MUBI

Paul Haggis a été tout un temps le scénariste de Clint Eastwood, signant notamment de sa patte le fameux Million Dollar Baby. Il avait même repris en main la saga des James Bond. Et puis, il s’est décidé: “si j’écris des bonnes choses, je suis sûr que je peux les réaliser”.
Alors est né Collision. Disons-le tout de suite, c’est un film cultivant à la fois le cliché, le consensuel et le pathétique. Cocktail détonnant pour une des plus grosses arnaques oscarisées de ces dernières années.
Avouons quand même que ce film possède l’une ou l’autre qualité. C’est qu’à force d’insister pour nous en mettre plein les yeux et vouloir faire pleurer les chaumières, Haggis est capable de nous offrir l’une ou l’autre séquence pleine de tension. Voilà, c’est tout.
Le reste, c’est du cliché sur cliché pour dénoncer le racisme. Mais à force le film en devient pathétique. Dans cette oeuvre, chaque personne présentée est raciste. Il est évident que dans chacune des communautés, ça existe. Mais dans ce film, il n’y a personne ou presque pour contrebalancer. Et quand un gars est dégoûté du racisme d’un de ses collègues, on le retrouve une heure plus tard à tuer un pauvre gamin noir à cause d’un préjugé qu’il avait dans le coin de la tête. Ridicule, n’est-ce-pas?
Le pire, c’est qu’après nous avoir présenté tout le monde comme ayant des problèmes et étant méchant, Haggis va retourner la situation. Le consensuel arrive et tout le monde va devenir gentil et aimant. Bien sûr qu’une personne n’est jamais totalement bonne ou totalement mauvaise, mais passer d’un extrême à un autre, c’est incroyablement pathétique.
En fait, ce film ne pouvait que marcher aux Oscars. Parce qu’ils aiment quand la mise en scène est grand public, que le montage parait compliqué (mais en fait il est banal), que des acteurs de tout horizon se côtoient et jouent pour faire un film qui, à coup sûr, fera pleurer les chaumières et plaira au grand public. Ah oui, le film a le chic aussi de proposer des pistes sur d’autres problèmes de l’Amérique comme les armes à feu et la sécurité sociale, mais étant donné que ce sont des sujets brulants et qu’il fallait absolument à Haggis l’Oscar, on a préféré juste faire une allusion plutôt que d’en parler vraiment.
Alors, les acteurs, justement, c’est qu’en dépit des gros noms, il y en a vraiment que deux qui tirent leur épingle du jeu: Matt Dillon et Don Cheadle. Mais comme il y a tellement d’acteurs, on les voit pas assez à l’écran. Les autres acteurs sont corrects, mais pas vraiment inoubliables.
Paul Haggis signe donc avec Crash le type de film cliché récompensé par les Oscars. Surestimé? Bien sûr.

I’m aware that Crash has been lambasted a great deal over the years, especially when it shockingly beat Brokeback Mountain at the Oscars and gained a lot of hisses. At that time, I was a great admirer of the film and was thrilled that it succeeded since I felt Brokeback Mountain was a bit overrated and didn’t leave a strong effect on me. The more I watch Crash, I start to see areas where people have problems with its examination of racial issues and what I’ve noticed most importantly of all its flaws is to make people feel good in the end, regardless of how cruel and prejudiced people can be to each other, that it seemed empty in its approach to show any apologies for stereotypes or prejudices we have had in are lives.

The film starts off with a car collision in which three characters of different ethnicities – an African American detective, his Hispanic partner, and a Korean woman – confront one another and the confrontation is full of racist mockeries when the Hispanic detective, played by Jennifer Esposito, jokes on the Korean woman’s use of the word “blake” instead of “brake.” It sounds like it’s meant to be funny since a joke like that can easily get parodied, even though Don Cheadle’s character, Graham Waters, isn’t laughing and just sits in deep observation. His opening monologue was about how people are “behind this metal and glass” and “crash into each other just so [they] can feel something”, as a metaphor for how people in Los Angeles are isolated from one another that they need a conflict to stir a kind of social interaction inside of them. The seriousness of this monologue contrasts his partner’s Korean joke that it hardly makes a strong point about his message. Once the film continues on with the series of conflicts that take place over the course of two days between different groups of characters, the jokes and the serious points keep getting juxtaposed together to make one feel at ease but also uncomfortable. Matt Dillon’s sexual frisking of Thandie Newton and Sandra Bullock’s loud-spoken judgment of the Latino locksmith Daniel are definitely cruel and unspeakable to witness and listen to. These incidents arise when the characters have had a bad day and will use a prior experience with a person of color to arouse their inner monster. It’s almost implying it doesn’t take racist thoughts alone to get a rise out of someone and that there is something conflicted about these people, just when we think they’re just mere stereotypes of a racist prick. At certain moments, the people who say the horrible things are approached with some manner of compassion and it makes the performances very human and sympathetic that they come off as apologetic for what they had said or done and bring the conflict to an end.

Unfortunately, the film sometimes exaggerates on some of the stereotypes made about African Americans, Latinos, and Asian immigrants that are often depicted through jokes and lectures, particularly whenever Ludacris’ character Anthony heavily criticizes the whole white population as oppressive and judgmental. His thoughts are angry and honest, yet they come off as over-the-top and semi-comical to the point where he’s a stereotype of an obnoxious punk. If this film could just be accepted positively as a melodrama and swept realism under the rug, it wouldn’t need to be taken seriously as a social study. In that case, Paul Haggis must be saying we should just laugh about the racist jokes and stereotypes that reoccur throughout the film rather than walk away with serious questions and deep thought about how to confront those issues. When a Persian man Farhad is treated like a terrorist by a shopkeeper, he is outraged by this insult and becomes even more defensive with people he meets, such as Daniel when he tries to advise him about fixing his broken door. The more dramatic and ignorant he behaves, he is almost behaving like a clown rather than a misjudged person that needs out sympathies. Instead of turning stereotypes on their heads, this character is an example of someone who is made as a character type to provoke annoyance rather than serious thought process. Then when he thinks that Daniel ransacked his store and stole his money, he takes an aggressive step and goes to his house with a gun with the intention to shoot Daniel before his little girl jumps into his arms and takes the bullet herself. Surprisingly, she is unharmed and the gun turns out to be empty of real bullets, only blanks. Once Farhad goes back to his store and talks to his daughter, he’s so relaxed and relieved that he didn’t kill the little girl and believed that an angel came and stopped it. In other words, he’s not being left to think very hard about the false accusations he made against a Latino man, he’s feeling too happy with himself that a miracle saved him that it no longer matters to him how aggressive he was getting.

The same happens with the other characters; they are hardly left provoked by whatever judgments they made because they feel redeemed and able to carry on with their lives. Sandra Bullock hugs her housemaid warmly after talking mean to her, Matt Dillon becomes a hero after saving the life of Thandie Newton, and Ludacris gets to laugh and drive off after making a rude comment to a group of Asian immigrants he set free from a van. They are made to look like they can just brush whatever prejudices they had under the rug and go about their day. The only people who are traumatized and broken by the end are Ryan Phillipe and Don Cheadle given the tragic events that center around them. In a way, that was the climax of the film because the mistake Phillipe makes and the effect it has on Cheadle sums up the message of the inner monster inside all of us are capable of letting out when we least expect it. However, it is followed by scenes of warm-hearted forgiveness and happy jokes, which makes the effect of tragedy feel diminished. Once the camera pans up to a wide view of Los Angeles as a snowfall miraculously occurs and the song “Maybe Tomorrow,” it ends the film on a high note that runs in contrast to whatever social critiques the film was making. When it could have been approached as a thought-provoking critique on urban race relations, it ended up as an entertaining roller-coaster that still kept me feeling good at the very end. It doesn’t allow me to walk away with hard questions about what it’s like to live in a multi-racial society, it keeps me comforted that Los Angeles is a glorious and optimistic environment where people just let out the prejudices they feel and call it a day.

Ce film chorale n’est pas tant novateur dans sa forme que dans son propos. Alors que la société et la production cinématographique américaine semble avoir nié tout propos non politiquement correct sur le racisme, le film de Paul Haggis appuie juste là où ça fait mal, en convoquant une galerie impressionnante de personnages pour évoquer la société américaine toute entière. Tous sont confrontés à leurs préjugés, au défi de leur condition, nous renvoyant, spectateurs, à nos propres préjugés, nos propres certitudes… Les dialogues, les personnages sont souvent flamboyants, et le puzzle est toujours insolent, incorrect et intelligent et forme un ensemble finalement plutôt puissant et sans compromis.

Well put, Todd Kushigemachi. I live in L.A. and I have formally studied race relations and I have lived through institutional and direct racism and this film is a sorry attempt at examining racism and discrimination. The fact that Matt Dillon’s character finds redemption so easily, even at the expense of spouting all-too-common stereotypical ideas was the bane of this badly made, ultra melodramatic film. The only saving graces are Don Cheadle’s performance and the humanization of the Latino characters—a humanization rarely seen but much needed in the media. Although I completely agree with published criticisms of the film by Jeff Chang and LA Times film critic Ken Turran in that the film fails to delve into the institutionalized nature of racism, I will give the film some credit for at very least jolting some people into realizing that racism is indeed a widespread problem. Now if only someone could make a good, modern day, mainstream movie about class issues…