THE BLIND SIDE (John Lee Hancock 2009)

[Chris Knipp]

LEIGH ANNE TELLS 'BIG MIKE' HOW TO PLAY FOOTBALL

John Lee Hancock: THE BLIND SIDE

You cant win

Review by Chris Knipp


The Blind Side is a feel-good movie about a rich white Nashville, Tennessee family (the husband is a former athletic star and restaurant magnate, the wife an interior decorator with posh city contacts) that rescues a poor orphaned black boy and nurtures him into becoming a great football player. Based on a book by Michael Lewis, the story is substantially true: Michael Oher is a real person who had a crack addict mom and no dad, went through a series of foster homes, had a miserable young life and lousy school record. When the Twohy family took him up, he had gotten into a fancy school when its football coach saw his athletic potential and got him admitted. It's not just for his athletic potential that the boy should be admitted, the coach (Ray McKinnon) argues in the movie; it's just the good thing to do. The Blind Side talks a lot about the good thing to do. The family and a friendly teacher saw he wasn't dumb, and he gradually improved his initially terrible grades and academic performance so he could play.

The real life Michael Oher lived more or less this experience, got good grades after being tutored, went to the University of Mississippi. The NCAA was indeed suspicious, as in the movie, of Michael's choice of Ole Miss, since both his adoptive parents and his tutor were graduates and huge supporters of its football team. That was forgiven and he had a stunning college athletic career paved with trophies and recently got a five-year, $13.8 million contract to play for the Baltimore Ravens.

The movie is about the miraculous blooming of a humble ghetto boy who learned to repress bad experiences and instead of being angry, is protective -- so he eventually becomes great at playing defense. As "Big Mike" actor Quinton Aaron is so quiet and recessive even S.J. (Jae Head), the pint-sized, hyper-active "brother" in his white adoptive family, runs circles around him as a personality. But the dominant figure is Sandra Bullock as the wife, Leigh Anne Tuohy. Bullock gives a suave performance: she's a walking cliché yet manages to be quite winning. Leigh Anne not only initiates the adoption when the family observes "Big Mike" walking along the road from the school in the rain on a cold day with nothing but a shirt on. She even steps onto the football field later to coach the coach, telling him how to marshal the youth's formidable defensive skills.

When you think about it, the method is little different from training a mute animal, and until Michael becomes a success and settles comfortably into the Tuohy family late in the movie, he is almost mute, speaking up only in gestures and a composition found in a classroom. He's useless when encouraged to be aggressive on the field because he has no aggressive instincts. Leigh Anne coaches him to think of his team as his family and act in the plays to protect them, rather than attack their opponents. This somehow works. And with his formidable height, weight, muscle and coordination, this one pattern makes him a great player. The coach's only job is to see the instinct is properly directed and follows the rules of play. Michael has to learn he can't pick up an opponent and carry him down the field.

Critics are much less pleased by this film than Hancock's previous sports drama, The Rookie, another true story from a book, that one about a baseball player who overcomes initial disappointment to become a pro. Dennis Quaid plays the athlete in The Rookie, and the focus is on him and on the game.

The idea of a saintly white woman who saves a po' black boy sticks in the craw of many, whether it's true or not. Melissa Anderson of the Village Voice, who was added to the New York Film Festival jury that chose Lee Daniels' explosive and lurid Precious last year, complained in her review that "unlike the howling rage of Claireece Precious Jones, Michael. . .is mute, docile, and ever-grateful to the white folks who took him in. . .Blind Side the movie peddles the most insidious kind of racism, one in which whiteys are virtuous saviors, coming to the rescue of African-Americans who become superfluous in narratives that are supposed to be about them." It's hard to deny that Precious the movie certainly focuses in much more detail on Clareece's grim, abusive ghetto existence. It plunges us into that world and rubs our noses in it. Precious is vivid. The Blind Side tells its story conventionally, taking few chances. But Precious is deeply flawed. It's melodramatic and lurid and omits any glimpse of positive aspects of Harlem life. But it's more memorable than The Blind Side.

I wonder if the real Michael Oher and his adoptive family would disagree strenuously about this movie -- and about his own story, for that matter. If his experiences turned him into a much celebrated pro footballer, how is an account of them "the most insidious kind of racism"? If the Touhy family made his success possible with their support, love, and money, are they not indeed "virtuous saviors"? What is the politically correct way of telling this story? Maybe sometimes life just isn't politically correct. John Lee Hancock has made a simplistic and rather bland movie. But though I haven't read the book, reports indicate the movie sticks close to it in essentials, and to the life.

