Crash - David Cronenberg (1996) - Decision Making

Oboulo Int.

Order the writing of a tailor-made Business strategy Case study

Free quote online

Case study Format .doc

Crash - David Cronenberg (1996) - Decision Making

Download

Read an extract

Themes

Crash, David Cronenberg, decision making, stakeholders, movie, jurisdictional immunity, drug, risk assessment, dissent, communication

Reader
Abstract
Contents
Extract

Abstract

The type of thinking which is brought to light in this movie is the deductive one. For instance, Lara wears a coat which should protect everybody, so it can save her father. That is why she jumps to protect him.
Conversely, John has an inductive mindset, taking his father's case (who has defended Black People's rights but has lost everything later) for something global.

What opportunity costs were associated with Detective Graham Waters' (Don Cheadle) decision to withhold police evidence in a drug case?
Was rational decision theory depicted in the movie? Why/why not? If so, how?
Did anyone apply expected utility of outcomes?
Which type of thinking was represented, inductive or deductive, and why?
How was risk assessment conducted in the movie?
Who demonstrated the principle of dissent in the movie? Why?
What decision-making traps were highlighted?
Describe how the concept of locus of control played out in the movie. Who exhibited an internal locus? External locus? Who was a control freak?
Did the players have adequate information to make the decisions that they made?
How did the concept of thin-slicing work and/or not work?
Who resisted change, and why?
Who attempted to mitigate risk?
Did anyone show proactivity in looking at the future?
Was there evidence of group think and/or group shift? If so, where and how?
How were decisions communicated?
How does the concept of stakeholders and associated considerations factor into the movie?

Get this table of contents for free after login.

Extract

[...] Crash - David Cronenberg (1996) - Decision Making What opportunity costs were associated with Detective Graham Waters' (Don Cheadle) decision to withhold police evidence in a drug case? The opportunity of cost for Graham is that he has the choice between being fair and honest which leads to releasing the evidence of the drug traffic and the corruption of the deceased cop, or having the opportunity to further his career, to defend the Black American community (as it was the third Black cop killed by the White one) and for his brother to benefit from a jurisdictional immunity. [...]

[...] Some decisions were not communicated at all (Walters towards Ria about his mother), some were communicated with clear words (Jean decision to consider Maria as her best friend), some with immediate actions (Lara jumping to protect her father). 16) How does the concept of stakeholders and associated considerations factor into the movie? Everyone in this movie has a direct or not link with Peter. Every protagonist has taken a decision which has have an effect of the story. We notice that a decision which seems insignificant at first sight could appear to be crucial during the movie (the bullets for instance). However, one can notice that the characters' reactions are really self-centered. [...]

[...] ■ Overconfidence Farhad thinks that he is the master of he situation when he tries to kill Daniel, without noticing or even considering that his gun could only be full with pressurized capsules and not real bullets. Describe how the concept of locus of control played out in the movie. Who exhibited an internal locus? External locus? Who was a control freak? John has an internal locus, as he his the more proactive, he knows he has a real impact on events. [...]

[...] Did the players have adequate information to make the decisions that they made? No, especially for Graham Waters who doesn't know that his brother is dead. Otherwise, he might not have withheld the evidence. His girlfriend, Ria, is in the same situation about commenting the relationship between Graham and his mother, as she does not know she is sick. 10) How did the concept of thin-slicing work and/or not work? The movie warns us about thin-slicing as it works well for some characters such as Peter who seems really sympathetic to anyone. [...]

[...] The risk assessment is really scarce in this movie. Globally, characters tend to take risks easily as Lara jumps on her father with the coat to protect him and as John doesn't hesitate to save Cameron's wife from her car crash. Their will to save people's lives is so strong that they don't take the time to think about risks. It is also the case when Anthony and Peter drive ChoiJin Gui in the stolen car. Who demonstrated the principle of dissent in the movie? [...]

doc