The fact that the ‘blaxploitation character’; although in a well paid job, full of charisma and from a typically American background, still finds it an achievement, or a one-over on the white man to have sex with a white woman, is an extremely controversial stereotype to portray; as he is set as the black man’s most historically representable character, this will consequentially only fuel racists’ cognitive tendencies. This not only upholds Van Djik’s belief that mainstream movies still produce racist stereoypes, but also proves the Marxist Hegemonic theory to be correct: that an ethnic group, Graham- a black man, will ultimately conform to their oppressors, the white man, and embody the stereotypes addressed to them.
The stereotype of a black man ‘aspiring’ to having sex with a white woman dates back to the slavery era. This was an age where white society would use their hereditary colour to force unjust authority onto their black slaves, and we see this in Matt Dillon’s character, Officer Ryan. Ryan is represented on the outset as the typical antagonist, although later on we find out his father is quite the hero, (he hired black workers on equal wage as white folk when the majority wouldn’t, but in a stroke of bad luck he lost all his money and got terribly ill).
Whilst on patrol with his white partner, Officer Hansen, Officer Ryan; upset by a black nurse who wouldn’t allow his Father particular medical treatment; stops a couple of African-American origin, (although knowing that the vehicle they were driving was not the one which his superiors had phoned across for) after seeing the woman performing fellatio on the driver. Ryan completely disregards all respect and fairness for the couple once arresting them, and to the dislike of his inferior colleague, gets heavy-handed with them both, forcing them to remain silent and stand flat against their car.
The similarity to Graham and Ria’s story before, is that Officer Ryan is implied by the narrative, (as a consequence of the constant, crossing plots), and the arrested woman, Christine, that both her and her husband, Cameron, have been arrested because he thought he may have seen a black man being pleasured by a white woman, and this would been unacceptable able to him. We are shown this more clearly when Christine confronts Officer Ryan over this stereotype, and in response he just releases a conniving smirk. This suggests that there is still a certain taboo or incorrectness with a white woman being with a black man.
After realising it was actually a black woman performing fellatio, officer Ryan decides to demonstrate his authority by pushing the limits, and deliberately touching Christine in an inappropriate place. This puts Cameron in a difficult position; one which historically many slave families may have found themselves in, where they would have to work for host families but never question or confront their actions or reasoning; does he stand up to the officer abusing his wife and try to take on the notoriously racist NYPD, or accept what was going to happen, (in line with Gramsci’s adaptation of masculine hegemony) and stay out of trouble?
He takes the second option in the film, like many of his represented ancestors, to the disappointment of his wife. Christine we find, is less upset with what has happened to her, but with the fact that she saw her husband’s dignity taken away by a racist, white cop who is continuing to exhibit the inequality and indifference which the white race force upon the black race. Christine is portrayed as a black feminist, someone who believes the racial prejudice forced onto them is worse because she is also female. We see this in an argument between the couple over who is ‘blacker’ than the other.
When Christine distressingly attempts to call the police, Brendan cynically informs her that it would be useless to do so as nobody would believe her because of her ethnicity. This is the catalyst for a fiery argument where, because of a white person’s prejudice, they start questioning each other’s authentic ‘blackness’. They have both lived fairly more privileged lives than most African-Americans, and this is the root of their arguments. Arguing about who is ‘blacker’ really fulfils the Marxist theory of Racial Hegemony, with both of them insisting you can only be truly black if you have a deprived life, this shows that to be black you must still be racially abused, and this in turn will only encourage the racism and injustice to continue.
Paul Haggis, the director of “Crash”, has spoke of his ‘right’ to depict an argument between two black characters over their black identity, but he claims co-writer Bobby Moresco and himself came to the conclusion: “Well, if it's true, no matter how ugly that truth is, yes[we have the right]”. (Haggis 200…)
I believe that the “Crash” producers include this confrontation to attempt to show the audience that everyone is unique and race isn’t a competition and doesn’t give you an advantage.
For a few of the shots whilst the argument is happening, the camera is seen outside of the room, or unsteady as if it is handheld. This is a device the director uses to place the audience in a purely observer’s viewpoint, so to overtly force us to create an opinion on what is happening, and to question its connotations and pass our own judgement onto it. To a cognitive black audience, this may even lead them to questioning their own ‘blackness’, and believe that the have more right to be black than another person.
In the two examples I have been through we are shown the controversial representation of women. The representations of Christine and Ria’s ethnicities are questioned both times, by the racist and the victim alike. Although Graham isn’t a white detective so thus finds himself in a generally ‘racially inferior’ position; as it is infamously stereotyped that the NYPD is a white, racist organisation, which is even admitted by a black superintendant later in the film; he still finds it morally acceptable to mock his lover’s race. Similarly, although both Christine and Brendan are African-American, it is the woman who is represented as the tool between the two men’s ‘race war’, and although it is unquestionably the woman who is the victim, the man is represented as the person the audience should have most empathy for.
The portrayal of Christine certainly seems as though it is an unfair and unjustifiable representation, not of ethnicity, but of ethnic females. Although it seems to me “Crash” is portrayed as a movie to combat racism, or to at least make people accept they all have some inane, covertly encouraged racial prejudice, I believe when you pick at the surface, like in the example that precedes this, “Crash” merely influences the discrimination and almost glorifies it. “Crash” is a film which needs to have many easily identifiable characters, by having these characters and introducing them to a susceptible, cognitive audience; the characters are not read as controversial or ironic, but as accurate and understandable.
I am of the opinion that if a film such as crash becomes so mainstream as to win an Academy Award, then much of the political weaponry is lost on a cognitive audience. This in turn leaves many of their representations open for some to believe they’re accurate, and thus ending up with a movie which I believe is not always necessarily understood.
I am also a firm believer of the Marxist hypothesis that we have only the ability to think in media stereotypes and objects are only ever seen in the manipulated state of the intensified and intensifiers. Because of this I believe that producers will never create a film without prejudice or stereotype because there is no other way of thinking or producing characters than through media-tinted spectacles.
Cameron is a successful television producer, which has gone someway to promoting him into American middle-classdom. Whilst at work on his show, still mulling over what it means to be black, he is called over by one of his superiors, a white man. The man explains that he has noticed one of Cameron’s characters sounding “less black” on camera, merely by correcting the inaccurate syntax and pronunciation of a sentence. Cameron tries to rubbish it by questioning it’s relevance on whether the character is black or not, for everyone can see what he looks like. The man however subtly authorises he change it to a version an audience will more easily understand as ‘black’, and this is the moment Cameron realises that even his mainstream organisation is racist, and to the nodding agreement of Van Djik, their influential medium is inflicting cognitive prejudices and racial stereotypes onto a mass audience.
This is clever as the producers seem to even microcosm the large organisation of ‘Hollywood’ into the smaller capacity of a television programme to portray the idea that visual media enforces black stereotypes.
Later in the film Cameron ‘crashes’ into two young, black car thieves, Anthony and Peter. (Peter is the missing brother of Graham). They attempt to carjack Cameron’s car, using a gun as a weapon, yet he fights them off with complete indifference and a sense of disappointment that this is now what it seems to mean to ‘be black’.
He is later saved by the white Officer Hansen, who lets him off for speeding with Anthony still in the passenger’s seat; it is implied that Hansen has a sense of guilt surrounding the situation before with Officer Ryan, which enhances the notion that he is a man of compassion and a fighter of racism.
Whilst driving away with a warning, Cameron teaches Anthony, who is still cowering in the passenger seat, to unravel his roots as a black man and live in a ‘black’ way; at least this is the message I get. Cameron says that Anthony embarrasses him, and himself also, which seems to really get through to him as we see later on in the film.
Anthony goes on to rescue a group of illegal Chinese immigrants, instead of letting them into the hands of the underground Russian boss he works for.
This enlightenment also leads him to start living life like a ‘typical’ or maybe even stereotyped black man, even so far as travelling on the heavily ethnically-used buses which he had condemned earlier in the film. This I believe is meant to show how black youths are currently turning full circle by preferring to categorise themselves as ‘typical black folk’, and because of their age and provoked knowledge of black culture, they have a pre-constructed urge to fight their enforcers before the inequality has even begun. This is often seen in black music, where young rappers will call each other “niggers” and rap about guns and “bitches”. The minute it becomes mainstream and cool for black youngsters to show their ‘roots’ by being good at fighting, carrying weapons, and having disrespect for women; is when we see a lack of respect for their culture and an indifference to have prospects to achieve in life.
I on the other hand, come to the conclusion that representing a youthful character in a position where by learning of his sins then consequentially consciously chooses to live like a regular, stereotypical black man, does nothing more than accept that black America has little chance to move forward to an equal world where anyone can achieve anything.
Anthony is also an important and controversial character to be analysed because of his institutional representation. Anthony is better known as rap/hip-hop superstar Ludacris, so there is already a strong residue of meaning for a young audience. He is an idol for many young black men, and more often than not, sings stereotypical songs of girls and guns. In “Crash” Ludacris’s character Anthony condemns hip-hop singers of being a media tool to silence any uprising of black civilisation, and using the inaudible style to do this. This in itself shuns Ludacris’ style of music and lyrical style, and therefore his institution is put under strain by moral conscience; this creates a confusing ambiguity for any viewer who knows anything about Ludacris as an institution outside of “Crash”, and uncertainty for any of his fans to how they should act.
Earlier in the film Anthony and Peter carjack the vehicle of the District Attorney and his wife. This comes right after one of Anthony’s Malcolm X-esque speeches on the tribulations of black youths, which again shows his dislike but conformity to the unfair stereotype he so embodies yet condemns.
The District Attorney, Rick, and his wife Jean, are shown as having separate polysemic views on the carjacking. Rick is never quite represented as a racist or bigot, as his stance on ethnicity is generally ambiguous, and he is less concerned for his welfare than his political career. It is even implied by the director, in my opinion, that he may even be having an affair with a black colleague, as some of the camera shots show her to be more emotionally connected with him than she should.
Jean on the other hand seems to have a different view on the black carjackers due to her being unemployed and thus more susceptible to media manipulation, and maybe even her lack of further education, although we are not told this.
Jean even goes as far as expecting the Mexican locksmith to be a “homie” of the two carjackers, and makes sure that he can hear what she is saying. We see her influence from media stereotypes when she immediately assumes that his tattoos are from prison, and his shaved head is a signifier of villainous connotations.
Jean shortly takes out her racial frustration on her Hispanic maid, constantly telling her off and being generally rude and authoritative. We later see Jean, like the majority of characters, experience an enlightenment where her prejudices are self-seen and then challenged. This involves her being in an accident at home where she falls down the stairs; none of her wealthy ‘friends’ will come to her aid because of appointments, one with their masseuse; and it ends up that her Hispanic maid is the only one to rescue her and do more than her occupational and moral need to comfort her.
This also gives the Hispanic race a likeable representation; by having the lady in an inferior position as a maid, then after being unfairly treated, she shows great virtue by acting beyond the call of work by treating her boss with comfort and sympathy when she has an accident and nobody is there to help.
“Crash” also attempts to accurately portray Persians, and the Muslim religion. The first time we encounter a Persian, is with Farhad, a Muslim shopkeeper. He is quintessentially a family man, and has an underlying belief that he is under extra pressure to protect his wife and daughter. This leads him to attempting to purchase a gun, where we see the first act of racism directed towards him. The gun-store owner gets offended when Farhad talks to his daughter in Persian, and because the owner believes that Persians are ‘Arabs’, and as a consequence ‘terrorists’, he starts insulting him with racist remarks such as: “Yo Osama, plan the Jihad in your own time!”
Farhad then gets into a confrontation and thrown out, his daughter, more acclimated to American culture, inadvertently buys blank bullets for the gun.
This is also an inaccurate an unfair representation of the white shop owner, it seems unlikely that he would take such offence as to be completely and overtly racist to Farhad in this situation.
Farhad later finds out his lock has broke on his shop door, and calls the Mexican locksmith used by the District Attorney earlier. The locksmith informs him that he has changed the lock but actually needs a new door. Farhad assumes that the Mexican, Daniel, is dodgy and starts to call him a “cheater”. Farhad’s lack of American communicational skills leads him to not getting his way, and Daniel leaves with the lock fixed but without any money; Farhad fails to accept he is wrong and in so, has a door susceptible to a break-in. Strangely enough Farhad’s shop does get broken in to, and the burglars paint the word “Arab” on the wall. Farhad is justly deeply offended by this as it confronts the stereotypical ignorance that the majority don’t recognise the need to differentiate Persians from Arabs.
Farhad goes on to receive his enlightenment as he seeks revenge over the locksmith. He confronts him in the street with the gun he had bought earlier in the movie; Daniel’s daughter then rushes to his aid and is accidently shot. The girl miraculously survives, due to the blank bullets, and Farhad’s enlightenment is complete.
However this is still relatively unfair as he ultimately fulfils the conventional expectation that he will always be violent and over-zealous.
Tracing back on to the subject of Farhad’s daughter though, Dorri, like many of the other female characters in “Crash”, is only relevant due to her juxtaposed male character. Dorri is even in my opinion, the exact embodiment of a media ‘block character’ where she has little personality or noticeable differences to major stereotypes. Having Dorri as the block character is unusual as she would have been the ideal character to contrast the two young black youths, yet I believe the fact she is the most stereotypical of the lot, shows that the director wants to portray that the future generations will continue to be manipulated by mass media to think in stereotype.
I have left the final proper ‘crash’ in the film as the last to be analysed here. It concerns probably the two most realistic and likeable characters in the film. Officer Hansen puts his job, credibility and pride on the line for the cause of racial equality; Anthony’s partner in crime and Graham’s younger brother Peter, is often shown as a character that is easily misguided and contains a certain naivety in his youth.
Peter is hitch-hiking his way home and is picked up by Officer Hansen. Everything starts off amicably enough as they exchange conversation, until Peter quite sincerely congratulates Hansen on his taste in music. Hansen, portrayed until now as someone unsusceptible to media constructed racism, finds it illogical that a black man can enjoy the same music as himself, a white man, and renders it a sarcastic remark.
Peter then chuckles to himself as he sees that Hansen has the same figure of St. Christopher in his car as the one he carries around himself. Again Hansen assumes the laugh is a derogatory remark towards him and asks what is so funny. Peter is offended by the questioning and a confrontation or ‘crash’ proceeds. Peter goes into his pocket to reach for the figure and show how ludicrous the confrontation is, but Hansen contrary to racial reason, adapts the stereotype that black men carry guns to Peter, and in so shoots him dead.
This is the ultimate ‘crash’ in the film, as the racial injustice finally leads to a death. This also breaks all narrative structures, like Propp’s “spheres of action”, as the hero throughout the film ultimately ends up the villain, or anti-hero.
Having Hansen as the only one to commit the ultimate crime because of racism is a controversial move from the director Paul Haggis. Every other character goes through‘enlightenment’ where they can correct their ethnical prejudices, but the only person who isn’t a minority, the anti-racist, middle class white man can not. By doing this, it seems as though the film is trying to portray that ethnicity is always going to have a certain prejudice or stereotype connected with it, and everyone, even the most adamant anti-racist is unable to deconstruct their cognitive racism which has been constantly fed and pacificated by mass media institutions throughout their existence.
This may also be due to themselves being trapped by the cognitive pressures we all have to some extent.
Although a rather fervourless and pessimistic view, it agrees with Van Djik’s hypothesis that mass media will continue to fuel racism through storytelling, and also with the Marxist Hegemonic theory that ethnic minorities will continue to conform to their oppressors through the influence of the media.
For a drama, I believe “Crash” ultimately fulfils generic expectations with its gritty storyline and rounded characters, but because of its racial ethos, and multi-lined character ‘crashes’, it moves to almost a documentary style, with the storyline debating how people react to ethnicity in real life. This makes the film seem more believable, and that the racial confrontations, to a passive audience, will appear realistic.
I believe that “Crash” is a film which has been mistaken or misunderstood as a film which attempts to combat racism. After reading many heated reviews it seems many people are of the opinion that the stereotyping of characters is nothing more than manipulation similar to blaxploitation films, and that “Crash” is in fact full of unneeded and even cognitive racism.
I myself think this is erroneous and mis-interpretative. I believe “Crash” has to cast stereotypes or else the characters themselves would not in fact be representations but be merely ‘personalities’, it is impossible to have a film without representations, if only because the audience will have a certain stereotype at the ready the moment they see a character’s race. I think “Crash” is not a movie trying to defeat racism, but one to help inform its audience that we all have racial prejudices that are innate and immovable, and uses easily noticeable representations of ethnicity to show that neither are necessarily, in today’s cosmopolitan world, more to blame than others. I don’t though acclaim “Crash” for accurately representing all ethnicities, I believe they are unfair on the Persian representation by not allowing Farhad to have a non-racist side (he did shoot Daniel after all), and using the daughter as a block character; and also by concentrating so much on ethical representations, “Crash” seems to be unfair on women by using them as tools in the ongoing stereotypical ‘race war’.
Bibliography
- Van Djik, DISCOURSE & SOCIETY © 1992 (SAGE, London, Newbury Park and New Delhi): 87-118.
- Van Djik Stories and Racism
- Paul Haggis interview
