In stark contrast to Ryan and his racism is his police partner at the beginning of the film, Hanson (played by Ryan Phillippe). Younger and idealistic, Hanson tries to get Ryan to back off from the encounter with Christine and then reports Ryan 's racist behavior to his black lieutenant, Dixon (played by Keith David). Dixon doesn 't want the hassles of initiating a disciplinary action and Hanson is left to cope on his own, but he continues to try to do the right thing throughout the movie. Though he 's the white character most committed to racial justice, at the end of the film Hanson 's fear overcomes judgment in a tense moment, and he shoots and kills a black man. It 's certainly true that well-intentioned white people can harbor such fears rooted in racist training. But in the world "Crash " creates, Hanson 's deeper awareness of the nature of racism and attempts to combat it are irrelevant, while Ryan somehow magically overcomes his racism.
Let us be clear: "Crash " is not a racist movie, in the sense of crudely using overtly racist stereotypes. It certainly doesn 't present the white characters as uniformly good; most are clueless or corrupt. Two of the non-white characters (a Latino locksmith and an Iranian doctor) are the most virtuous in the film. The characters and plot lines are complex and often intriguing. But "Crash " remains a white-supremacist movie because of what it refuses to bring into the discussion.
At this point in our critique, defenders of the film have suggested to us that we expect too much, that movies tend to deal with issues at this personalized level and we can 't expect more. This is evasion. For example, whatever one thinks of its politics, another recent film, "Syriana, " presents a complex institutional analysis of U.S. foreign policy in an engaging fashion. It 's possible to produce a film that is politically sophisticated and commercially viable. Haggis is clearly talented, and there 's no reason to think he couldn 't have deepened the analysis in creative ways.
"Crash " fans also have offered this defense to us: In a culture that seems terrified of any open discussion of race, isn 't some attempt at an honest treatment of the complexity of the issue better than nothing? That 's a classic argument from false alternatives. Are we stuck with a choice between silence or bad analysis? Beyond that, in this case the answer may well be no. If "Crash " and similar efforts that personalize and psychologize the issue of race keep white America from an honest engagement with the structure and consequences of white supremacy, the ultimate effect may be reactionary. In that case, "nothing " may be better.
The problem of "Crash " can be summed up through one phrase from the studio 's promotional material, which asserts that the film "boldly reminds us of the importance of tolerance. "
That 's exactly the problem. On the surface, the film appears to be bold, speaking of race with the kind of raw emotion that is rare in this culture. But that emotion turns out, in the end, to be manipulative and diversionary. The problem is that the film can 't move beyond the concept of tolerance, and tolerance is not the solution to America 's race problem. White people can -- and often do -- learn to tolerate difference without ever disturbing the systemic, institutional nature of racism.
The core problem is not intolerance but white supremacy -- and the way in which, day in and day out, white people accept white supremacy and the unearned privileges it brings.
"Crash " paints a multi-colored picture of race, and in a multi-racial society recognizing that diversity is important. Let 's just not forget that the color of racism is white.
Robert Wosnitzer is associate producer of the forthcoming documentary on pornography "The Price of Pleasure. " He can be reached at robert.wosnitzer@mac.com.
1 | 2
