons who are invested in heating up a culture war because the actual policies and politicians they’ve been busily promoting are such crap that the citizenry is turning against them in droves.
March 7th, 2006 at 9:18 pm
Thanks guys. I think I’ll work it up into a treatment.
March 7th, 2006 at 9:50 pm
wil - of course “we can all get along”, hopefully most of the time. But not always and there are some flash points and examples of not getting along like the issues rosedog outlined in an earlier post that are really critical and more often than not aren’t being effectively addressed.
I also think that anyone who believes that the essence of racial relations in major urban areas is harmony rather than very complex, often contradictory trends all happening at the same time and overlaying some serious tensions is kidding themselves. This is most obvious at the level of the school districts and law enforcement. Starbucks isn’t really part of the mix and outside of the multiplexes - that have become their confessionals if the Crash critics are to be believed - white folks rarely feel the pain. But the reason I’m responding to your post is that I read a commenter somewhere else - maybe Kevin Drum - who confessed to running a red light in L.A. and crashing with some Koreans. He said that although he was obviously at fault, a number of the witnesses came up to him and started sputtering about how Koreans can’t drive and it was a damn shame, etc. etc. He added, like you, that one anecdote does not a trend make…
March 7th, 2006 at 10:05 pm
Here’s a clip from Salon’s The Fix that ties several of Marc’s recent posts together…I swear this is my last comment.
At the Vanity Fair post-Oscars party at Morton’s in Los Angeles, Salman Rushdie was hanging out with winners Three 6 Mafia. “That’s the song I was really rooting for,” Rushdie said. “I really liked ‘Hustle and Flow.’”
March 7th, 2006 at 10:07 pm
Volvos are ok…lattes suck (except with Camels).
I’m more of a Cadillac Brougham 1975 and Puerto Rican coffee liberal.
March 7th, 2006 at 10:13 pm
Evets - thank you for acknowledging Hollywood’s anti ursine bias. What was it Chuck D said?Burn Hollywood Burn.
For what it’s worth, which isn’t much, I actually met Treadwell in his stomping grounds while on a bear tour. You can see pictures of me and Timmy The Fox and Treadwell here:
http://toiletpaperonline.typepad.com/the_blog/2006/01/the_time_i_met_.html
Oh and Rosedog: I agree with you about Chapelle and will have to suffer through the odious James Lipton to watch that episode. If anyone here hasn’t seen the first two seasons of his Comedy Central show, Netflix that shit post haste, it lives up to its hype.
My hope for myself and all of us Crash haters is this: The glorious return of The Sopranoes (which is good even when it’s mediocre) this Sunday will serve as an entertainment exorcism of Paul Haggis and his apologists.
March 7th, 2006 at 10:31 pm
Some of the critiques here critique the audience and not the actual movie. Cooper at least criticizes the movie for its content though he takes the movie literally (and inacurrately) that LA is a racist Hell hole. LA is certainly the backdrop to this movie but I didn’t interpret that ‘LA is a racist hellhole’ as the meaning of the movie at all. The meaning had to do with racism in people’s heads and how it can play out.
DR. Earl Ofari Hutchinson’s take on Crash.
http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=faa28e02fff4c5d68eea0f0f77da4bd5
March 7th, 2006 at 10:36 pm
John Dicker -
Very interesting description of Treadwell - thanks for the link.
One thing I loved about the movie was the contrast between Treadwell’s high-strung fairy-tale anthropomorphizing and Herzog’s voice of Darwinian gloom in the background; hard to say which was more off-putting.
March 7th, 2006 at 10:47 pm
Thanks Evets. I actually liked Herzog’s doom and gloom and I wasn’t sure if I appreciated it because there wasn’t too, too much of it or because I was inclined to agree with what he had to say.
Voiceover’s tricky in these situations cause it can easily get too heavy handed. But I thought in this case it was right on.
March 7th, 2006 at 10:49 pm
What he said bothered me a great deal but it helped make the film.
March 7th, 2006 at 11:05 pm
Hey Marc,
At least “Crash” winning has given you something to feel passionate about (albeit negatively). I can’t imagine that popcorn-type action movies that won past Oscars (Gladiator, Lord of the Rings) provoked anyone to have an opinion, let alone a difference of opinion.
March 8th, 2006 at 1:19 am
The Academy Awards seemed like a ‘big daddy†handing out prizes to all its kids; no one went home empty handed—Clooney wins Best Supporting Actor for Syrianna; Reese Witherspoon wins Best Actress for Walk the Line; Brokeback Mountain’s Ang Lee is Best Director; Hoffman is Best Actor in Compote and last but not least Crash wins Best Movie—something for everyone—how can we quarrel with such a diplomatic and magnanimous display.
Now, was there an actual vote taken or was it Eenie, Meenie, Minie, Moe?