The advantage of The Blind Side over Precious despite its risking charges of white condescension is that it provides a positive image of helping the disadvantaged in the face of peer disapproval. The Blind Side is about racism: the Tuohys face it from rednecks on the football field and from Leigh Anne's well-heeled lady friends, who chide her for including a giant black youth in the family's Christmas card photo. Or course this is nothing like the danger Michael faces when he returns to his mamma's neighborhood. A prominent black movie critic, Armond White, hates Precious. He calls it "the con job of the year," and says Daniels, Tyler Perry and Oprah Winfrey, the powerful black media magnates, "come together at some intersection of race exploitation and opportunism." Precious is exploitive. The crime of The Blind Side is that it shows white people helping a black person. However, Leigh Anne tells her bitchy luncheon pals that she's not helping Michael, he's helping her. But that too will be be debunked: the white lady is doing good so she'll feel good. The Touhys had a wonderful time helping Michael Oher become an athletic star: shame on them! In this kind of subject, you just can't do the right thing. The (predominantly white) audience likes The Blind Side just fine. The Blind Side is in three times as many theaters as Precious, and has made five times as much money.

[tabuno]

LEIGH ANNE TELLS 'BIG MIKE' HOW TO PLAY FOOTBALL

John Lee Hancock: THE BLIND SIDE

You cant win

Review by Chris Knipp


The Blind Side is a feel-good movie about a rich white Nashville, Tennessee family (the husband is a former athletic star and restaurant magnate, the wife an interior decorator with posh city contacts) that rescues a poor orphaned black boy and nurtures him into becoming a great football player. Based on a book by Michael Lewis, the story is substantially true: Michael Oher is a real person who had a crack addict mom and no dad, went through a series of foster homes, had a miserable young life and lousy school record. When the Twohy family took him up, he had gotten into a fancy school when its football coach saw his athletic potential and got him admitted. It's not just for his athletic potential that the boy should be admitted, the coach (Ray McKinnon) argues in the movie; it's just the good thing to do. The Blind Side talks a lot about the good thing to do. The family and a friendly teacher saw he wasn't dumb, and he gradually improved his initially terrible grades and academic performance so he could play.

The real life Michael Oher lived more or less this experience, got good grades after being tutored, went to the University of Mississippi. The NCAA was indeed suspicious, as in the movie, of Michael's choice of Ole Miss, since both his adoptive parents and his tutor were graduates and huge supporters of its football team. That was forgiven and he had a stunning college athletic career paved with trophies and recently got a five-year, $13.8 million contract to play for the Baltimore Ravens.

The movie is about the miraculous blooming of a humble ghetto boy who learned to repress bad experiences and instead of being angry, is protective -- so he eventually becomes great at playing defense. As "Big Mike" actor Quinton Aaron is so quiet and recessive even S.J. (Jae Head), the pint-sized, hyper-active "brother" in his white adoptive family, runs circles around him as a personality. But the dominant figure is Sandra Bullock as the wife, Leigh Anne Tuohy. Bullock gives a suave performance: she's a walking cliché yet manages to be quite winning. Leigh Anne not only initiates the adoption when the family observes "Big Mike" walking along the road from the school in the rain on a cold day with nothing but a shirt on. She even steps onto the football field later to coach the coach, telling him how to marshal the youth's formidable defensive skills.

When you think about it, the method is little different from training a mute animal, and until Michael becomes a success and settles comfortably into the Tuohy family late in the movie, he is almost mute, speaking up only in gestures and a composition found in a classroom. He's useless when encouraged to be aggressive on the field because he has no aggressive instincts. Leigh Anne coaches him to think of his team as his family and act in the plays to protect them, rather than attack their opponents. This somehow works. And with his formidable height, weight, muscle and coordination, this one pattern makes him a great player. The coach's only job is to see the instinct is properly directed and follows the rules of play. Michael has to learn he can't pick up an opponent and carry him down the field.

Critics are much less pleased by this film than Hancock's previous sports drama, The Rookie, another true story from a book, that one about a baseball player who overcomes initial disappointment to become a pro. Dennis Quaid plays the athlete in The Rookie, and the focus is on him and on the game.

