Many (white) people revere Crash as their "anti-racist" movie. But I have a totally opposite view:


1. Only white guys have a chance to redeem themselves in the movie. A white molester saves the life of his black victim, and that makes him a hero again? Puuwweeek! What kind of message it's trying to convey to the audience?

2. Asians are stereotyped as human trafficker, loud and obnoxious. Where are their redemption??

3. Spanish servant saves Sandra Bullock. It's not shown at all on screen. Why? Only white guys' redemption deserve screen time?

4. The white policeman becomes a racist because his father is a victim of the government's aid to the black community. What kind of justification is that?


To me, Crash is just a "feel-good" movie made for white people to make them feel justified towards racism while pretending to be an "anti-racist" movie. Totally hypocrite! Puuwweeek!

one word:

perspective

not racist.. it's reality

I believe you missed the entire point of the film.

Tan Sri, I reckon you are from Siberia, how do you know it's true in United States?

Also, I can tell you many Chinese agree with the music video Negarakuku, they will say it's reality too.

(Okay, no comment from me on that one)

---

Added on June 4, 2008, 8:54 pmTwo soldiers from warring countries point their guns at each other, and I guess that's when they miss the point.

Anyway, please enlighten me what I've missed? And please tell me why the movie takes on the perspective of a white racist, of how his father is suffering, and how the government's policy is doing him injustice, and how the black lady is acting "unfairly" to him and his father?

And why the Black producer/director blames his own black people (who become social scum/robber) who the racism that happened to him.

So, the "moral of the story" I learnt from Crash is:

1. White guys become racists because they have good reasons (resulting from goverment's "biased" policy", etc)

2. Black guys become the victims of racism because many of them are social scumbags anyway (like the two robbers). In another word, they deserve it.

3. It's all right to sexually molest someone because you will still become a hero when you save her from the car accident. (Yes, this film is a sexist as well and despise women. If I were a woman, I'll sue the producer for spreading this kind of messages)


Okay, what's your take?

---

Added on June 4, 2008, 9:27 pmWhen people claiming American soldiers killing innocent people in Iraq, I guess all George Bush needs to do is to shrug and says, "One word: perspective."

This post has been edited by limboonsiang: Jun 4 2008, 09:27 PM

It's a 'human' movie. In the most drastic of times, we do things that are unlike us. The racist helps someone of a different race and the non-racist stereotypes and kill a person of a different race.

That's how Oscar judges view it, I'm pretty sure.

But my problem with the movie is that it tries to disguise itself as a "human" movie. That this is life. Racism happens. Racism CAN be justified. (Like how BN GOvernment justifies their racist policy)

But is this movie a genuine portrait of real life? The selections of characters, the scenes, the plotlines (awkwardly contrived if you ask me), they all work towards the white people's perspective.

It's pathetic how we readily see white people as saviors, even to this date. But hey, all our sense (so-called perspective) are nearly controlled by them (TV, movies and musics).

Sad, but true.

It's been a while since i've watched the film, but i dont remember any one character coming out on top of another, or their racism being justified.

From the movie, i saw no solely black or white characters. The "bad" characters had a good side to them, and the "good" characters had their equal share of flaws.

I don't understand where in the movie the white man appears as the savior. If fact, a lot of them are painted as self-righteous hypocrites, and all of them flawed in one way or another.

Even though the movie is indeed very cliche, it has a good message. No one's perfect. It is sad that we are only too quick to judge others, without really examining ourselves.

I think the last scene of the movie says it the clearest. Up till that point, Ryan Phillippe's character was the most perfect on the outset. He was quick to condemn his partner's actions, but in the end, he bought into the racial sterotyping just as quickly as any other person could.

Don't see how that made him out to be a saviour.

The movie was pretty meh from what I can remember. how unsubtle can a movie be? and those melodramatic songs.....

If you want to see black guys win, watch Do The Right Thing.

LOL. You made the exact point.

Who else created racial stereotypes if it weren't the media? Look at Malaysia. Utusan Malaysia flames the Malay readers about pigs rearing, about how the greedy and evil Chinese is going to take over Malaysia if Malays don't unite and support UMNO.

The media should take responsibility. But what does Crash do? Don't we see stereotypes of loud obnoxious Asians? They look rather one-dimensional to me.

And why the white policemen, whether racist or "not", have the depth and dimensions that Asian characters do not have? Is that a coincidental? I doubt so.

So you say the scene where the white racist policeman-cum-molester rescuing the Black woman is not not about making him a savior? Then what it is?

About a racist sex offender becoming humane? Puwweeeek!

Sexual molestation is a serious crime. Yet, the movie plays it like it can be justified because the white guy's father is suffering because of the black. Total bullshht to me.

