Now, I frequently disagree with many of the nominations and awards handed out by the Academy of Motion Pictures. But, since what constitutes a good movie is so subjective, I can usually stomach the decisions and move on. For some reason John Lee Hancock's The Blind Side gave me a little extra twist. Now having seen it, I think I can explain why.
The Blind Side tells the story of Michael Oher, a young and homeless black boy, who is befriended and eventually adopted by the Tuohy family. Thanks to their love, support, and financial resources, he is able to attend a quality school and blossom into a top collegiate athlete. Honestly, as a sports movie, it works fine. Many of my favorite sports movies are fairly simplistic. There is a good team and a bad team, there is a personal conflict for the main character that mirrors the movie's sporting conflict. Throw in some funny cameos by sports personalities and a hearty catharsis at the end. Check, check, check and check. Even as your standard tearjerker the film makes do with some heartwarming scenes between Mrs. Tuohy and Oher. My problems are of a different nature. Beyond the troubling narrative of rich, white family saves poor, black boy from his black peers (the story is true so it is hard to complain), beyond the thinly veiled conservative viewpoint that is passed off as progressive and even beyond some particularly cheesy Hollywood moments, for me, it is as a character-driven drama where the movie falls short.
Two of the most important features for any drama are the character development and arc. After having watched the film, I can truthfully say I know next to nothing about the supposedly altruistic Tuohys. The Blind Side completely turns a blind eye to any of the difficulties that would be inherent in this situation. Leigh Anne Tuohy, the mother and central character played by Bullock, is not humanized. She is idealized and glorified. We never see any internal struggle or self-doubt from her. Mrs. Tuohy spends very little time questioning whether or not to bring a hulking stranger into her house with her young daughter and son. She spends an equally small amount of time brushing off the racist-tinged clucking of high society, embodied here by a few, peacockish, local women.
Still, Sandra Bullock does have a certain charm. She drives the movie and it misses her when she is off-screen. The climactic scenes of the movie determine whether or not Oher will be accepted to college and they suffer for her absence. They also do not have much of a connection with any of the other themes of the story making them a fairly pointless (and predictable) exercise. Oher himself, played by Quinton Aaron, has little to do for most of the movie besides breath quietly. We are never given a real glimpse inside this young man's head besides a couple of throw away scenes with some of his teachers.
Quinton Aaron and Sandra Bullock in The Blind Side |
John Lee Hancock has some experience directing both sports movies (2002's The Rookie) and black and white/good vs evil films (2004's The Alamo). From a technical standpoint, the movie is decently put together. The direction, cinematography and score are all merely adequate. Bullock continues to play Bullock, so I guess her Oscar is more of a lifetime achievement award. In summary, The Blind Side is a perfectly capable sports movie and a watchable enough family drama. I just expect more from my Oscar nominees and winners.
18/30
Sandra Bullock does not even deserve a lifetime achievement award. I like her very much but she's been in a lot of bad movies.
ReplyDeleteI would tend to agree. so what did you think of this one?
ReplyDeleteHello? Routinely Average? Thanks for taking my blog post. Big, big fan. Regarding the review of The Blind Side:
ReplyDeleteI completely disagree with you here, Adam. This was a great movie, and an outstanding performance by Bullock.
I haven't seen enough of her other work to fully disagree with your claim that this is the "same old Bullock," but I thought Mrs. Tuohy was far and away a different character than "Ms. Congeniality." Regardless, her performance and execution of Tuohy was near flawless and extremely convincing. Her Oscar was well-deserved (it sounds as though most of your issues stem from a disagreement in ideology with the writers/director regarding character development in this type of movie anyway).
If you expected more from the movie, fine. But giving it the same score as Repo Men? I don't think that's warranted.
Ooh getting fired up. I like it. Ok, well let me try to clarify my position a bit. First of all, you are right about my ideological differences with the movies creators, which is why I gave it the score I did. And maybe I was a tad harsh as a reaction to all the praise this movie was getting, but I don't think by much. This movie was simplification personified, and when you are attempting to tell a complex and personal story, thats not ok.
ReplyDeleteAs for Bullock, her acting is affected by the provided material. As nice as it would be if they were disconnected, to have a great acting performance, you need quality material. I thought Tuohy was a one-dimensional character for reasons I outlined above. Whether that is her fault or the writers is mostly irrelevant. I don't think Oscars should be given for one dimensional characters.
However, its great to have fans, and if these things weren't so subjective we wouldn't be here. I hope you keep coming back!
Adam, Adam, Adam. You lost all credibility with this review as soon as you used the words "Chick Flick." Whether you think it applies to this film or not, whether you think the film is any good or not, "Chick Flick" is a derogatory term perpetuated by male viewers and reviewers for films that have a woman as a central character. I'm not going to get into whether I agree with your opinion on the film's merits or not, but am simply asking you as a journalist to re-examine your prejudices. The terms we use without thinking can reveal a lot.
ReplyDeleteWell, I would submit that the whole point of this blog is a subjective viewing of movies. This is not simply a dispassionate analysis of a movie, but my personal thoughts and emotions upon viewing it. It is completely impossible to provide an objective opinion on art. As for Chick Flick, I can see how that could be derogatory, and so I apologize. What I meant by the term, was a film marketed specifically towards women that tends to be cheaply produced. I do not consider every film with a woman as the central character to be a chick flick. Far from it. But this film seemed to me to fit the generally established criteria for that particular title. And I would add that my only use of the term was to reference my initial feelings towards the movie before seeing it, or even knowing much about it. I used it only to illustrate and immediate gut reaction upon having seen the trailer. That being said, I guess I can understand the potentially offensive nature of the word and I will in the future try to be more careful.
ReplyDelete