The idea of a saintly white woman who saves a po' black boy sticks in the craw of many, whether it's true or not. Melissa Anderson of the Village Voice, who was added to the New York Film Festival jury that chose Lee Daniels' explosive and lurid Precious last year, complained in her review that "unlike the howling rage of Claireece Precious Jones, Michael. . .is mute, docile, and ever-grateful to the white folks who took him in. . .Blind Side the movie peddles the most insidious kind of racism, one in which whiteys are virtuous saviors, coming to the rescue of African-Americans who become superfluous in narratives that are supposed to be about them." It's hard to deny that Precious the movie certainly focuses in much more detail on Clareece's grim, abusive ghetto existence. It plunges us into that world and rubs our noses in it. Precious is vivid. The Blind Side tells its story conventionally, taking few chances. But Precious is deeply flawed. It's melodramatic and lurid and omits any glimpse of positive aspects of Harlem life. But it's more memorable than The Blind Side.

I wonder if the real Michael Oher and his adoptive family would disagree strenuously about this movie -- and about his own story, for that matter. If his experiences turned him into a much celebrated pro footballer, how is an account of them "the most insidious kind of racism"? If the Touhy family made his success possible with their support, love, and money, are they not indeed "virtuous saviors"? What is the politically correct way of telling this story? Maybe sometimes life just isn't politically correct. John Lee Hancock has made a simplistic and rather bland movie. But though I haven't read the book, reports indicate the movie sticks close to it in essentials, and to the life.

The advantage of The Blind Side over Precious despite its risking charges of white condescension is that it provides a positive image of helping the disadvantaged in the face of peer disapproval. The Blind Side is about racism: the Tuohys face it from rednecks on the football field and from Leigh Anne's well-heeled lady friends, who chide her for including a giant black youth in the family's Christmas card photo. Or course this is nothing like the danger Michael faces when he returns to his mamma's neighborhood. A prominent black movie critic, Armond White, hates Precious. He calls it "the con job of the year," and says Daniels, Tyler Perry and Oprah Winfrey, the powerful black media magnates, "come together at some intersection of race exploitation and opportunism." Precious is exploitive. The crime of The Blind Side is that it shows white people helping a black person. However, Leigh Anne tells her bitchy luncheon pals that she's not helping Michael, he's helping her. But that too will be be debunked: the white lady is doing good so she'll feel good. The Touhys had a wonderful time helping Michael Oher become an athletic star: shame on them! In this kind of subject, you just can't do the right thing. The (predominantly white) audience likes The Blind Side just fine. The Blind Side is in three times as many theaters as Precious, and has made five times as much money.

There's some fine written summation in this commentary and good articulation of the basic issues arises from this movie, yet because of the layered naunces by the author using the written language, the ultimate message seems to have become unclear. The political correct or exploitative themes and the possible cynicism all combine to confuse the reader as to the actual point being made here. Perhaps it is contained in the last part of the post - and I interpret it to mean that one movie can't please everyone, yet there still seems to be an underlying theme that remains cautiously hidden and not boldly stated as the doiminate belief arising from this movie. Thus, it is really difficult to react to the main point being made.

[Chris Knipp]

tabuno
The political correct or exploitative themes and the possible cynicism all combine to confuse the reader as to the actual point being made here. Perhaps it is contained in the last part of the post - and I interpret it to mean that one movie can't please everyone, yet there still seems to be an underlying theme that remains cautiously hidden and not boldly stated as the doiminate belief arising from this movie.

CK
I'm sorry for not being clear. I agree my review is muddled. That's because I am in a quandary. I don't feel this is a great movie, yet in some respects I felt compelled to defend it. And yet, even after defending it, I'm not sure. I was not just making the obvious point that no movie will please everybody. I'm making more the point that some displeasure about this movie is not really justified.

I got so wound up in this issue that i devoted too little space to the characterizations, particularly of Leigh Ann Tuohy. She is extremely broadly drawn -- but, now that I think of it, no more so than most of the characters in Precious! It's in these details that a real evaluation of the movie as a movie can be made, but I barely go to that, because of the other issues.

I think you could argue that to some degree white liberal praise of Precious is as fallacious as white liberal condemnation of The Blind Side. Both judgments are external to the actual content of the two movies and are reactions to the plot lines rather than the details.

Whatever possessed you to "quote" the entire review, including the image? That seems completely pointless, particularly in a post directly following the review itself. We don't have unlimited storage capacity here.

[tabuno]

Technology apparently comes with a price, lazy-mindedness. I haven't used this updated site that much and when I saw a "Respond with Quotes" button, it was so appealing that I thought I'd just use it and be "done" with it. Apparently on reflection, I guess one can go through and edit down and delete the unnecessary language that is not pertinent to one's response. Now that I think about it, I have now gone in the opposite direction without "a quote" response of the original comments I'm responding to. No matter really, this time.

Anyway, I like the written response (not my own) and it is very clear, the broader topics and evaluative comments about "fallacious liberal condemnation." