David Cronenberg is for me one of the most interesting and unlike any other out there directors (even if not quite one of my personal favourites), despite being known for body horror and originating it his films are much more than that. They are incredibly well made, and as well as being unsettling some have a dark yet subtle wit or a poignant emotional core. All these are the reasons for my admiration and appreciation for him.
Of all his films, 'Crash' (not to be confused with the film that, undeservedly in my opinion, won the Best Picture Oscar in its year, over the infinitely superior 'Brokeback Mountain', but that's another story) is his most controversial, causing a stir in Britain at the time. One can totally see why, with its uncompromising and difficult subject matter being portrayed unsettlingly and uniquely, something that fascinated and disturbed many yet sickened and perplexed just as many others. When it comes to me and my perception of 'Crash', it is a bit of a tricky one and not an easy film to rate and review. Do not consider it a misunderstood masterpiece or one of his best, at the same it's far from being on my worst films ever list and doesn't crash and burn. It's certainly an interesting and well made film, but other Cronenberg films connected with me far more emotionally and had me gripped more. Especially 'Dead Ringers' and 'The Fly'.
Contrary to what those who hated 'Crash' say, those who say that there are no redeeming qualities whatsoever (personally can never say that about any lesser Cronenberg), there is a lot to admire. As with all Cronenberg films, 'Crash' looks great, with photography that is both beautiful, almost dream-like in places, and harrowing, when at its most harrowing it really hits hard. Absolutely loved the opening credits sequence, Cronenberg always delivers in this aspect. A lot of effort clearly went into the design of it visually, it is beautiful to watch while also being very creepy. Howard Shore's score does add quite a bit, it is truly haunting stuff that also brings shivers down the spine when necessary. Cronenberg's style is unmistakable, if more purposefully clinical than usual.
He does admirably adhere close to the detached nature of the source material, which accounts for why viewers were and still are left cold and why his direction is more clinical. What is most interesting about the film and why it is controversial is its depiction of sex and violence, there is a lot of both, very daring and shocking at the time (still is) and both had seldom been depicted in this way before. The violence is uncompromising and does churn the stomach, even those who have seen a lot of violent films (myself included) will find themselves deeply disturbed. The sex scenes are beautifully choreographed and filmed while also being a mix of explicit, sensual, strange and ominous. When they merge, the depiction is vividly graphic, and for quite a large number it was/is hard to take, to me it was harrowing but in a way it intrigued. The film also made me think. Despite never getting to know the characters (Vaughan is the most interesting) or care for them, that doesn't stop Cronenberg from drawing great performances from a gifted cast. Found the standouts to be Elias Koteas, quite frightening here, and Deborah Kara Unger, who is equally astonishing.
On the other hand, it is very easy to see why anybody would say 'Crash' is a challenging film and hard to like. While appreciating what it set out and tried to do, the emotional investment wasn't there for me, things that were there in 'Dead Ringers' and 'The Fly', and there were times where the intentional coldness was overdone. Likewise with the bizarre factor, especially later on where things increasingly stop making sense until an ending that leaves one dumbfounded-ly scratching their heads.
While some of 'Crash' was thought-provoking, it was not always easy understanding what the point of it was and what it was trying to say. It also became repetitive with the sexual acts and violence becoming more frequent and in some cases not necessary, some of the film was pretty uneventful dramatically, the pace was very sluggish and the film could have been 20-25 minutes shorter because there was not enough plot, which was fairly slight structurally to begin with, to sustain the film's length.
In summary, didn't bowl me over and the controversy is more than understandable, but do highly appreciate the effort and can't be too hard on it. 6/10
Of all his films, 'Crash' (not to be confused with the film that, undeservedly in my opinion, won the Best Picture Oscar in its year, over the infinitely superior 'Brokeback Mountain', but that's another story) is his most controversial, causing a stir in Britain at the time. One can totally see why, with its uncompromising and difficult subject matter being portrayed unsettlingly and uniquely, something that fascinated and disturbed many yet sickened and perplexed just as many others. When it comes to me and my perception of 'Crash', it is a bit of a tricky one and not an easy film to rate and review. Do not consider it a misunderstood masterpiece or one of his best, at the same it's far from being on my worst films ever list and doesn't crash and burn. It's certainly an interesting and well made film, but other Cronenberg films connected with me far more emotionally and had me gripped more. Especially 'Dead Ringers' and 'The Fly'.
Contrary to what those who hated 'Crash' say, those who say that there are no redeeming qualities whatsoever (personally can never say that about any lesser Cronenberg), there is a lot to admire. As with all Cronenberg films, 'Crash' looks great, with photography that is both beautiful, almost dream-like in places, and harrowing, when at its most harrowing it really hits hard. Absolutely loved the opening credits sequence, Cronenberg always delivers in this aspect. A lot of effort clearly went into the design of it visually, it is beautiful to watch while also being very creepy. Howard Shore's score does add quite a bit, it is truly haunting stuff that also brings shivers down the spine when necessary. Cronenberg's style is unmistakable, if more purposefully clinical than usual.
He does admirably adhere close to the detached nature of the source material, which accounts for why viewers were and still are left cold and why his direction is more clinical. What is most interesting about the film and why it is controversial is its depiction of sex and violence, there is a lot of both, very daring and shocking at the time (still is) and both had seldom been depicted in this way before. The violence is uncompromising and does churn the stomach, even those who have seen a lot of violent films (myself included) will find themselves deeply disturbed. The sex scenes are beautifully choreographed and filmed while also being a mix of explicit, sensual, strange and ominous. When they merge, the depiction is vividly graphic, and for quite a large number it was/is hard to take, to me it was harrowing but in a way it intrigued. The film also made me think. Despite never getting to know the characters (Vaughan is the most interesting) or care for them, that doesn't stop Cronenberg from drawing great performances from a gifted cast. Found the standouts to be Elias Koteas, quite frightening here, and Deborah Kara Unger, who is equally astonishing.
On the other hand, it is very easy to see why anybody would say 'Crash' is a challenging film and hard to like. While appreciating what it set out and tried to do, the emotional investment wasn't there for me, things that were there in 'Dead Ringers' and 'The Fly', and there were times where the intentional coldness was overdone. Likewise with the bizarre factor, especially later on where things increasingly stop making sense until an ending that leaves one dumbfounded-ly scratching their heads.
While some of 'Crash' was thought-provoking, it was not always easy understanding what the point of it was and what it was trying to say. It also became repetitive with the sexual acts and violence becoming more frequent and in some cases not necessary, some of the film was pretty uneventful dramatically, the pace was very sluggish and the film could have been 20-25 minutes shorter because there was not enough plot, which was fairly slight structurally to begin with, to sustain the film's length.
In summary, didn't bowl me over and the controversy is more than understandable, but do highly appreciate the effort and can't be too hard on it. 6/10