Movie spoiler; Crash plot revealed

Crash investigated ism in many forms. Genderism, classism, racism, and more fell under the sights of the writer. Each one was examined somewhat superficially but also somewhat deeply. It worked on many levels depending on the awareness of the individual viewer.
It is ironic that in a movie that investigates the harm caused by social constructions of race, gender, and class, the movie itself had moments of subtly blatant racism and sexism.
For instance, Mexicans were seen in two roles. One was the locksmith…the employee…the worker in essentially a servant role. Yes, he was a bit of a hero, particularly in the emotionally wrenching scene that literally caused 5 people to sob out loud it was so devastating. But still…he lived in the projects, was “nothing but a workman” in a low-end service sector job. The other primary representation of Mexicans was the servant for Sandra Bullock. Yes, that is right…the typical representation…the Mexican maid. How did that discussion go?
“Well, I think we need to make a movie to expose some elements of racism that are matter of fact rather than conscious decisions to be racists. Something like having two black men talk about how afraid of them a white woman is because they are black, then have them steal her car.” “Yes, and maybe we can have them run over a Chinese man, have a nice moment where they do the right thing and take him to the hospital, then discover he was selling other Chinese into slavery.” “Yes, that will make people really think about things.” “Oh, even better, we can show a black man making love to a non-black woman and have him say something horrible about all the Hispanic people while misinterpreting her heritage.” “Yes, that will really help people understand the racism inherent in many of their stereotypes.” “But then we need to show some people who really are Mexican.” “Oh, you are right. Okay, how about a maid and a serviceman.” “Sounds good, we can wrap this up now.”
Great choice. And even better…in a movie that investigates the mental rape of a black male while his wife gets finger raped by a white cop, they oddly chose to include some subtle sexism.
There is one fairly explicit sex scene involving Don Cheadle and Jennifer Esposita. This scene is notable as the only scene where any part of a sex organ is shown. Is it a coincidence that happens to be her nipple? Somehow society will accept a woman’s breast being exposed as acceptable, but showing a penis somehow is out of bounds. Ironically, even what they did show was incredibly gratuitous. It did not advance the story, it did not bring up another point for discussion, and it was simply an opportunity to show a nipple for an extended period of time.
The movie had a lot to recommend itself for talking points. Bullock as a racist towards Mexicans, whether changing locks or acting as her maid, and towards blacks as indicated by her suddenly grabbing Fraser’s arm and huddling close when she sees two black men delivered powerfully…although the idea she was billed as a star when she was really a fairly minor sub point is quite illuminating when looking at Hollywood racism. Her screen time was justifiably limited. There were simply too many other important stories to interweave.
The father giving his daughter the Cloak of Impenetrability so she would not be afraid of the bullets that used to fly through their house before they moved was very touching. The idea that people would WANT to live around such an atmosphere is something that requires some thought. The American Dream is often presented as a desire to own ones own home and land…maybe it should instead be a roof over our head and food in our mouth where we do not fear stray bullets is more valuable.
At the same time, his interaction with the Persian shopkeeper reveals both his good and his bad side. The dispute escalated into a shouting match where he did the “right” thing by shredding his bill…although was it really the right thing? Cinematically, yes…but realistically, if the door was defective, why put the new lock on in the first place if you knew it would not fit? Then the inability of the locksmith and the shopkeeper to communicate led to tragedy.
The take on insurance was sharp and to the point as well. Was it negligence to not get the door fixed? What would justify the insurance not covering the loss? Or were they justified? The incorrectly directed racial slurs also spoke to the misunderstandings we develop. For some reason every person has to be pigeon holed. Puerto Ricans, Cubans, Brazilians, Argentineans, and more are all “Mexican” to many people. Any olive skinned individual is an Arab, not a Persian or Iranian or Turk, and so forth.
Those assumptions are no more accurate than saying every white person is Swiss or Italian. Nor are the cultural implications and assumptions accurate. Blind hatred of “rag heads” as is scrawled on the Persian shopkeepers’ wall occurs…even when they come from elsewhere, have a different religion and culture…is justified because we have a convenient label.
Somehow having markers we can associate with a group allow us to project our prejudices, beliefs, ideals, and wishes onto them. Whether they show any resemblance to the traits we assume “those people” have or not, because we can assign a label we know it is true. It is the ultimate in circular reasoning.
There was one interesting bit of by play the filmmakers refused to resolve. I assume many other people red the film differently than I did, particularly when it came to this point. I alluded earlier to the mental and physical rape of a black couple by cop as portrayed by Matt Dillon.
Newman did a great job of portraying the angry black woman trying to instill backbone into her man. Her prodding as she agonized over his pointless humiliation after he was stopped (without real justification) by Dillon led to both of them nearing arrest. The harassment of the man equated to mental rape; his dignity and rights were stripped away because he was black and the cop was a cop.
As Newman pressed, the situation escalated to the point where Dillon “frisked” her in ways that were clearly more about him feeling her intimately than any realistic search for a weapon. As she pointed out, in her cocktail dress, there was not a lot of area left to hide a weapon. She grew even angrier that her husband, pinned against their rig by Ryan Phillipe, “allowed” it to happen.
He kept saying things along the lines of “Is that what it was?” He said things that led me to believe his character honestly believed resistance would lead to them both being shot down.
My reading was that he read the situation to be a choice; he could acquiesce to this violation and protect his wife or he could resist and it would lead to what happened…her being finger raped…or potentially even worse. She read it differently, that he was afraid to stand up to them.
Later when Ludacris tries to car jack him he shows unbelievable steel. It leads to a car chase where he, freed of the responsibility to protect his wife, stands up to three cops…including Phillipe. He ends up protecting the carjacker, surviving the tense standoff, then reading the riot act to Ludacris. This contrasted oddly with his caving to the white producer who insisted a minor wording dispute meant his television show was not black enough.
Several readings are possible, and that is what makes this film great. Is he simply a man who picks his battles? Does he simply fight when there is not a higher goal of protecting a life, but not when it is a battle that may or may not make a difference to anyone or when someone’s life is at stake?
The characters and situations had a depth not typically found in an hour and forty-five minutes. Sometimes it was funny, such as the running joke about Ludacris and his partner being feared because they were black, then doing something that fit the stereotype of the young black criminal, or the patron saint of Christopher…but it was often tragic, such as the moment when Dillon and Newman are face to face in the car, the flames speeding toward it, and having his assault on her from the night before in their minds, or the shooting of the laughing young man trying to show his St. Christopher pendant or the shooting of the young girl by the panic stricken and distraught Persian who blamed the honest locksmith for his shop being destroyed…that was one of the greatest moments I have ever seen. The cinematography was brilliant as it built towards the moment. You expected the drama to build until he chose not to shoot. You saw the laughing girl run towards her beloved Dad, whose palpable fear for her led her terrified mother to run after her...the wavering, the shaking, then her jumping in front just as the gun was fired...that moment when you saw her die was unbelievably powerful.
The movie was poignant, deep, soft, and layered. It was in many ways a great piece of cinematography. There was one major flaw. If you don’t care about PEOPLE…you won’t like this movie.