Jonathan Rosenbaum on "Crash" and How He Rates Movies

Last updated on: September 6, 2012 at 3:58 pm by Jeffrey Overstreet

Jonathan Rosenbaum on "Crash" and How He Rates Movies 2012-09-06T15:58:45-06:00 Jeffrey Overstreet

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Today, Jonathan Rosenbaum zeroes in on what drove me crazy about Crash.

(Warning: Spoilers!!)

Following the template of films such as Short Cuts and Magnolia, Crash tells several independent stories that gradually merge. But it’s blatantly contrived, depending on coincidence and surprise for much of its interest, and it’s hard to believe that so many characters from different walks of life could cross each other’s lives in so many different ways in a single day. To cite only one example — which includes a spoiler — how likely is it that the racist white cop (Matt Dillon) who gropes a well-to-do black woman (Thandie Newton) while pretending to search her for weapons one night will be the officer who rescues her from a potentially fatal car accident less than 24 hours later, or that during the same time frame his partner will save her husband from being shot by another policeman?

He goes on, then to explain how he arrives at a 3-out-of-4 star rating for the film, in what must be the best piece of film writing I’ve read all week:

I saw the film a second time largely to determine whether the transparency of such plotting undermined the larger social message. I decided that it didn’t, because I valued the truth of that message — that, for instance, a racist cop is perfectly capable of saving a black person’s life — over the falsity of the plotting, and because I decided that this falsity was intended to articulate other truths. Haggis wants to implicate us as well as many of his more sympathetic characters in the round-robin of prejudice, so he plays tricks with our expectations, making us retroactively aware of our own prejudices — not unlike the surprise endings of O. Henry. That we can feel pleasure when these twists are revealed sometimes mitigates the deceptions that make them possible. And sometimes it doesn’t.

The way we determine what’s true or false, real or artificial, good or bad in movies tends to be highly individual. As a reviewer, I’m obliged to give movies star ratings, but they’re simply a summary of my personal response, not a declaration of some objective value and certainly not of any sort of consensus. I was taken aback recently when I received a couple of e-mails from Star Wars fans asking how I could have concluded eight years ago that the “special edition” rerelease of that film was “worthless” when it gave so much pleasure to so many people. I might have given it an even lower rating if I could have, but all I meant by giving it no stars was that it was worthless to me. I’m not qualified to speak about its value to anyone else.

In my reviews I try to describe the paths that lead to my subjective response so that readers can decide whether some part of my path might be theirs too. In the case of Crash I may blanch at Haggis’s narrative contrivances and think two stars, though I did enjoy them (three stars). But the vision of Los Angeles that they’re designed to express strikes me as just and vital (four stars). So I wind up with an average of three. Viewers who find the vision uninteresting and the narrative contrivances acceptable but unenjoyable will come up with ratings of their own — or arrive at the same rating for entirely different reasons.

Following the same process, I think Mindhunters has the dumbest whodunit thriller plot and the least plausible moves of any film I can think of (no stars): FBI trainees are sent by a stern instructor to a remote island to test their reflexes and sleuthing powers when putting together psychological profiles, but then each of them in turn gets baroquely bumped off. Yet parts of this idea are competently cribbed from Agatha Christie’s And Then There Were None, a mystery novel I loved as a kid (three stars). The movie is filled with gross-out violence and gore (no stars), though it did give me plenty of jolts and surprises (three stars). It’s directed with gusto by Renny Harlin, who certainly knows how to make an action flick better than most (four stars), though I don’t much care for action flicks (one star). I missed Harlin’s widely scorned previous effort, Exorcist: The Beginning. But according to William Peter Blatty, author of the original’s source novel, this costly reshoot of Paul Schrader’s Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist should be credited more to Morgan Creek, the film’s production company, than to the director, so I have to factor in such judgments as well. All this averages out to just under two stars.

Watching Monster-in-Law, I admire the gutsiness of Jane Fonda playing an unsympathetic character who’s her own age and looks it (three stars) — a hysterical, self-centered former TV celebrity who’s horrified that her son’s marrying a temp and tries to make the woman so miserable she’ll flee before the wedding. But I’m appalled by the strident sitcom overkill that surrounds Fonda on every side (no stars) — every other character is a cliche or a nonentity — and by the pat conclusion: a last-minute, deus ex machina cameo by Elaine Stritch inspires Fonda’s character to undergo a complete reversal in time to guarantee a happy ending. The particles of truth clinging to her basically phony character eventually became irrelevant to me.

Her son (Michael Vartan) is a clueless twerp who’s supposed to be a perfect catch even though he can’t see the monstrousness of his mother (no stars). His prospective wife — played by Jennifer Lopez, an actress I immoderately adore (three stars) despite the dumb parts she keeps accepting (no stars) and the excessive press coverage she gets (immaterial) — is a boring simp, even after she starts retaliating with some nasty tricks of her own (one star). And I’m only half-amused (one star) by the mother’s black assistant (Wanda Sykes), who sees through all her boss’s guff and periodically fires back salty one-liners — a part that half a century ago might have been assigned to Joan Blondell (though there are also uncomfortable echoes of Hattie McDaniel). This averages out to a little more than one star, but less than two. I’ll stick with one, since to boost this movie’s rating to “worth seeing” would make me feel like a publicist or simply a dope.

Journal

Criticism is an Art.

Jonathan Rosenbaum

Previous Post

May 13, 2005

Letter of the Day

Next Post

May 13, 2005 Star Wars 3: What Questions Do You Want Answered?

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Blog Bloggers on "Through a Screen Darkly" Browser Coming Soon Endorsements Fiction Books Film Forum Film Reviews Inspirations Interviews Journal Kindlings Muse Movie buzz Music Reviews Non-Fiction Books radio Reviewers on "Through a Screen Darkly" The Auralia Thread Through a Screen Darkly Through a Screen Darkly - Bonus Materials Top 10 (or 20 or 100) lists Uncategorized

Select a Month June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 July 2003 May 2003 March 2003 September 1999

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What does "Ebenezer" mean, as in the stone Samuel set up?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Stone of help Stone of God Stone of Law Stone of David