I had to watch the film again for an acting class and will be analyzing the structure, acting, directing in detail later but I'd like to jot down some thoughts while its fresh in my head. 

This film is a wonderful exercise in rationalized racism. Pretty much everyone is racist to some degree yet everyone finds a way to somehow be right about it. So is that saying racism is ok, or that it's just a human trait? I'm sure Haggis intention was the latter, but you sometimes wonder if EVERYONE really is that way. He went to a great length to create believable and multi-dimensional characters. Unfortunately not everyone is as interesting as the next. I'm not sure if the original script was much longer but it feels like we're almost glancing at certain characters and not spending enough time with them. My proposed solution would be to get rid of Brendan Fraser and Sandra Bullock's characters and just allot all of their screen time to the other more interesting characters. Bullock never really did anything that would constitute as good acting in her career and you my think that's because she wasn't given any good roles, but even here in a well written part she's lousy. 

I also noticed that the time of day seemed to fluctuate greatly. Now it doesn't seem to bounce back and forth in a way that we could be accustomed to. It just seems as though certain scenes begin at night and then wind up going on in broad daylight. Perhaps I'm looking at things in the wrong way, and maybe Haggis does jumble his time frame around a lot more than I initially noticed. There is a sense however of misguided redemption. A few characters are allowed to make things right and apologize for their behavior, yet clearly in the case of Phillipe's character he is left a villain. It is interesting that the second time around Michael Pena seems to be the only one in the film who isn't racist towards anyone. Even when arguing with the Persian store owner he never resorts to racial name calling and although discriminated against never seems to lash out against it. 

I thought when I first saw the film that Matt Dillon gave the best performance and I still think he does. He is given a tough role to fill. He is supposed to represent the average white man, and therefore the average white American. Most of the people in this film are archetypes many of which are above stereotypes but all types in their own right. No one is really guilty or innocent and Dillon's character has a tough arc to follow. It makes sense that we first see him calling about his father before we see his molestation of Newton. It allows us to see a better side of him before he's a villain. The next day she winds up apologizing to her husband in a way that says it was her fault, and watching the incident again, it pretty much was. However no one is really guilty or innocent which is the main point of the film. Did she egg him on? Certainly, but did he go over the line? He certainly did and his message which turns tragically prophetic for his young partner is that racism is pretty much an inevitability. LA is perhaps the microcosm of the world, or perhaps it is the tensions in that noticeably racially charged city where movies and street gangs originate. 

In some ways setting the film on a rare snowy night in LA makes the film out to be like a retread of classic disaster movies. It follows a similar archetype, letting us now what natural disaster will occur, and basing the film around an ensemble of characters and how they all interact leading to that moment where mother nature steps in. Anderson did this in Magnolia, and Estevez in Bobby, but it is the same policy of The Towering Inferno and Earthquake. In fact most ensemble films revolve around a central defining incident. Altman's Nashville had the assassination, Short Cuts had an earthquake, and this film seems tied to that legacy. Towards the end Haggis uses a piece of music while he slowly pans around each of his main characters in a move that seems shamelessly lifted from Magnolia. Most of the dialogue however is great and it remains a well written film. So Haggis is prone to some heavy handedness but he has created a rich and multi-textured film. The analysis of the film itself defies easy categorization. Saying this film is about racism is severely missing the point, saying the film is racist is even further misguided. There is a desire to paint well rounded characters and this film does that excellently. I certainly have no objection to the Oscar it won, and it seems odd how my prophecy of the film not getting nominated was so wrong.