Interpersonal Conflict in Film

Name

COM/200

Date

Instuctor

Interpersonal Conflict in Film

The process by which messages are shared between two or more people is called Interpersonal communication. Haggis P. directed Crash is an intense film which mainly portrays the conflicts that arise between individuals who come from different backgrounds. A variety of situations are involved which show the conflicts between people and struggles in racial discrimination arising due to racial discrimination in the modern Los Angeles. Out of these situations the one which caught my attention the most was the miscommunication between the locksmith and the store owner, which later leads to retaliation. The conflict grows with the store owner’s failure at understanding what the lock smith was trying to communicate.. In this paper, I will identify the conflict that occurred in interpersonal communication and that it was not handled properly and will also describe how it could be handled properly and differently to prevent it from occurring.

The conflict starts with the storeowner whose name is Farhad, hiring Daniel the locksmith for replacing the “broken lock of his door. Daniel replaces the broken lock as he was asked to do and then tries to explain to Farhad that it was not the lock that was broken but the door and it needed repair. However Farhad misinterpreted Daniel because of lingual differences and thought that Daniel was trying to take advantage and due to this an argument ensues. Farhad refuses to pay for the lock because the door was still broken even when Daniel tries to make it clear that he could only repair locks and not doors. Daniel in this case tries to clarify that someone should be called to repair the door, but Farhad again misunderstands him and does not listen to what he is saying.

Farhad refuses to pay for the lock since the door is still broken even though Daniel makes several attempts to explain that he only repairs locks, not doors. Daniel clarifies that it was necessary to call someone else to repair the door, but Farhad does not listen.

Farhad, on returning to his store, the next day, realizes that he had been vandalized. He puts the blame on Daniel and returns to his house later with a gun with the purpose to seek revenge. As Daniel returns home, an altercation begins between them. While they stand there arguing outside, Daniel’s young daughter runs outside behind his ignoring his scream when he asks her to remain inside. While Farhad is firing the gun at Daniel, she jumps straight into her father’s arms. Daniel holds his daughter in his hands and starts to cry. Farhad is struck at what he had done. He drops his gun. But, fortunately, the bullets loaded in the gun were blank. The girl opened her eyes and asked her father if he was alright. Daniel is relieved to find her alright. He goes inside with his daughter, but Farhad is still shocked at what he had done.

She jumps into her father’s arms right as Farhad is firing a gun at her father. He grabbed his daughter and starts to cry. Farhad drops the gun in disbelief because of what he had done. Fortunately, the bullets that were shot were blanks. After awhile, the little girl looked up and asked her father if he was ok. Daniel is relived that his daughter is ok. Daniel went inside with his daughter and Farhad was in shock with what he had done.

In this scenario, due to the misinterpretation of the communication between Farhad and Daniel, it gave rise to an interpersonal conflict between them. Farhad had misunderstood completely when Daniel was trying to explain that he did not repair doors, but locks. The misunderstanding was due to two reasons, first due to the language barrier and second due to the racial tension. Farhad did not understand English well and tried to explain in his own language, but it gave rise to anger and tension between them. Farhad’s failure to communicate properly also makes the situation intense.

If in the given situation, Farhad had tried to listen carefully, it would have helped and the interpersonal conflict that occurred could have been prevented. According to Sole, K (2011), “Listening requires focus and attention, and failure to listen is one of the key causes of miscommunication”. The situation could also have been prevented if Farhad had not interrupted while Daniel was speaking and had let him explain it. Farhad while trying to dominate the conversation fails at communicating properly and thus it gives rise to an unnecessary argument. Also, since Farhad was being hostile while talking it made it difficult for both to make their point clear.

In my view empathic assertion would have helped at avoiding this conflict. According to Sole, K. (2011) “With an empathetic assertion, you state your own needs and wants but also recognize that the other person has needs or feelings as well”. Had they been more empathic towards each other the situation could have been handled properly. Moreover, after Daniel noticed that Farhad is upset about his lock, he could have responded in a different manner by explaining his understanding for Farhad’s reasons for acting so aggressively. Frhad too, in the case should have responded differently and remained calm instead of shouting at Daniel which had resulted in the intense argument.

Interpersonal Communication takes place in various styles and is a way to communicate our messages between one another. The conflict between Farhad and Daniel could not be handled properly and therefore, ends with retaliation because of a simple miscommunication. This lack of communication could not happened, had Farhad and Daniel communicated appropriately and clearly, in a calm manner. I believe that interpersonal communication is significant for developing and maintaining healthy relationships.

References:

Haggis, P. (Director). (2004). Crash [Film]. Los Angeles: Bob Yari Productions.

Sole, K. (2011). Making Connections: Understanding Interpersonal Communication. San Diego: Bridgepoint Education, Inc. Retrieved from HYPERLINK “https://content.ashford.edu/books/AUCOM200.11.1/sections/sec2.5?search=miscommunication#w16514” https://content.ashford.edu/books/AUCOM200.11.1/sections/sec2.5?search=miscommunication#w16514