And the sexually molested black woman has to thank the white savior-cum-molester and to forget about his heinous act because the plot coincidentally makes her to be someone in need of help?

Oh, come on.

Crash is made for white people's mental masturbation, and not for you guys...

---

Added on June 4, 2008, 11:23 pmSorry, but it's puuuwweeek for me for Do the Right Thing as well. It's the same with Crash, also trying hard to justify racism by slyly reflecting it as "real life". Another racist film. Too bad, Spike Lee.


This post has been edited by limboonsiang: Jun 4 2008, 11:23 PM

i think u're severely missing the point of a film of "realistic potrayal".

the judgement and moral of the story is in the hands of the audience, not the characters in the film, or the story itself. such films do not need a narrator to describe what happens next, nor does it need to SHOW to the audience exactly what happens to everyone.

it's called instantiation. u present several situations, but show only one example. with the right method of story telling, u automatically tell the audience that the same thing (as of the example) will or can happen to the rest of the situations. the film shows racism straight to ur face. but it's so damn in-your-face that a thinking audience cant help but reflect the situation(s) upon themselves.



if u need the film maker tell u EVERYTHING that happens to every character, then u'd probably need to read an autobiography instead.

Realistic portrayal? LOL.

There could never be realistic portrayal by any film, even documentaries, brother. It's always told from a view point, a purpose. Even famous documentary like The Salesman.

According to your theory, the characters or story of a movie has nothing to do with affecting the audience, then why everyone's so eager to ban Fitna the movie?

Why Utusan Malaysia viciously attack Namewee for producing music video like Negarakuku (I'm sure Namewee also calls his music viceo realistic portrayal"?

That racist director also calls The Birth of Nation a realistic portrayal because blacks are supposed to be slaves.

The Nazi also calls their propaganda films realistic portrayal because all Jewish are the scumbags (Okay, my Islamic lecturer agrees with it).

Who are us to determine what is realistic portrayal? How do you determine that? Jsut because other reviews say so? Just because Oscar loves it? Just because everyone is oooh and aaah about it?

OR because the movie makes you think that's what it is supposed to be? Wait a minute, wouldn't it then you are contradicting yourself because the movie (the so-called theme) doesn't affect you as an audience?

If not the movie, how do you tell a movie is a "realistic portrayal"?

Funny. In Rashomon we already see how "realistic portrayal" could be told from different perspective and WITH A PURPOSE.

And don't tell me a sex-offender-is-still-the-black-savior movie is not told to tell you something.

Or every murderer is innocent and should be let go, because "hey, people kill each other, right"?

p.s. Why are we so lenient towards judging foreign movies (just because they package themselves ever so nicely with beautiful shots, big casts and melodramatic music?), and turn so harshly towards local production...? If I argue about "realistic portrayal", would the Government lifts the ban on The Last Communist instead? I wonder.

---

Added on June 5, 2008, 9:22 amThis post has been edited by limboonsiang: Jun 5 2008, 09:26 AM

You seem to have a lot of anger issues. Frankly i can't follow your train of thought, how you end up with Utusan Malaysia every time Yes, the movie depicits points of view. Every character in the movie seems to be prejudiced against someone else, and have lots of reasons to justify their self righteousness. I guess that applies to your real life examples as well?

And you seem to be very mad at the fact that the man who sexually violated the lady also saved her life later in the movie. So you would rather he just stands around and laugh while she dies because he's supposed to be the "bad" character? Not gonna argue that the movie isn't cliche tho, because it is.

HOWEVER, i also understand that different people can watch the same movie and have a different reaction to it. You came out offended by this movie. I thought that, despite the unsubtleness (to quote an earlier poster) of the film, it still brought a good message. We can agree to disagree on this?

This post has been edited by GhettoSuperstar: Jun 5 2008, 12:18 PM

LOL. Yes, I'm angry and I hate Utusan Malaysia. It's a outright a racist newspaper! Please stop buying it!

Anyway, I'm not saying that the molester should stand around and not helping his former victim.

INSTEAD, I'm saying that this accident shouldn't happen at all. Why couldn't the police be caught in the accident instead and the black woman rescued him? Isn't it fit the "theme" better? Isn't that a better "good message"? LOL.

Or why not the racist policeman get caught in the accident, the black woman - instead of saving him - peed on his face and walks away with the car EXPLODES as she does. It's already cliche, why not make it even more?

So, please don't tell me I could agree on that this racist/sexist film has a good message. It's pretty obvious to me: NO!

p.s. And, if you want to pick a movie with so-called "realistic portrayal", at least choose better-made films like maybe "City of Gods"?













This post has been edited by limboonsiang: Jun 5 2008, 12:56 PM