If Crash had a hammer...

Last week I was writing a never-used pre-Oscar post when I thought to myself, “Oh shit, Crash really is going to win best picture.” Now I don’t consider myself a psychic or anything (although that admission will probably ruin my lucrative psychic hotline business). Roger Ebert has been saying Crash would win best picture for a long time now, partly because he really, really likes the movie and partly because he’s a smart guy and knows how things usually go down with these awards. It turns out that Roger and I were correct. It did win best picture. The difference is that Ebert thought it was great and wanted it to win, where I thought it was competent at best and I didn’t want to see it receive the Academy’s top honor.

I'd like to make it clear that I love reading and listening to Roger Ebert. I agree with him a lot of the time. I’d like to think it is because we share similar views when it comes to film, but it’s probably because he shaped the way I think about movies in the first place. Shortly after I started becoming a full-fledged film buff I received a CD-ROM called Cinemania ’95. Roger Ebert was on the cover and it was his reviews on that disc that I devotedly read over and over again. I still read his reviews today, but if it’s a movie I plan on seeing I wait until after I see it before reading his take.

Even though Ebert and I disagree on Crash, it was because of his allegiance to the movie that I originally had reason to believe Crash might win. After all I really liked the movie myself right after I saw it and it stayed with me. That’s usually the mark of a good movie but Crash is one of the exceptions. The more I thought about the movie the more I realized it was just bland. My initial goodwill toward the movie was not because of the racial themes, direction, or performances. I just loved the story structure. I enjoy it when there are lots of characters in multiple story lines that all end up coming together at the end. It seems to me that it’s a storytelling technique that is easy to start but very difficult to pull together. Crash succeeds in this aspect, but the more I thought about the other elements at play, the more Crash slipped down the quality chart. You see, for as strong as the story structure is, the story itself is rather weak. I won’t completely discount the points that are made about race, but the method of making those points seem false to me. It seems very self-congratulatory as in, “Look at what I have to say about this touchy subject. Look at how I have enlightened you. Assign me to a task force for I truly understand race relations in America…or at least in Los Angeles.” It reminds me of the President saying we are addicted to foreign oil. Really, George? We’re already there, man; it’s you that needs to catch up. That’s what I feel like saying to Paul Haggis, writer and director of Crash. Most people I know already have a very firm grasp on their own prejudices, how they are formed, and how other people might have formed prejudices against them. We don’t need a two-hour road map drawn for us by a guy who used to write for The Love Boat. It turns out that my thoughts about the movie’s self importance were validated Sunday night when Haggis said the following, “Art is not a mirror to hold up to society, but a hammer with which to shape it." Wow. I don’t even know where to begin with that quote. The only thing I can agree with is that movies can be art...but a hammer with which to shape society? Good Lord! If Crash is a hammer then it still has a floor-room shine on because there’s nothing in society it even comes close to shaping.

I’m probably being a bit too harsh on Mr. Haggis because Crash isn’t a horrible movie; it’s just not a great movie. I already indirectly dug into him before when I reviewed Million Dollar Baby last year. If you read my qualms with that movie they are all directly traceable to the writer, Paul Haggis. Still, I didn’t hate Million Dollar Baby either. I was just frustrated because I hate it when movies get so close to being great but a few obvious, stupid mistakes get in the way. The difference between Million Dollar Baby and Crash is that Million Dollar Baby seemed fixable. Crash is what it is, a mediocre racial parable with no sense of subtlety…albeit an Academy Award winning mediocre racial parable with no sense of subtlety.

Now let me get back to my realization that Crash would be awarded best picture.

For as much as I know the Academy Awards don’t mean anything, I still get excited when a movie I really love gets nominated for an Oscar. This year I saw two movies that were nominated for Best Picture that were not only masterfully executed, but I also felt an extra connection to them: Brokeback Mountain and Capote. They were great stories that were presented well and had something original to say. Neither one of them are message movies, although both have what Fox News refers to as “dark themes”…you know, homosexuality. Either film would have been a nice representation for the movie business as a whole in the year 2005, but that rarely happens. That’s what made me realize Crash would win, because it’s not the best picture of the year. Take a look at this list and see how many of these movies you think of as a masterpiece. Forget masterpiece; just try to find the movies you love. Found many? Found any?

Starting with 2004 and working backwards, I plan on giving you my picks for the best movies of each year and comparing them with what was actually nominated and honored by the Academy. I’m starting with 2004 because there are still a handful of 2005 movies I’d like to see before making a final judgment on the year in film.

Thanks for reading and thanks for your indulgence.