Oscar Night, 2006. Things were going swimmingly. George Clooney started things off classy by giving one of the most clear, concise acceptance speeches I’ve ever heard. “King Kong” won for visual effects. The musical score Oscar went to “Brokeback Mountain.” Phillip Seymour Hoffman won a well-deserved Oscar for his portrayal of Truman Capote. Jon Stewart was fantastic – witty, quick on his feet and tasteful.
Gone were the days of awards in the aisles and time constraints. It felt good, knowing that the Oscars were finally improving, that they had finally ceased their steady decline into MTV Movie Award territory and had begun to restore their prestige and their dignity.
That’s why it’s such a shame that by the end of the 78th Annual Academy Awards, the Academy voters had once again proved to me that they’re maintaining their standing as a bunch of insular, closed-minded idiots.
As Jack Nicholson read from behind his ridiculously huge sunglasses the winner for best picture, my heart sank into my stomach. The air of the crowd at the Oscars was one of shocked bewilderment as Paul Haggis and the producers of “Crash” stood triumphant to receive their award.
Nobody saw it coming … and nobody should have seen it coming, because it shouldn’t have happened.
I was immensely disappointed, yes. But honestly, more than anything, I was angry. Never before had my discontent become full-fledged outrage, but I was absolutely furious. Angrier than I had been when “Chicago” beat out “The Pianist” or when “Saving Private Ryan” was snubbed by “Shakespeare in Love.”
And before you, the reader, get all huffy and assume I’m a racist and a bigot for being upset by the “Crash” win (which is a weak argument in defense of an even weaker film), let me explain to you why, on Oscar Night, I sat scowling as a film that had no right even being nominated stole the prize.
“Bertolt Brecht said that art is not a mirror to hold up to society, but a hammer with which to shape it,” Haggis said, beaming as he hoisted the gold statuette aloft, flanked by producers. “So I guess this is ours.”
Unfortunately for first-time director Haggis (whose past credits include the screenplay for last year’s “Million Dollar Baby” and a few episodes of “Walker, Texas Ranger”), “Crash” isn’t the kind of art Brecht was referring to. Brecht, a 20th Century German writer, was referring to art that actually makes people think; art that changes lives and warps people’s perceptions. And what did “Crash” teach us? What did “Crash” say about race relations that dozens of films – vastly better films – haven’t said before? “Crash” is too contrived and manipulative to even be taken seriously.
The film tackles the issue of race – an issue that should be handled with grace and refinement – with the subtlety of a wrecking ball. It treats the audience like a kindergarten class, like we have no sense of nuance, like we cannot even begin to fathom the complexities of racism. Instead of presenting us with an issue and allowing us to draw our own conclusions, it simply rubs it in our faces for two hours in an attempt to get its point across. It’s a prominent sign of a weak film to be that obnoxiously over-the-top, and I’m not sure I even want to live in a world where falling down the stairs in slow motion warrants an Oscar.
Haggis props these wooden caricatures in front of the camera and expects us to sympathize and relate – but we can’t, because these characters aren’t even remotely real. They have no depth, and are only consumed by their limitless, blatant racism. These paper-thin, one-dimensional representations make for a detached and impersonal viewing experience.
The feeling one has after watching “Crash” isn’t open to interpretation. It’s “racism is bad,” because the film doesn’t allow you to delve any deeper past its broad, blurred surface. But life is more complex than that, and racism is far from a simple topic. You can’t boil down human emotions to a two hour hack-fest and expect it to work.
Many people (the Academy voters among them) found “Crash” to be groundbreaking and thought-provoking – but these people obviously haven’t taken into account films like “American History X,” “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner,” “Malcolm X,” “Glory” or “To Kill a Mockingbird.” “Crash” is about as groundbreaking as an 8-Track. It’s what happens when the director of “Walker, Texas Ranger” tries to be deep, and it’s almost laughable to watch.
The film does try. It struggles like a floundering fish through its entirety to say something substantial, to mean something. But it tries too hard and ultimately smothers its own message of tolerance and acceptance.
“Crash” had so much potential, too. An incredible ensemble cast of talented actors, a fervently passionate director with a rare opportunity to say something significant … “Crash” could have been Brecht’s hammer with which to shape the world, a film that really speaks to people.
There are brief moments in the film, infinitesimal flickers of hope, when that potential shines through, when you catch a glimpse of the brilliance that this movie should have been. It might be a line of dialogue that isn’t completely ridiculous, or a scene in which the characters interact almost like real people. But that faint glimmer is soon stifled by the film’s absurdly numerous contrivances and it is reduced to the spit-shined made-for-TV movie it truly is.
So why did “Crash” win if it’s so bad? Why did the Academy take to it? I’m not of the opinion that the Academy refused to pick “Brokeback Mountain” for homophobic reasons and picked “Crash” to soften the rebuttal from liberals. If that were the case, “Brokeback” wouldn’t have been nominated in the first place. They had to know that the selection of “Crash” would cause the uproar it did (some online film forums went down within 10 minutes of the announcement as thousands of users logged on to air their grievances), especially since it ranked a measly 58 on the list of best-reviewed films of 2005.
I think “Crash” won because it was accessible to the public. It is an easy-to-understand film, with a clear message. It takes absolutely no effort to watch “Crash,” because it does everything for you. It even comes packaged with a free outlook on life so that you don’t have to contemplate it afterwards.
Why not “Brokeback Mountain,” which presented us with a deeply personal story – one that is relevant, one that doesn’t attempt to lecture the audience? Why not “Capote” (my personal favorite of the Best Picture nominees), a splendidly crafted film with fantastic performances? Why not “Good Night, and Good Luck,” a stylistic, beautifully shot piece of cinema? Why “Crash,” of all the nominees?
Listen, if you enjoyed “Crash,” I don’t hate you. I don’t consider you an idiot; I don’t even question your taste in film. I just think you’re extremely easy to please. You should expect more from your movies. Maybe “Crash” is a good stepping-stone for a broader taste in movies. Don’t let your interest in film begin and end at “Crash.”
There are so many films, significantly better-made than “Crash,” that tackle race relations and other tough issues – films that truly shaped the world.
As time passes and the Oscars come and go, “Crash” will be remembered not as the film that changed society, but as the film that pissed a lot of people off when it won best picture. It’s not the kind of movie that lives on in our minds as significant. Give it 10 years at most, and “Crash” will be grouped with films like “Cavalcade” and “Cimarron.”
Oh, you weren’t aware that both of these films were Best Picture winners? Never heard of them? Exactly.
