Too Subtle?

Rating: 9/10 (28 March 2006)

Just recently rented Crash. None of the online friends I usually discuss things with have seen it so I thought I'd toddle on over to the IMDb board. Was I ever surprised to see so any negative reviews. What really interested me, though, was the complaint that the movie had no subtlety. Interesting because many of the same reviewers elaborated by pointing out how pat was the redemption of the character of Anthony. Well, no wonder these people think there is no subtlety here.
It is clear that Anthony thinks his act qualifies him for redemption. But he has learned nothing. He is still under the impression that those people he released were Chinese just because they are Asian and so dumps them off in Chinatown. By doing this to them though they have no way to communicate, no understanding of the value of the 40 dollars he magnanimously gives them, and little hope of finding a welcome by a different culture from their own what he has done parallels what the white abolitionists patted themselves on the back for and what they have been vilified for in some circles by freeing the slaves without providing the tools they needed to prosper. Do you think the Cambodians will thank Anthony for leaving them to deal with the different set of perils he has so smugly and self-righteously exposed them to? Do you think they should?
For more subtlety lets take a look at Thandie Newton's character. Thandie Newton the actress is bi-racial. She was obviously chosen for this part not only because she is a fine fine actress but because of her obvious racial make up. So when her character is berating her husband for being an "Uncle Tom" did anyone notice that she finds no comparison to what she is doing by embracing only the white side of her heritage?
I haven't seen anyone mention the implied affair between the DA and his assistant that goes a ways towards exploring just what it is that makes Sandra Bullock's character so miserably angry. Perhaps if they had been shown in a clinch then the poster who complained about the fleeting glimpse of the box of blanks could then complain about the dumbing down of this slightly suggested wrinkle that few seemed to notice. And do those who complain how trite it is that everyone is redeemed in the end really think that Sandra Bullock's character is going to continue being best friends with her maid once she is again up and around and off the painkillers?
Another complaint is the racial stereotype the movie is accused of promoting and a case is made about the crack addicted African American mother. But the important dynamic here is the one between parents and their children. It is not only crack addicted African American mothers who pay more attention to their difficult child than to their good one. It is not only crack addicted African American mothers who place the burden of parenting a much younger sibling on the oldest child, often forgetting that the oldest sibling is also a child in need of the parent's attention and approval. This movie chose to depict a parent who places the burden of parenting a younger sibling on an older one so that we can see his ultimate moral dilemma. This movie chose to depict a parent grasping at any small thing the bad child does(or might have done) as proof of his goodness while ignoring all of the large things the good child does that deserves approbation. But because the movie chose to make that parent a crack addicted African American single mother everyone says, to quote Matt Dillon's character, "Well, that's just typical" not even realizing it is their prejudice showing.
So to those who thought the movie had no subtlety I suggest that the irony is that the truth is the movie was too subtle for them.
Diane Margaret