Although Crash contains some amazing performances by folks such as Don Cheadle and Matt Dillon, the concept and aspects of the plot have been almost entirely lifted out of two other films: Robert Altman's spectacular 1993 film SHORT CUTS and Alejandro González Iñárritu's 2000 masterpiece, AMORRES PERROS (Love's a Bitch). Both of these films, which precede CRASH, feature characters whose lives intertwine around one singular horrific event. In SHORT CUTS, it's a California earthquake; in AMORRES PERROS, it's a car accident. Both Altman's film (based on Raymond Carver shorts stories) and Inarritu's film are original and innovative in the structure and way in which they "tell" the story: nonlinear, unorthodox, and sometimes seemingly random in terms of sequence. Paul Haggis took the best from these two films and made a derivative movie that, although containing some wonderful acting, does not broaden the horizon of film-making or storytelling.
Reviews
4 Reviews
Donnie Darko
(2001)
Original version is just as good, if not better, as the "director's cut"
26 August 2006
First of all, let me make it clear that this is a great film. The script, the cinematography, the music and the casting make it one of the top films of the last decade. That being said, a new viewer, who knows nothing about the film, should see the original cut before viewing the "director's cut."
What's the difference? The soundtrack of the director's cut features more tunes from the 1980s (which, according to NPR's FRESH AIR, Richard Kelly could not secure the rights to back in the day) and also incorporates chapter shots which resemble something from Wes Anderson's "The Royal Tenenbaums." Apparently the director felt that his film needed more framing; hence, the illustrated chapter pages used to break up the narrative. These chapter pages, culled from the Sparrow text on time travel, really don't add anything to the film -- in fact, they clutter an already perfect cinematic treasure. Plus one line from the "director's cut" -- which is delivered by the psycho-therapist near the end of the film , where she tells Donnie that he can "throw away his medicine, it's only a sugar pill placebo" detracts from the powerful ambiguities (even though, I assume, it was meant to call even more of his "reality" into question). The original version may not include allo of the songs that Kelly envisioned in his film, but it certainly is a tighter film from beginning to end.
What's the difference? The soundtrack of the director's cut features more tunes from the 1980s (which, according to NPR's FRESH AIR, Richard Kelly could not secure the rights to back in the day) and also incorporates chapter shots which resemble something from Wes Anderson's "The Royal Tenenbaums." Apparently the director felt that his film needed more framing; hence, the illustrated chapter pages used to break up the narrative. These chapter pages, culled from the Sparrow text on time travel, really don't add anything to the film -- in fact, they clutter an already perfect cinematic treasure. Plus one line from the "director's cut" -- which is delivered by the psycho-therapist near the end of the film , where she tells Donnie that he can "throw away his medicine, it's only a sugar pill placebo" detracts from the powerful ambiguities (even though, I assume, it was meant to call even more of his "reality" into question). The original version may not include allo of the songs that Kelly envisioned in his film, but it certainly is a tighter film from beginning to end.
Rushmore
(1998)
Speechless: One of the All-time Great Films
16 December 2004
There's no real reason to critique this film because it's as close to perfect as any movie can get. Plus, it has been reviewed over 500 times on this site alone.
One important aspect of this film, which is overlooked in practically every online review that I've read, is Wes Anderson's nod to the world of J.D. Salinger. The parallels between Holden Caulfield and Max are numerous, and when considered in light of THE ROYAL TENENBAUMS (with its scenes at the museum and the b.b. gun battles), the canon of Wes Anderson is one that has been greatly colored by the imagination of J.D. Salinger. From Max's red hat to his expulsion, the film touches on many ideas from THE CATCHER IN THE RYE. Thematically, the works are quite similar and share an idiosyncratic mood.
The other great influence on Wes Anderson, which is even more obvious to any student of film, is the work of Hal Ashby. In particular, the symmetry of Hal Ashby's shots in films like HAROLD AND MAUDE and BEING THERE. Watch RUSHMORE followed by HAROLD AND MAUDE followed by ROYAL TENENBAUMS followed by BEING THERE and you'll completely understand this sentiment.
Where will THE LIFE AQUATIC fit into this equation?!?!?
One important aspect of this film, which is overlooked in practically every online review that I've read, is Wes Anderson's nod to the world of J.D. Salinger. The parallels between Holden Caulfield and Max are numerous, and when considered in light of THE ROYAL TENENBAUMS (with its scenes at the museum and the b.b. gun battles), the canon of Wes Anderson is one that has been greatly colored by the imagination of J.D. Salinger. From Max's red hat to his expulsion, the film touches on many ideas from THE CATCHER IN THE RYE. Thematically, the works are quite similar and share an idiosyncratic mood.
