Yes, Michael, it is me -- sorry for being a disappointment to you. You are of course right, the tag line "Uh, no" was overly dismissive and snotty, as was the last paragraph of my post, which was dismissive of the Left. But, as you yourself said, Jensen et al's analysis is flawed and incomplete. The less-snotty parts of my post were written out of puzzlement at the "logical leaps" the authors seemed to be making.
I received a reply from Kojo Livingston, a Black activist from Louisiana who agrees with Jensen. His analysis was not published by LAAMN, which is a pity, since his scene-by-scene, character-by-character breakdown of the movie was much more convincing and powerful than Jensen et al's. Once I read his article, I started remembering the movie better! If I had read his article first, I would not have been so dismissive of the main thesis (that "Crash" is white supremacist). I exchanged several emails with him, and that exchange is below. And he has many good points -- there are scenes, disturbing in their implications, which also do not pass the test of dramatic believability. So, even if you're an artistic "purist" who believes that political content should be subordinate to artistic content, there are some critical scenes in the film that just don't work. One of those scenes is the one in which Matt Dillon's former partner, a well-intentioned white man who wanted to report the Dillon character's racism but lost his courage, is transformed into the murderer of a black man. (The murder is an accident born out of fear and misunderstanding, but becomes a sinister crime when the character burns his car to cover it up.) The murder happens after this character picks up the Larenz Tate character as a hitchhiker. In the interaction which follows, the writers seem to be straining awfully hard to create tension between driver and hitchhiker, in order to justify the tragic events which follow. Why would a driver, who was good-hearted enough to pick up a hitchhiker of another race, be so sullen and hostile when his passenger attempts to engage him in conversation? And why would the passenger be so cryptic in his words and actions as to virtually guarantee a misunderstanding? The scene doesn't ring true dramatically, and the message seems to be: even if you're a white man who attempts to oppose racism, you are still capable of racially-tinged murder. It was that scene which stayed in my head the longest, because it was the most disturbing to me. The young cop character deserved better, and yet the filmmakers turned him into a villain at the very end. Dramatically speaking, sudden "GOTCHA" moments at the very end of a film which twist a character's nature and motivations around, are a cheap ploy whether they occur in a murder mystery or a film like this one which pretends to social significance. And if the young cop's character deserved better, Matt Dillon's character deserved worse. The scene where he rescued the woman he molested was just "yuck." This was the scene that also stayed in my head the longest. Dramatically speaking, if you're just trying to show that everyone has a little bit of good in them, that message could work. But the filmmakers seem to be juxtaposing the Dillon character's destiny (racist, then "redeemed") with the young cop's destiny (good-hearted, then murderous), and the result is that we are left with the impression of a very cynical, cold-hearted, reactionary message. Not to say that the rescue scene could never happen, of course. But aren't some other scenarios just as likely? For instance, if the Dillon character is vicious enough to molest the woman and psychologically emasculate her husband, couldn't he also be vicious enough to just let her burn up in the flames, and cover it up like the experienced cop he is? And, considering how distraught the woman was at the time, isn't it also possible that she would choose to die rather than be touched by him again? There is no punishment for the Dillon character's racist actions, yet the other cop is punished for his good intentions. It doesn't work dramatically, because there are too many convenient and unbelievable coincidences enabling these outcomes. I am still critical of Jensen et al for their overblown rhetoric. Rather than calling the film itself white supremacist, I would call it cynical and, in part, enabling of ignorance, which may in turn thwart demands for social change. And if some parts of the film are enabling ignorance, there are other parts which may enable enlightenment, because many white movie patrons may not know, or may not choose to believe, that cops can be so routinely and viciously racist. And the fact that there is some really good acting and writing in this movie makes it even harder to pigeon-hole. This movie is a mixed bag. It is definitely not a progressive statement or a liberating piece of art. It's pulp drama, relying in part on cheap shock value, as pulps tend to do. I do tend to agree with John Johnson's analysis. The other area in which I part ways with Jensen et al is where they criticize the movie for highlighting racism between non-whites. In fact, they make it a central point of their thesis, pretty much saying that the filmmakers should have concentrated on oppression by white institutions. Well, I disagree. As a lifelong resident of Los Angeles, I have seen plenty of brown-on-black or black-on-brown oppression, and it is a serious problem. As a pro-immigrant person, it pains me that there are so many anti-immigrant voices in the Black community. (To their credit, anti-immigrant Blacks tend not to join the anti-immigrant vigilante groups, once they get close and figure out what these groups are all about.) It also pains to me to see Latino teenagers shouting racial epithets at a random Black man (while leaving me alone, as a White man). And the racially-motivated killings in Highland Park should shock everybone's conscience. This stuff exists, and the Left needs to take it seriously, not ignore it! Michael, we are never going to agree on everything, and almost certainly we will disagree on quite a bit. But one area in which I do not wish to disappoint you is the tone and respectful nature of the discussion. For injecting a disrespectful tone into LAAMN, I apologize. Tom Louie "activism" Kojo Livingston wrote: "Dear 'Activism' "Below is a response that LAAMN refused to send out. "It's an article I did the night of the Oscars. My second article regarding 'Crash'. I am a Black activist with over 30 years of 'on-the-ground' experience. "I agree that the movie is definitely white supremacist. There are many left-wing white supremacists who are paternalistic and condescending toward Black people and others of color. It's been a long-standing issue within the movement. To me a white supremacist is any person who believes that white people are intellectually and morally superior to Black people. That viewpoint sets the stage for mistreatment, exploitation, oppression and the white savior/messiah syndrome. This notion is clearly put forth in the movie crash. Most white leftists believe that people of color should not be mistreated but that we are also not their equals. This belief shows up in the practice and structure of many leftist groups. "Damn Blacks, always got their hands in the cookie jar" is the film's statement about our character. It makes clear that white people may cause our problems but that you are also our only solution. "Also it is not a new thing for Black celebrities to participate in or endorse something that is harmful to our image. Sometimes it's a result of a shallow analysis, other times it's greed or fear. "Anyway, while I'm not going to make a crusade out of my distaste for the movie, I do hope people will start to look more closely at what we celebrate as good and meaningful...and realistic. "Kojo Livingston "New Orleans/Shreveport "Why I hate the Oscars "By Min. J. Kojo Livingston "This year: "Best Song: Its Hard Out Here for a Pimp by Three 6 Mafia. "Best Movie: Crash. "Before: "Halle Berry, Best Actress for Monsters Ball. "Denzell Washington Best Actor for Training Day. "Need I say more? "With rare exceptions, Hollywood only honors the worst depictions of Black people in movies. The Oscars are a constant tribute to us at our lowest. The mostly-positive movie Ray would probably not have won anything if not for the drug addiction Jamie Foxx captured with such skill. "Hungry for white approval, Black people are found beaming when we get awards for embarrassing ourselves. A few years ago Halle Berry degraded herself playing the over-sexed widow of a Black man who falls in lust with his white executioner. Talk about your racial historical images! In the same miraculous year Denzell won for playing the most evil, low-down role he ever took. Of course, this justified his being totally ignored the following year for the powerful John Q in which he played the ultimate Black father. But then the notion of a loving, responsible Black man probably did not seem realistic to the white gods of the academy. "The title alone of this years Best Song Award winner should tell you that white racists are laughing at us. Were the only ones who dont get the joke. The song is not even outstanding as rap goes but it paints a picture that confirms negative stereotypes of Black people as does the movie it comes from, Hustle and Flow. "The movie Crash won great acclaim as a statement movie. But what statement did crash make about the character of Black people? First it validated nearly every negative clich that exists in the minds of white people about Black folks. The movie opens by confirming white peoples fears that all Black males are really criminals and their image of us as libidinous animals. All the Black people portrayed were either weak, cowardly, criminal, mean, suicidally stupid or just didnt give a damn. "The major hero of Crash is a white racist, sexual predator cop who molests a Black woman in front of her husband during a racially-motivated traffic stop (probably not his first time). Both the cop and his partner (who restrains the husband), in separate incidents, save the lives of the wife and husband the very next day. Hows that for gritty realism? The image of the weak, helpless Black woman clinging desperately for life to her white male assailant (massa) is featured prominently on the movies website. There are two instances where white cops shoot Black men (one is a cop, the other is unarmed). Both times the writers give sympathetic treatment to the white cop. "See the movie, if you must, and watch how Black women are either helpless victims, hateful and unprofessional employees, or the classic drug-addicted mother. Then there is the Black captain who wont address racism in his department, the Black detective who neglects his mother and bows to pressure to lie about a shooting and the husband/movie director who cowers when it countsmore than once. The closest thing to courage from a Black person is Terrance Howards characters suicidal outburst. The closest thing to heroism is done by a carjacker in the process of stealing a van. The carjacker also has the closest thing to a real analysis of a racial issues, which makes a joke of any truth he happened to utter. "Yes, the acting was (mostly) excellent and powerful. Yes, Oprah praises the movie. But then, shes been fooled before, hasnt she? Crash is just how a couple of rich, white, male writers see race and gender issues. The strength, courage and goodness of our people doesnt make their radar. "The Academy has consistently ignored portrayals of strong, righteous, intelligent Black people and exalted the worst in us. But then, thats what enemies are for. "We need to leave these people alone. We should produce our own movies and then create our own means for honoring work that lifts the hopes and the mentality of our people. We thought the Image Awards would do this. Big mistake! "Somehow we have got to get a handle on this media thing. Our children need positive images to emulate. The negative ones are literally killing us. It may take an underground media movement to turn this thing around but we have everything we need to create one. Question is, do we have the will? "I cant watch the Oscars for the same reason I cant watch Roots. My pressure goes up when I see my people being exploited and abused. "Its time for this to change." Tom Louie wrote: "Dear Mr. Livingston, "You wrote, "Most white leftists believe that people of color should not be mistreated but that we are also not their equals." This is not what I believe, and I do not know any other white leftist who believes this. To me it would seem to be a contradiction with the very definition of a leftist activist. If I am wrong, and if you have examples and anecdotes which show that white leftists have said that or believe that, I would be interested in reading your observations, here on LAAMN or elsewhere. "You also wrote,"'Damn Blacks, always got their hands in the cookie jar' is the film's statement about our character." What scene are you referring to? If anything, it's the Asians who come off worse than anybody else in the film. And every single white character can also be called "weak, cowardly, criminal, mean, suicidally stupid" or just not giving a damn, WITH some admirable moments, just like the black characters. Whites were certainly not portrayed as intellectually or morally superior to everyone else, which is your definition of white supremacism. "I didn't see any character as a savior/messiah, despite the car crash rescue scene. Of course, it is a little too convenient, plot-wise, that both cops end up separately saving the husband and wife the next day. It stretches the credulity. And it is hard to picture any LAPD cop stopping his fellow cops from shooting an angrily gesticulating suspect. "Actually, your scene-by-scene analysis of the movie is a lot more convincing and powerful than Jensen's. Reading your analysis just made me go back and think about scenes I had formerly forgotten and go, "Oh yeah, he's got a point there." But Jensen's main beef seems to be that the film shows that people of color can be racist and hateful too. I've lived in the LA area all my life, and I tell you that that is true. I have seen too many instances of non-whites racially oppressing or harassing other non-whites. "And I agree with you about Hustle & Flow, Training Day and Monster's Ball. Why award just these films in particular? "Respectfully, "Tom Louie" "activism" Kojo Livingston wrote: "You sound like an honest person who is somewhat naive. Of course I disagree with much of your letter but there is some food for thought there. "Actually a lot has been written on racism on the left. Left wingers are just as dishonest about their prejudices as right wingers have become. They are subject to the same brain-bleaching the rest of the planet gets from birth. They tend to err in the form of paternalism and the 'missionary' thing. "Karl Marx himself never saw people of color leading a world revolution. That's why the French communist party and other leftists initially opposed the revolutions in Asia, Afrika and Latin America. They said the world revolution should begin in the 'industrialized' (white) nations. It's also why the valuable theoretical contributions of Afrikans like Amilcar Cabral have not been honored or used by the Left to their own discredit and misfortune. A lot has been missed because of assumptions about white superiority. "People are not generally honest about their bigotry. In organizations it shows up in decision making, selection of leadership and the general approach to populations of color. And then there's those damned assumptions white do-gooders like to make about Black people. "A class analysis just doesn't fully address all of the human issues related to social and economic change, including personal prejudice and bigotry or even spirituality and culture. My statement is based on leftist groups I have worked with and against. "The "cookie jar" statement in the movie was made by a white character (a bigwig) speaking to Don Cheadle's detective character about the Black cop (with $30K in the trunk) who was shot by the white cop with a rep for shooting Black people. The comment was brazen and unchallenged. He went on to talk about how we always screw up every opportunity and how the Black community did not need another negative image and urged Cheadle to lie to protect our image. Again, the white, condescending savior, this time saving us from our (low down) selves. "In the US the history of extreme leftists, such as the CPUSA to some of the milder Catholic groups includes numerous confrontations regarding who should speak for and think for our communities. Sometimes these groups have even resorted to 'fronting' token Black leaders to con communities. Other times in coalitions we have seen white factions play the 'money card' to get their way because they could not win an argument. "Honestly, the whole issue is something I rarely address anymore. There is so much work to do in saving my people that I don't see the value in debating such things. Most of my community work is high-risk, low profile. Most activists nowadays work the exact opposite corner, so there's not much a debate is going to resolve. But once in awhile a "Crash" comes along and everyone seems to be swallowing it and I figure someone needs to say, "The emperor has no clothes." "Thanks for the feedback. "Kojo Livingston" Michael Novick wrote: > Jensen and Wosnitzer are interesting as far as they go. I appreciate Ed for > forwarding their critique in the first place, and find Blase Bonpane's > dismissive comments unworthy of someone who proclaims a moral dimension to > politics (as opposed to tailoring politics to what is palatable or > popular). "activism" is due particular criticism for the glib and snotty > headline on the rejection of the critique, answering the question, "Is > "Crash" a white supremacist movie?" with the throwaway catch-phrase, "Uh, > no." As if the answer was self-evident to any simpleton. (Is that you, Tom? > If so, another disappointment). > > However, while Jensen and Wosnitzer are right to situate the film in white > supremacy or white nationalism (which is far from a phenomenon restricted > to self-proclaimed neo-nazi boneheads, but in fact the dominant > political-social-economic-cultural paradigm of life in the US empire), > their critique leaves a great deal to be desired, and in fact lays them > open to the kind of dismissive charges of cultural elitism that "Activism" > and Blase seem to share with right-wing media bullies who loathe > Hollywood's limousine liberals. What is the crux of the problem? > > They say: > > >>The United States was founded, of course, on an > > ideology of the inherent > > >>superiority of white Europeans over non-whites > > that was used to justify the > > >>holocausts against indigenous people and Africans, > > which created the nation > > >>and propelled the U.S. economy into the industrial > > world. > > This stands the world on its head. The US was not founded on an ideology -- > the US was founded on a material reality of land theft, slave labor, > physical and cultural genocide, ecological devastation and privatization of > the commons and of nature itself. The ideology was simply a mechanism or > technique used to justify this settler colonialism, kidnaping and private > expropriation. The ideology cannot be fought without confronting the > material realities and harsh contradictions that have generated it. Failing > to see this means that they also cannot see the actual material and > political contradictions that working and oppressed people experience in > their daily lives, and thus the kernel of a revolutionary process of social > and personal transformation. Thus they are reduced to cultural criticism of > "whiteness" as their ultimate card to play, and don't see the prospect that > working class white people, despite white privilege and white supremacy, > have a potential of explosive anti-imperialist struggle themselves, and > even more so in response to and solidarity with the anti-colonial struggles > of New Afrikans, Puerto Ricans, Mexichicanos and others. > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Digest: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