If two pictures received the same number of votes, does the Academy need to ask the Supreme Court to pick a winner, or does the court only rule on who becomes President?
Can we talk about something more meaningful—who wore the most sexist dress?
March 8th, 2006 at 1:32 am
“Compote?” A mish-mash?
March 8th, 2006 at 1:40 am
John Dicker Says:
March 7th, 2006 at 3:30 pm
“Let’s not forget that Forrest Gump also won a best picture award.”
Yeah, and over Pulp Fiction! If that wasn’t a sign that academy voters were wack, I don’t know what more you need.
March 8th, 2006 at 5:49 am
I’d like dispute “Reg’s ” comment. He says: “But please don’t treat us to the suggestion (one I’ve seen bouncing around in quotes from the Bay Area’s gay activist community) that Brokeback didn’t win an Oscar because of Hollywood’s ingrained homophobia. The film’s screenwriters and director were singled out for Oscars - both rather significant awards. I also have trouble believing that Hollywood is more of a hotbed of homophobia than greater Los Angeles is a terrain marred by racial tension. Could be…but I doubt it.”
Um, first of all, the Director win was low-hanging fruit; Ang Lee is a great director, period, who should be honored by the Academy. Second, the other Oscars wins for Brokeback, and the Best Picture loss, conveniently allowed the Academy to honor a significant film without legitimizing its message - which was the plan all along for those members who didn’t want to see it, or wouldn’t see it. See Nikki Finke’s coverage from a month ago in the L.A. Weekly.
Finally, the NY Times - that paragon of straight white male virture - telegraphed the CYA defense to anyone who wants to hear it: see, Brokeback isn’t about universality of love, it’s about cheating husbands and the ‘diminishment’ of cowboy iconography. WTF?
And straight men and women haven’t cheated or subjected our rigid view of masculinity to various tests in Best Picture winners before? Come now.
Right on, Marc!! Crash is a gratuitous button-pusher from the HBO school of made-for-TV filmmaking, and you are dead-on the mark for saying so.
March 8th, 2006 at 9:16 am
This is woefully off topic but quick question for rosedog. im wondering if youve had a chance to look at tom hayden’s book on streatgangs. I went to see him when he was in town, speaking on the topic and was mightily impressed. He seemed to genuinely care for people he came across in the course of writing the book and i found his talk to be pretty informed. i never got a chance to read the book though. from what i remember he was particularly interested in the period of the early 1990s in which a concerted effort was made by gang members to stop the violence in Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, and other cities by formally declaring truces and working to provide alternatives to gangs for young people in their communities. The progress here was never built on and tom went on to launch a thorough critique of state policy. maybe you could shed a little more light. And Marc we get it a movie you didnt like won the oscars, get over it. Am i the only one who thought that million dollar baby was hopelessly overated?
March 8th, 2006 at 11:14 am
These films were all bad, poorly written, acted, and directed. With the exception of Good Night and Walk the Line which were good.
Brokeback? Lee is a hack like Woody Allen, who covers himself in “artistic” pretension while making the same movie over and over again. Ice Storm was the same as the Hulk as the same as Brokeback.
Capote? Hoffman wins for THAT? Possibly the easiest person who ever lived to imitate, with the possible exception of Ethel Merman.
Constant Gardener? OK, so all the bad stuff in Africa is the fault of evil rich white guys in Big Pharma. Not thugs like Charles Taylor or Mugabe or dysfunctional tribalism. Plus Rachel Weisz’s character was an ungodly self-righteous jerk, who fooled around on her husband (was the kid even his?) Only a jerk like Cornwell could make adultery an act of love (btw, he supports the Fatwa on Rushdie).
Hustle and Flow? Yeah I’m with Stewart. It just got easier out there for a pimp. One giant frickin Minstrel Show that the Academy loves.
Crash? Need I remind you, Matt Dillon ALSO starred in “Herbie Fully Loaded.” Why not award THAT best picture, and Lindsay Lohan best actress. Herbie was at least more realistic, with a better performance by Dillon. Crash was LA interpreted by a Malibu millionaire who wants to feel morally superior to other Anglos.
Funny, I’v heard Joe Hicks for years now on Olney’s show. Always found him to be fascinating and thoughtful. Hayden? Married Jane Fonda.
If that doesn’t say it all about Hayden, I don’t know what does.
March 8th, 2006 at 12:26 pm
The funny thing is that Hayden’s evidence is all really important evidence about why Crash sucks so. Crash is a movie that says “hey, we’re all racist, ain’t it sad but inevitable?” whereas Hayden goes on to list the kind of social problems that are related to race but require actual politics to solve. And politics are not a possibility in the world of Crash.
