Explicitly Stereotypical

I want to stress what Crash is really about. The best way I can do this is quote my favorite online critic and fellow USU student Alex Jackson.

It’s a film about racism. Don’t think that it’s about anything other than racism any more than Traffic is about anything other than the drug trade. It’s a broad epic film about a specific social issue. Second, the characters in Crash are not human beings. They are placeholders representing the converging attitudes and frustrations of their host race and ethnicity. Yes, the film is not at all subtle, and no, these characters are not at all three-dimensional (though writer/director Paul Haggis has his characters do lots of contradictory things and his talented cast successfully finds ways to join these contradictions in order to give their characters the illusion of depth). Subtleness and three-dimensionality are not virtues in this situation, though. Racism is a fairly complex issue and in order to examine its complexities we need everything to be blown-up and larger than life.

Jackson’s point illustrates the true nature and purpose of Crash’s characters. Its fun to think this is a meditative exploration into real Los Angeles. But in this case, Haggis just uses L.A. as a backdrop to play out his point. He could have used any town in America. Racism is not exclusive to L.A but since its universally known as a melting pot of diversity it seemed a logical choice for Haggis.

Explicit Stereotyping
The Eastern European shop owner exchanged a heated confrontation with locksmith, and Mexican-American Daniel. The shop owner felt he was being cheated, partly because the two couldn’t communicate and partly because he harbored certain prejudices toward Daniel’s ethnicity. Daniel’s appearance: shaved head, tattoos, and a wife-beater tank tap fit the requirements for the shop owner’s definition of a lazy, low balling Mexican. When Daniel tried to explain that he couldn’t fix the lock because the door was not aligned correctly, the shop owner shouted obscenities and blamed Daniel when his shop was broken into and vandalized. The shop owner applied his anger and explicit stereotypical grudge-riddled vendetta toward Daniel and tried to kill him. The expression, an engaging encounter involving a gun and torn conscious, was public, not necessarily because people were or weren’t around but because it was done without any hesitation or discretion. The Fundamental Attribution Error refers to the observer’s bias and is supported in this case. Unknown to the shop owner, Daniel was actually an honest hardworking father who had been at the mercy of implicit stereotyping earlier in the film (with Sandra Bullock’s character). Daniel is aware of how difficult it is for him to convey his true character in an area where people like him are easily pointed out for societal flaws. The shop owner knew nothing of his reformation or renewal work ethic, and only saw him as a stereotype. Luckily the shop owner’s forward thinking daughter, who must have known of her father’s impulsiveness, bought blanks for his gun instead of the real thing. The encounter with Daniel could have ended messy.

Implicit Stereotyping
Whereas explicit stereotyping is conscious, deliberative, and controllable, implicit stereotyping involves a lack of awareness and automatic activation. In the beginning of the film, Jean (Sandra Bullock) and her husband walk by two young black guys in an upper class part of town. Jean unconsciously veers out of the way of the two young men to avoid them. Later in the film we find Jean as a bitter, homemaking burnout. She is a racist but doesn’t know it. Her aggression toward other races is built on her silver-spooned fed upbringing. She is entitled and they (everyone else) are her stepping stools to high society. She sees the two young black men on the street as thieves or muggers. She doesn’t feel these two young black men should be in her side of town. Although her expression of the stereotype is done publicly, Jean feels it’s justified because of who she is and what she is. Therefore it’s not a matter of a public or private forum; it’s a matter of entitlement and internal class distinctions. She would have done the same thing in front of a large crowd. Jean represents the implicit stereotyper in all of us. She is the most universal character. Her role as a housewife indicates that it could be anybody. Jean’s expressions however, do not support the Fundamental Attribution Error because she’s right. At least in this case she is. The young boys do mug them and steal their car. In addition, it’s important to point out the active narration provided by Anthony (Chris "Ludacris" Bridges). Anthony, an articulate, well-dressed carjacker is also bitter and tired of being stereotyped. He feels that America owes him because of its history with inequality. Anthony would bite the hand that feeds him and then complain that it doesn’t taste good enough; all the while expressing how much the hand owes it to him to feed him. He symbolizes the obvious, out-in-front contradictory nature of himself and others like him; as well as the irony in openly rebuking the very nature of the very thing your engaging in.