Director: David Cronenberg
Year: 1996/I
Cast: James Spader, Holly Hunter, Elias Koteas, Rosanna Arquette, Deborah Kara Unger
Rating: **1/2 (Out of ****)
What turns you on? For some it's shoes or nails or scars or your favorite perfume, some even have great sex in seemingly dangerous situations. Apparently, for some crashed cars and ghastly wounds due to the crash are a turn on. While the crash we witnessed in 2004 was about human lives crashing into each other, this crash is about car crashes and it's effects on sexual behavior.
As the opening credits start, you will hear a haunting score by Howard Shore. I was reminded of the opening score of Stanley Kubrick classic 2001: A Space Odyssey. It creates apt atmosphere for what is following. The graphic images of accident wounds, uncomfortable close-ups of car crash may scare some viewers away. But that's quintessentially Cronerberg stuff. Sometimes Crash will remind you of some of David Lynch movies, or at least it's ambiance along with background score create that feel. Sans the surrealism, of course. The idea behind this movie is novel, no denying that, but it ultimately gets down to sex. I understand the point of the picture is people getting off at a crushed car, still Cronerberg fails to add some interesting angle to it.
Let me make this very clear, it is not for everyone. This is weird stuff. I mean, they look at a car and they are aroused, they look at a car accident wound, they get aroused, man! After such a promising and original idea the narration loses the track completely. The explicit sex shown isn't gratuitous, but after a while (once we get the point) it becomes boring and uninteresting.
3 comments:
“It ultimately gets down to sex.”
I guess that is the point. A film about fetishes, about sex, ought to have sex. A film about violence, about gore needs to have lots of it. Yes, it draws strong reactions because the sequences in it are explicit. But that is the style. There’re two ways to go about it – either film it in a titillating alluding manner, like Luis Bunuel did in Belle De Jour. But that film is about sensuality rather than sex. Fetishistic sex is impulsive, is stronger and that is what is put on film.
I’m not sure what you mean by interesting angle. This is a film that doesn’t shy from taking its subject matter head-on, it is a brave film and it is ultimately about its subject. Not many films on fetishes, on sex, can claim that.
The filmmaker doesn’t lose anything, in fact we gain great intimacy to the central couple. They’re so deep into the world of sex, that normal stuff just doesn’t turn them on. Look at the earlier scenes, which are strangely bereft of passion. And look at the final scene, and where their sexual life has taken them. It is the sexual journey of a couple, who must have been tired of swinging, of threesomes, and of orgies.
What do we take from it? As Ebert said – replace your fetish. Just wonder to what distance you would explore your own fetish, if given the chance. And you might understand what the film was about.
That's the point. I didn't want really to understand the movie as much as I wanted to enjoy it. And I enjoyed it for 2/3 of it's length, I did. But after one point it seemed repetitive.
Tough luck, dear. Of course, I’m sorry for I have no idea about the ‘enjoy’ part. For my part, I was both fascinated at first, later, I was immensely touched. Some films, especially the ones that look into people’s lives aren’t supposed to follow a narrative arc. They SHOULD go nowhere. They should rather examine the lives at hand, rather than get into needless contrivances and plot developments like say, American History X. As Hitchcock said, “Drama is life with the dull parts cut out.” Well, that guy believed in making thrillers. Crash isn’t one. It is an exploration, of people and their lives. That is what makes it such a powerful film, and certainly not like its namesake which is such a woefully bad film. A shallow piece on racism and crap. Pretentious fluff.
Look, the film isn’t your standard porn. It would have been had the weird stuff been taken out. And then it would sure have provided for the standard dose of ‘enjoyment’ that such a subject matter usually has on offer. But then, never mind.
Cronenberg is an honest filmmaker, and he doesn’t garb his films under some idea of pretense. He should have been the one adapting Chuck Palahniuk’s Fight Club, rather than David Fincher who just isn’t upto the task till now. Fincher didn’t add anything to the Palahniuk novel, Cronenberg on the other hand would have added a great deal of gravity and his own themes.
Post a Comment