The following is a rehashing some of my comments posted elsewhere about the new film Crash.  Not the old film Crash.  It's flawed, it's unbelievable, it's fantastic.  For a relatively unsubtle film, it asks a number of subtle questions.  Which makes it, I guess, a very subtle film.  In no particular order:


   
        Ludacris turned in a very respectable performance. It would be interesting to know the sequence his scenes were shot in. I suspect that a bit of 'warming up' took place. Some scenes were more natural than others. Still, he's got a lot left to give, I'd say. Luda will be quite surprising in a film that isn't so vignette-driven, and with a more seasoned director.

            Obviously a film like this is a slave to its structure. If you want actual "coincidences," you're going to be disappointed. There aren't any coincidences that would link this group of people so fundamentally, especially in L.A.

Some have said that better actors must have passed on the script. Would seem to me quite the opposite. This is the kind of film that actors kill to get cast in.

            Moreover, with a production budget of $6.5 million, you can be sure that Sandra Bullock appeared gratis. You may not have liked the Misses Congeniality, but with her ownership stake in those two pictures, she doesn't have to work on anything but scripts she really cares about. Brendan Frasier and Matt Dillon, okay, they're glad to get in anything.

    If the budget was really $6.5 mil as reported by the New Yorker, all the actors worked for scale, although probably with back-end participation, should there be any. $6.5 mil isn't enough to have rented the locations and blown up two cars.

    And there will be a sizable back-end, unlike Sandra Bullock's back-end. (I thought she looked good, where's the love?) The film's grossed $20 mil so far. Split that 50/50 between exhibitor and the studio and then subtract marketing expenses. Of which there were precious few as has been remarked. Another week in theaters and they've covered costs. DVD and TV/Cable TV/Foreign sales will be pure gravy for the studio/producers/actors with points. And that can account for as much as 85% of the take, by the way.

    The sweet bits were a bit sappy for my taste, and yet I found Crash to be very powerful despite an immediate awareness of how manipulative and stylized the structure and execution are. Comments on various groups' parking and driving styles were on target, in as much as one hears exactly those comments in L.A. every day. And L.A. is an extremely balkanized city. Incredibly diverse, but with very defined borders.

            I thought Crash was great, and I mean it, but oddly, I don't really disagree with the criticisms that have surfaced. It was certainly flawed, but despite some wobbles, the entire effect was simply powerful.

    After 15 minutes, I thought, great, just what L.A. needs, a movie to stir up race hate. You really can't think this by the end of the movie, if you haven't walked out.

    Every era demonizes certain of humanity's...well, inhuman aspects. And completely ignores, or glorifies others. Currently we tend to say, oh that person is a racist. I scorn and avoid him. The lowest of the low. No possible redeeming features. One hundred years ago, it could have been, in some areas, oh that person is a catholic. Don't talk to him. Don't hire him. That would seem small-minded, or illegal, today, but to ostracize someone for racisit tendencies gives many people a moral hard on.

    Crash fuels some interesting discussion in this direction. The Matt Dillon character is a great example. Your first impulse is to hate him for being a corrupt, racist cop. As his storyline progresses, you see that it isn't so simple. Is there a difference for his character between hating blacks and being angry at blacks, even irrationally? I don't know. Maybe he is a corrupt, racist cop. Maybe he's not.

    One critic has noted astutely: What the movie really labors under is the assumption that all forms of racism involve overt, confrontational name-calling... be it in the guise of rah-rah post-9/11 jingoism or "let's be honest" behind closed doors one-on-ones at City Hall. For me, this is probably the films biggest failing. This is tip-of-the-iceberg racism--it certainly happens, but a lot, obv. is never spoken, only acted on. It weakens the film to a certain extent, but, again, this didn't bother me. Like the "unlikely" Altmanesque structure, I just allow the writer/director this lifeline.