Everybody Hates 2004's Crash Because It Won Best Picture, But Here's Why It's A Pretty Good Movie

I'm going to name three seemingly random Oscar Best Picture winners, and I want you to tell me what they all might have in common: How Green Was My Valley, Forrest Gump, and Crash.

Give up? Well, if you answered: They all beat far superior films, then I'd say, “Yes…but…” Because while yes, Valley, Gump, and Crash DID beat indisputable classics like Citizen Kane, Pulp Fiction (and The Shawshank Redemption, I suppose), and Brokeback Mountain, respectively, that doesn't mean that any of them are necessarily bad movies.

In fact, Crash, which I've actually heard some people call the “worst” Best Picture winner of all time, is actually pretty good. Is it as good as Brokeback Mountain? Lord, no! But, is it a “bad” movie in any sense of the word? I don't think so, and here's why!

While Heavy-Handed, The Themes About Racism Still Hold Up…For The Most Part

Here's the thing about racism: It's more subtle than loud for the most part. Sure, movies will often make it seem like the loud-mouth bigot is a constant problem in society, and I'm not saying that those people don't exist. But, from my experience, the kind of racism that I've mostly seen is a lot more surreptitious and sinister.

Yes, some movies have been better than others when it comes to displaying the insidious nature of racism (such as Get Out, which is especially on point), but a lot of other movies are about as subtle as a sledgehammer…and Crash is one such movie.

Now, that may not sound like a positive thing, but I'll explain. Even though the themes about racism in this film are pretty blatant, that doesn't mean they don't work. It just means that they could have been handled a lot better. For instance, let's take Matt Dillon's character. He plays a racist cop who definitely doesn't play by the rules, and you hate him for it. However, he ends up rescuing the same woman he groped earlier in the film, which shows that just because somebody is racist, that doesn't mean that they're all bad. It also doesn't mean that they’re irredeemable.

Again, it's not handled with nuance, but it gets the job done. Especially for 2004. Another theme in this film is that racism mostly comes from a single bad experience that aligns with a nasty stereotype, such as what happens with Sandra Bullock's character. After she gets car jacked by two Black men, she's later paranoid about a Hispanic locksmith, thinking he'll break into their house later on in the film. Oh, and speaking of Sandra Bullock…

The Acting From Two Specific Actors Is Quite Surprising

This movie has a LOT of actors in it. But first, I want to talk about two specifically surprising performances, those being from a pre-Oscar-winning Sandra Bullock, and a pre-Oscar-winning Brendan Fraser.

First, I want to talk about Fraser's character, as he plays a district attorney who is up for re-election. Now, he sees the car jacking incident very differently from his wife. For him, the thing he’s most concerned about is not losing his vehicle, or even his wife’s trauma, but rather, he doesn’t want to lose the Black vote, or the vote that shows that he can handle crime on the streets. In short, he cares more about his career than his wife’s well-being. So, not the greatest look for one of the nicest actors in Hollywood.

And then, you have Sandra Bullock, a.k.a. “America’s sweetheart.” She plays a repugnant character whose racism is on full display. In the lead up to the carjacking, she’s visibly uncomfortable when she sees two Black men, played by Ludacris and Larenz Tate. And, while the scene itself is quite, well, ludicrous, it impacts her to the extent that she demands that the locks be changed after Michael Pena’s locksmith character puts new locks on. She worries that he’s going to rob their place after he leaves, even though he’s one of the nicest characters in the entire movie.

Again, these scenes are anything but subtle, but given what she went through, it’s believable. Again, I’m not saying that this film is a masterpiece, but it is pretty good, and I think a lot of that is due to just how great the cast is, which I’ll get into next.

Its Ensemble Cast Is Also Used Quite Effectively

Now, it’s actually kind of hard to dissect the actual plot of this film, as it’s more of a series of events that all coincide in different meaningful ways. You have dating police detectives played by Don Cheadle and Jennifer Esposito. You have Matt Dillon playing a horrible police officer, whose life randomly coincides with a wealthy Black couple who are shaken by his treatment of them after a traffic stop.

You have Fraser’s and Bullock’s characters, as well as Ludicris and Tate’s characters, who both weave in and out throughout the film. You have a Persian shop owner played by Shaun Toub who has a beef with Michael Pena’s locksmith character, and all of these stories manage to come together into one cohesive whole.

I think this is a lot more impressive than people give it credit for. Sure, it’s not masterfully done like Tarantino’s best movie, Pulp Fiction - which again, I might add, was beaten by the inferior Forrest Gump - but to be able to cover different aspects of LA, and how racism both shapes and transforms it in both minor, but also major ways, is actually quite the feat.

Like, I’m not saying that it covers LA as effectively as say, The Wire covers Baltimore, but The Wire was a five season TV series, while Crash is only 112 minutes long. Cut it some slack!

Overall, I Get It. It Shouldn’t Have Beaten Brokeback Mountain. But It’s Still Not Terrible.

Look, I’m with you. I’ll never forgive the Academy for not being brave enough to give Brokeback Mountain the Academy Award back in 2005. It definitely should have won. That said, just because Crash is nowhere near as good, that doesn’t mean that it’s not a worthy film. It definitely is, especially back in 2004 when the film was initially released.

You see, Crash is really a time capsule of a movie. It’s a post-9/11 film that doesn’t really tackle Islamophobia, which was prevalent at the time. It does, however, get into the kind of racism that was still simmering following events from the ‘90s like the beating of Rodney King, and the assault on Abner Louima. So, in a sense, Crash is a movie that was speaking to those events, which at the time must have felt a lot safer than talking about gay relationships.

In a sense, Brokeback Mountain might have been too ahead of its time (same-sex marriage wouldn’t become legal in all 50 states until 10 years AFTER the film lost for Best Picture in 2005). This might be why people often feel like Crash is tone deaf, whereas Brokeback spoke to the zeitgeist. However, upon its release, I can understand why Crash, which is pretty good but not great, won Best Picture, and I don’t think that should be held against it. If anything, that’s more the Academy’s fault than the movie itself.

Crash is still a worthy watch, especially if you view it with 2005 eyes. Do you also think Crash is a good movie? I’d love to hear your thoughts.