The other great influence on Wes Anderson, which is even more obvious to any student of film, is the work of Hal Ashby. In particular, the symmetry of Hal Ashby's shots in films like HAROLD AND MAUDE and BEING THERE. Watch RUSHMORE followed by HAROLD AND MAUDE followed by ROYAL TENENBAUMS followed by BEING THERE and you'll completely understand this sentiment.
Where will THE LIFE AQUATIC fit into this equation?!?!?
The Chinese
(1967)
Never released on DVD, this Godard film might have more significance remaining obscure
12 December 2004
Warning: Spoilers
Having prided myself on seeing almost every Godard film, I was thrilled to learn that the National Gallery of Art (in Washington, DC) had secured a copy of LA CHINOISE from the British Museum. I've been waiting to see this film for at least 10 years. The 35 mm print, with its fading color and spotty sound, is one of the few available in the world today (though I've since been informed that bootleg VHS copies, with no translation, can be easily scored in Europe and elsewhere).
As James Travers notes above, this is certainly Godard's most political film. Filmed in 1967, during the Vietnam War, this movie is more a critique of the half-baked philosophies of the student revolutionaries than it is of the war itself. Granted, Godard was quite aware of the stains (left by the colonization of Vietnam) on the French collective unconscious. And he certainly was disgusted by America's arrogant actions towards stopping the spread of communism (which he touches upon in TWO OR THREE THINGS I Know ABOUT HER). But in LA CHINOISE, his political commentary is aimed at the pseudo-intellectual revolutionaries in Paris (predating the Paris 1968 riots) who talk a big game but have difficulties assassinating the right individuals and who morph Marxist philosophies into unrecognizable doctrine that comically controls their lives.
The film, which is not widely known or seen, has keen implications for our world today. In our "post 9-11 world," fundamental terrorists have attacked "Western targets" for their secular views and their secular conventions of society (such as television, internet, business, and art). In Godard's film, the student revolutionaries want to force the "puppet universities" to close because they promote a bourgeois lifestyle and bourgeois attitudes. The irony is that their understanding of Marx or Engles or Mao or Che Guevara comes directly from their experience in said bourgeois institutions. And yet, out of this, they find themselves better than or above the others also seeking knowledge and truth.
Today, in 2004, there are terrorists who reject the secular nature and influence of western culture, and yet they use Microsoft software, Flash, and Adobe Photoshop to broadcast images of beheaded soldiers and civilians -- in a supposed "Anti-western statement." This film, which runs exactly 90 minutes and features some of the best music (reminiscent of Harry Partch at times; other times, it features fuzz 60s rock with lyrics praising all things Mao), points out the ironies of any revolutionary willing to be taught, attend meetings, and go "by the book."
Godard
As James Travers notes above, this is certainly Godard's most political film. Filmed in 1967, during the Vietnam War, this movie is more a critique of the half-baked philosophies of the student revolutionaries than it is of the war itself. Granted, Godard was quite aware of the stains (left by the colonization of Vietnam) on the French collective unconscious. And he certainly was disgusted by America's arrogant actions towards stopping the spread of communism (which he touches upon in TWO OR THREE THINGS I Know ABOUT HER). But in LA CHINOISE, his political commentary is aimed at the pseudo-intellectual revolutionaries in Paris (predating the Paris 1968 riots) who talk a big game but have difficulties assassinating the right individuals and who morph Marxist philosophies into unrecognizable doctrine that comically controls their lives.
The film, which is not widely known or seen, has keen implications for our world today. In our "post 9-11 world," fundamental terrorists have attacked "Western targets" for their secular views and their secular conventions of society (such as television, internet, business, and art). In Godard's film, the student revolutionaries want to force the "puppet universities" to close because they promote a bourgeois lifestyle and bourgeois attitudes. The irony is that their understanding of Marx or Engles or Mao or Che Guevara comes directly from their experience in said bourgeois institutions. And yet, out of this, they find themselves better than or above the others also seeking knowledge and truth.
Today, in 2004, there are terrorists who reject the secular nature and influence of western culture, and yet they use Microsoft software, Flash, and Adobe Photoshop to broadcast images of beheaded soldiers and civilians -- in a supposed "Anti-western statement." This film, which runs exactly 90 minutes and features some of the best music (reminiscent of Harry Partch at times; other times, it features fuzz 60s rock with lyrics praising all things Mao), points out the ironies of any revolutionary willing to be taught, attend meetings, and go "by the book."
Godard
Tell Your Friends