Truthful, honest and admirably entertaining film-making which takes risks

Rating: 8/10 (13 June 2010)

I must insist that the thoughts I record when writing my reviews for IMDb are all my own, but before starting a review, I almost always read several others. I always include reading those by Roger Ebert (who, believe it or not, can drop some terrible clangers as to the detail of films — I first noticed this in his reviews of Unforgiven and A Chorus Line — which do rather shake your confidence in his judgment); and The Guardian here in Britain as well as those enthusiastic IMDb members who, like me, like to add our two ha'porth worth. Among the members' reviews there are invariably those which go to extremes and laud this or that film as quite possibly the best film ever made (presumably until they write their next review), and those that insist that this or that film is just so bad, it should be put out for cat litter. I find it difficult to take either of those kinds of reviews seriously. But Crash is one such film which arouses extreme emotions. As for the external reviewers, Ebert liked it (I think — it's not always were clear what he thinks) but one of the reviewers for the Guardian was lukewarm. His criticisms can be summed up as 'liberals being self-consciously 'edgily' un-PC' — he suspects that in various pitches to drum up support for the film, the fact that its treatment of race is 'edgy' was much to the forefront. Admittedly, the acknowledged aim of writer/director Paul Haggis was to make us, the viewers, aware that racism is everywhere and even in ourselves if we care to look closely enough, and in the Guardian reviewer's view that is about as original as announcing that water is wet. Yet on this occasion the chap is being too harsh. The 'message' of Crash is, perhaps, not quite as earth-shattering as Haggis would have us believe, but if, just for the moment, one can put the 'message' to one side, he and his producers deserve a great deal of credit for the film he made. It is never, ever dull and at times is immensely gripping. OK, there might, or might not, be some truth in the charge that Haggis's array of characters do tend to the stereotype, but from the six years I worked as a newspaper reporter I know that, without exception, each and every one of us can tend to stereotype if viewed from a distance. It is only when others get to know us better that our individuality emerges, but even then — well, the news isn't always great. How often have we got to know someone better and discovered traits which weren't at all to our liking? Crash stands out in that there are no heroes or villains, no good guys and bad guys, merely people with their several flaws. It is very refreshing to watch a film such as Crash. It is a truthful. There is none of that posturing to effect all to common in modern cinema, and the characters shown in Crash behave as, in my experience, people do. At no point did it sound a false note. As for the sheer and admittedly huge coincidence of everyone coming into contact with everyone else, well, that didn't bother me a jot. Do we complain that Twelfth Night is unrealistic in that it is highly unlikely a woman could successfully masquerade as a man so well that another woman falls in love with her believing her to be a man? And although it would be presumptious to compare Paul Haggis to William Shakespeare they have in common that they are creating, or attempting to create, works of art. As far as I am concerned the essence of art, whether it be pure sound, paint on canvas, hewn stone, a film, a novel or a performance by an actor is manipulation and at the end of the day the only thing that counts is whether the creator of that work of art carries it off. And most certainly Haggis does carry it off. At no point does the level of coincidence jar. Overall, Crash is a one-off and a very successful one-off at that. If you like good cinema, do yourself a favour and give it a whirl. You really will not regret it. There is not a bad performance in it.