March 8th, 2006 at 1:35 pm
“Lee is a hack like Woody Allen, who covers himself in “artistic†pretension while making the same movie over and over again. Ice Storm was the same as the Hulk as the same as Brokeback.”
You forgot to mention that Ride With The Devil was the same as Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. And yeah, I’ve never seen two films that were as similiar as The Hulk and Brokeback Mountain. Ang needs to get a new schtick….what is he thinkiing ????
March 8th, 2006 at 2:51 pm
Funny, I’v heard Joe Hicks for years now on Olney’s show. Always found him to be fascinating and thoughtful. Hayden? Married Jane Fonda.
If that doesn’t say it all about Hayden, I don’t know what does.
The smartest thing Tom Hayden did was to marry Jane Fonda—her exercise videos financed his political campaigns—he “initially” would not have won an election without her.
March 8th, 2006 at 3:11 pm
Yes, we should all know how “tolerant” Joe Hicks has become.
Along with his current crusade against all things “Crash” he has also snuggled up to Bushtail and taken aim against same sex marriage, thundering that if we dare to allow it (as has Massachussetts for a while for instance) “then we open the floodgates for other unions involving incest, polygamy or others both common sense and law consider improper.” Such bigoted nonsense still passes for “tolerence” in the well connected, if often clueless gaggle of human rights “advocates” in LA LA Land. Without reference to race or color, let’s just say he walks and talks like David Horowitz, that other always-looking-for-a-gig ex-radical/irrepressible publicity hound we know too well and dislike so well.
Tantrum indeed, like comparing “Crash” with “The Greatest Show on Earth.” More like “Shakespeare in Love.” Fact is, this year was very good movie wise. My pick was “Brokeback” but hey, I’ve always liked anything involving Larry McMurtry, and if he dared to outrage the fashionista police and risk arrrest by wearing jeans to the Oscars rather than waiting till the voting was in to sue the pants off his collaborators, all the better. But any of the nominees this year would have deserved a win in a typical year.
March 8th, 2006 at 6:05 pm
exactly. The parallels between Sense and Sensibility, The Hulk, Brokeback Mountain, and Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon made me think I was watching the same movie over and over again…. Jane Austen in the closeted Rockies, a big green monster in pre-Victorian England.
JR is right that adultery has never been presented as an act of love before Constant Gardner came along. I was thinking that while watching Same Time, Next Year and reminiscing about the English Patient.
I can’t wait for Jim Rockford’s one man show in which he recreates Truman Capote and Ethel Merman with ease. There’s a show for Ang Lee to adapt into film (although I would probably think it was Ice Storm.)
March 8th, 2006 at 7:15 pm
I disagree with one part of that: who says Hayden was an “effective” legislator. Please.
March 8th, 2006 at 7:41 pm
Hi, Ahmed.
I like Hayden’s gang book. It’s a treasure trove of facts and stats on the subject. But more than that, Hayden’s the real deal when it comes to caring about finding practical solutions to gang violence. He’s put in years of work trying to understand it from the street level up. I’ve been to numerous South LA gatherings where he was the only white guy in the place. (I guess I was ufually the only middle-aged white chick in the room too, but—being only 1/4 Irish—I tend to blend. Tom doesn’t.)
Yet, Tom would be the first to tell you that he and I do not always agree on all approaches to gang intervention. For instance, I think he tends to demonize the cops more than necessary, and to over-mythologize the effectiveness of the guys who formed the Crip/Blood truce in the early ’90’s.
(For one thing, the gang truce methodology has proved utterly counterproductive in East LA as it tends to actually validate the gang structure, not disrupt it. )
On the other hand, a few of those South LA homeboy truce-makers from back in the day have grown-up to be exceptional men who are now doing great good in their communities in the area of gang intervention—people like Bo Taylor and Aqueela Sherrills, whom few have ever heard of since the LA Times and the Weekly tend to ignore them.
In his book, Tom shines a well-deserved light on those guys and their present-day accomplishments.
************
All of the above is a dreadfully abbreviated answer to a complicated question. But best I can do in the OT moment. Thanks for asking, m’dear.
March 8th, 2006 at 7:45 pm
uh…”usually.” I meant usually. Not ufually.
March 9th, 2006 at 11:25 am
Thanks answer, abbrevaited but informative I remember going to Tom haydens talk several years ago and being incredibly moved by the Bo Taylor’s and Aqueela Sherrills-homeboys, former gangmembers turned into truce makers. And i had no idea you could blend in so well in a room full of homeboys yourself. peace
April 12th, 2006 at 11:25 pm
jim rockford, you are an idiot.
July 12th, 2006 at 8:36 pm
Bloodline Anthem Ringtone…
Download the ringtone of the popular song: Bloodline Anthem …
June 9th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
Interfaccia comoda, colori piacevoli, buoni!