Crash (David Cronenberg, 1996)

Discuss films and filmmakers of the 20th century (and even a little of the 19th century). Threads may contain spoilers.
Message
Author
Robin Davies
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 2:00 am

Re: Crash (David Cronenberg, 1996)

#51 Post by Robin Davies » Mon Mar 16, 2009 3:22 pm

The Daily Mail's campaign against Crash has to be read to be believed. My favourite headline was for an article about Carmen Menegazzi the managing director of Columbia Tristar UK:
"Crash means cash says woman boss:
Single, 40, Belgian... and bringing depravity to Britain
".
This terrifying foreign monster was described in the article as "single and childless".

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

Re: Crash (David Cronenberg, 1996)

#52 Post by MichaelB » Mon Mar 16, 2009 4:17 pm

I read all the Mail articles in the BFI Library when researching that essay, and my jaw hit the floor several times. Sadly, I couldn't work that reference into the final draft, but I couldn't possibly leave out the classic:
As the initially heterosexual characters lose their inhibitions, they experiment pleasurably with gay sex, lesbian sex and sex with cripples. [...] In short, his movie condones many practices which the vast majority of people would find disgusting and degrading.
...a comment that manages to be about ten million times more offensive than anything in the film.

I also loved the short-lived attempt to get Mail readers to boycott Sony in the run-up to Christmas, for having the temerity to be Columbia Tri-Star's parent company.

User avatar
flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: Crash (David Cronenberg, 1996)

#53 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Mon Mar 16, 2009 9:52 pm

That is pretty offensive. It's also kind of funny too, considering that it had nothing in terms of controversy here as it did in the U.K.. I never remembered seeing any commercials or headlines about it when it did come out, either. I found out about it years later, through a BDSM forum and saw it on IFC a few years after that.

User avatar
flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: Crash (David Cronenberg, 1996)

#54 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Thu Feb 04, 2010 8:45 am

Saw this again for the first time in awhile last night. I have to say that I'm amazed that no matter how many times I've seen a film of David's, I manage to still be a bit unnerved by it.

User avatar
flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: Crash (David Cronenberg, 1996)

#55 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Tue Apr 19, 2011 8:49 pm


User avatar
jbeall
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 9:22 am
Location: Atlanta-ish

Re: Crash (David Cronenberg, 1996)

#56 Post by jbeall » Tue Apr 19, 2011 10:23 pm

flyonthewall2983 wrote:Three Reasons
That's great! But now I fear it'll spawn an epidemic of "three reasons" videos for the most inane releases. (Reason #1 for Tiny Furniture: because it'll piss off those nerds in criterionforum.org! Reason #3 for Avatar: because it needs a commentary track and a booklet!)

User avatar
DeprongMori
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:59 am
Location: San Francisco

Re: Crash (David Cronenberg, 1996)

#57 Post by DeprongMori » Thu Jun 26, 2014 5:28 pm

Cronenberg's "Crash" was just released by Warner Archives Collection as a "made to order DVD". It deserves much better treatment than that, and obvious that WB doesn't want to put the resources into it. Perhaps WB will license it back to Criterion again for a properly remastered BluRay. After all, it was a Criterion LaserDisc release.

But, at least it is available again in some form in the meantime.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Crash (David Cronenberg, 1996)

#58 Post by domino harvey » Wed Aug 06, 2014 1:29 am

The original New Line release has finally become reasonable in price thanks to the Warner Archives version diluting the market, so there was a little silver lining in that I could pick the original disc up in mint condition for a reasonable sum. This film's unavailability had kept it at arm's length for a while, and though I'm not nearly as enamored of Cronenberg as most of this forum, I was intrigued by the film's controversy and premise (and I either read or started reading the book back in college, though I remember so little about it that I cannot be certain I finished it).

Reading through this thread, I am utterly baffled at anyone defending it on the grounds that it either is erotic or someone else would find it erotic, as the whole point of the film is to present something inherently non-erotic using erotic markers. It's an intriguing methodology, and like any fetish film for a kink you don't have, it teeters on the edge of dullness quite often as strikingly unsexy behaviors and sequences get objectified and glorified and pored over. This distancing lends a detached air to the film that doubles as "dreaminess" in effect, but it also underlines how the film, not unlike a porno movie, is unconcerned with narrative or satisfaction beyond a given self-contained scene-- this is particularly highlighted by Holly Hunter's virtual absence from the second half of the film. Crash is a hard film to assess on a subjective level of whether or not I find it a good movie, as I respect its aims and can honestly say it appears to have done what it set out to do, and did it with competence and skill (though by no extraordinary or exceptional means or methods). Does that make it a good movie? I guess. Did I like it? Not really.

Also, I can only laugh and shake my head at the accusations earlier in the thread that Ebert was somehow erotically conservative or against sex even though he liked this film. Though he's becoming sainted in memory, it's a good reminder that so many cinema "fans" went out of their way to distance themselves from Ebert at his heights, even though his tastes, outside of a few idiosyncrasies, were pretty in line with most movie lovers. And Ebert (and, actually, especially Siskel) loved "sexy" movies when they met their metric of also being good films. There's one Siskel and Ebert special where they recommend "Guilty Pleasures" and Siskel chose Emmanuel and Summer Lovers on the grounds that he found them sexy and both were filled with beautiful women, and he went on to argue that more critics should be honest instead of dancing around praising something they found arousing. Yeah, what a prude!!!!!

User avatar
Jeff
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Crash (David Cronenberg, 1996)

#59 Post by Jeff » Wed Aug 06, 2014 9:50 pm

domino harvey wrote:I can only laugh and shake my head at the accusations earlier in the thread that Ebert was somehow erotically conservative or against sex even though he liked this film. Though he's becoming sainted in memory, it's a good reminder that so many cinema "fans" went out of their way to distance themselves from Ebert at his heights, even though his tastes, outside of a few idiosyncrasies, were pretty in line with most movie lovers. And Ebert (and, actually, especially Siskel) loved "sexy" movies when they met their metric of also being good films. There's one Siskel and Ebert special where they recommend "Guilty Pleasures" and Siskel chose Emmanuel and Summer Lovers on the grounds that he found them sexy and both were filled with beautiful women, and he went on to argue that more critics should be honest instead of dancing around praising something they found arousing. Yeah, what a prude!!!!!
Siskel and Ebert were both notorious hounds in the 70s. The wonderful Life Itself recounts how Ebert would take home any random woman (including prostitutes) from his favorite bar, much to the horror of his friends. It sounds like Siskel basically lived at the Playboy Mansion before getting married. The movie shows him palling around with Hef on his jet and in the hot tub with topless playmates. Siskel and Ebert were many things, prude they were not.

Orlac
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 4:29 am

Re: Crash (David Cronenberg, 1996)

#60 Post by Orlac » Sat Aug 09, 2014 10:20 am

Jeff wrote: Siskel and Ebert were many things, prude they were not.
Their behaviour over Betsy Palmer in Friday the 13th was prudish/reactionary.

User avatar
Jeff
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Crash (David Cronenberg, 1996)

#61 Post by Jeff » Sun Aug 10, 2014 12:40 pm

Orlac wrote:
Jeff wrote: Siskel and Ebert were many things, prude they were not.
Their behaviour over Betsy Palmer in Friday the 13th was prudish/reactionary.
How so?

Orlac
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 4:29 am

Re: Crash (David Cronenberg, 1996)

#62 Post by Orlac » Sun Aug 10, 2014 2:49 pm

One of them published an old address of hers, suggesting viewers wrote to her complaining about her role in the film.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Crash (David Cronenberg, 1996)

#63 Post by domino harvey » Sun Aug 10, 2014 2:59 pm

Unless saying a city someone lives in counts as posting their address, no he didn't

albert_m2
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2014 6:54 pm

Re: Crash (David Cronenberg, 1996)

#64 Post by albert_m2 » Tue Aug 19, 2014 7:01 pm

Also, I can only laugh and shake my head at the accusations earlier in the thread that Ebert was somehow erotically conservative or against sex even though he liked this film. Though he's becoming sainted in memory, it's a good reminder that so many cinema "fans" went out of their way to distance themselves from Ebert at his heights, even though his tastes, outside of a few idiosyncrasies, were pretty in line with most movie lovers. And Ebert (and, actually, especially Siskel) loved "sexy" movies when they met their metric of also being good films. There's one Siskel and Ebert special where they recommend "Guilty Pleasures" and Siskel chose Emmanuel and Summer Lovers on the grounds that he found them sexy and both were filled with beautiful women, and he went on to argue that more critics should be honest instead of dancing around praising something they found arousing. Yeah, what a prude!!!!!
Over their careers, they both have reviewed films where they demonstrate that they were hardly prudes. Add to that Ebert's early screen writing effort and Siskel having a seemingly 70s playboy life, it just doesn't hold. I would add that just because one doesn't like a film like Crash, doesn't mean that they dislike it for moral or other reasons that they might find it offensive.


Post Reply