Ideology not racism

Rating: 9/10 (23 February 2007)

In terms of being a great film, this film is indeed flawed. It often feels like an episode of a TV show (namely hill street blues or the like), and the final 15 min seems to force an ending while sentimental pop songs play over top.
That being said I have to applaud some of the ideas this film is able to work through , its cast, Paul Haggis, and some of the Eastern influenced music in the first part of the film.
People who dislike this film tend to describe it as simply a film with a message, and talk about it as merely a film about racism. People who tend to enjoy this film tend to pinto to one moment as encapsulating the whole of the story , and that is the moment where Sandra Bullock' s character says " I feel so scared and angry all the time, and I just don't know why". Of course her friend loses interest in speaking to her at this precise moment, indicating the fact that friend doesn't want to discuss such a dark complex issue. This is about ideology, not racism. For those who dismiss the film as simply ask yourself why the film is arced by the story of Don Cheadles finding his brother's body and his mother's lost faith in him. does that story line have to do with racism? I think not.
If one approaches the film as being about ideology and not simply racism the film becomes a much more tightly wound and focused piece. The gun shop owner, the most overtly racist character in the film, feels just as out of place in his country as the women he speaks his vile words to. One of the interesting the films does is portray characters in a certain light and then play your preconceived notions against you. Matt Dillon is very racist to a woman, yet saves her life. His duty as a police officer and his obligations toward another human being outweigh his racist ideals, and thus he is forced to act. ( my favourite moment is when Thany Newton looks back and shakes her head no, as if his actions have complicated him in such a way that she cannot reason). Terrence Howard stand by as his wife is violated, but later he tries to redeem himself by over reacting. Ryan Philippe must save him feeling a sense of guilt knowing what the man has gone through. Both men have pushed them to the limits of their understanding of themselves. Finally we are given Michael Pena's character who is attacked by the Persian man ( a minority attacking another minority), but the gun does not go off.
What we are given is elevating situations of people's humanity overriding their values to reveal a deeper loyalty to their fellow human beings than even they may realize they have ever had. The question is never why they react the way they did, the trouble for each is that their hesitation to act appropriately in the first place forced them into far more volatile situations. their understanding of themselves is complicated but their deeper humanity is revealed.
Many people ind the scene with Pena screaming as his daughter is shot, but the gun not going off as hokey. However, I think the moment serves as a moment of suggesting that the lines that separate people are often arbitrarily made ( ie NOT divinely ordained). Whereas the uniting forces are in fact naturally occurring and not merely social designs.
Ultimately, as I said, the film works through a few powerful ideas (Think Foucault, Said, Rushdie), but fails in some ways. But Haggis set out a lofty task for himself and came as close to succeeding as is possible.