An overdone, melodramatic, emotionally manipulative piece of "issue" film-making, clearly not the Best Picture of 2006

Rating: 7/10 (6 March 2006)

"Crash" is a perfect example of a preachy, polemical "issue" film that takes itself far too seriously. Its almost absurdly overdone message, that racism is bad, that it affects us all regardless of our ethnic background or position in society, but that we all have a chance at redemption by just...trying a little harder...to understand one another...and just get along...; is so extraordinarily simplistic, and yet throughout the piece so force-fed to the audience in great fits and gasps, that at times it makes the intelligent or thoughtful viewer cringe. I was amazed that Crash was even in the Best Picture lineup, along with "Munich" and "Brokeback Mountain", both of which are far subtler, darker, more genuine pieces of film-making that seemed neither preachy nor polemical. And though it had a clear message of the importance of journalistic integrity and press freedom, "Good Night and Good Luck" was a brilliant work of political noir which achieved contemporary relevance without trying to in any way, given its unerring focus on the events of the McCarthy era; again, its bravado and punchiness made it a far more powerful, engaging and meaningful film than "Crash". I have not yet seen "Capote" but by all accounts it is a masterful work; I find it hard to believe that in light of the accolades it has received, "Capote" could be outdone by "Crash".
I was even more amazed that "Crash" actually won Best Picture in the face of its opposition. Clearly inferior to at least three of the four films it was competing with, I'm just bemused as to why Academy Members chose this movie for the coveted Best Film award. The fact that it was set in Los Angeles, as some commentators have suggested in the last few hours since the ceremony? The fact that it deals with racism, albeit in a remarkably heavy-handed and sometimes clumsy fashion? The fact that it deals with an issue, though perhaps not as contentious an issue as the decades-long repression of gay rights? I think the choice of "Crash" should be instructive as to the sorts of films that aspiring Oscar-seekers should try to make in future: "issue" films that bludgeon their message home, and more importantly that address the "issue" in a manner which, ultimately, most people couldn't help but agree with (after all, who could possibly legitimately challenge the proposition that "racism is bad"?); that don't really challenge an audience, but instead simply bathes them in ideology - albeit ideology barely concealed behind a thin veil of coincidences, crossed paths and "learning to be a better person from the misery of the world" character arcs.
"Brokeback Mountain" was not an issue film. It was an understated love story that asked a lot of its audience without really asking anything at all. It did not cram the issue of gay rights down the viewer's throat (no pun intended), but instead focused on humanizing the characters to such a profound extent that their plight became real, and the "issue" arose of the audience's choosing, not the film-maker's. In dealing with themes of repression and desire that are universal, it struck much more of a chord, certainly with me and with everyone else I know, than the reliant-on-coincidence, parable/fable atmosphere created by "Crash", which at times seemed fake, contrived and almost ridiculous.
I have given Crash 7/10 for its performances, which were excellent in the main (Terence Howard and Ryan Phillipe in particular stand out in my mind), and for its technical achievements, which were impressive. The cinematography was quite beautiful in places, with LA afforded a haunting feel, coupled with a score which, though melodramatic and emotionally manipulative, set the film's tone and gave it a sense of wider meaning. But again, "Crash" was outshone even as a technical achievement by the gritty urgency of "Good Night and Good Luck" or the sweeping, heartfelt and achingly empty landscapes captured so well in "Brokeback Mountain". Even "Munich", with its grim depictions of Black-September-era violence, to my mind eclipsed "Crash" as a technical piece, refusing to shirk from the heavy, mind-dulling impact of its grisly imagery and perfectly capturing the atmosphere of Europe and the Middle East in the 1970's. In the face of such competition, "Crash" pales into the background.
To my mind, subtlety, complexity, and allowing an audience to make difficult decisions for themselves are far more powerful mechanisms for both story-telling and argumentative reasoning than establishing a theme or an idea, and literally ravaging your listener/viewer with it. Though in its convoluted story and interconnected, disaffected characters "Crash" gives the appearance of employing the former, in reality it employs the latter, berating the audience with its notions of race, mutual respect and tolerance in a quite extraordinary fashion - though these are noble themes, propagandizing them belittles their value to an audience and greatly diminishes the impact of these grand ideals. For these reasons, the decision to name "Crash" the "Best Picture" of 2006 must, in my opinion, be viewed with a healthy degree of skepticism, which must thereby raise difficult questions about what exactly the Oscars are for in this modern age - are they genuine artistic endorsements, or are they merely marketing tools or vehicles for endorsing simplistic, uncontroversial idealism that gives Academy Members a warm, fuzzy feeling without really challenging the established norms of a society? I support the Academy and the Oscars as an institution, but my overall faith in their ability to make good decisions dwindles in the face of such a film taking the most important accolade any film can obtain in the industry, particularly in light of its impressive, and underrated, competition.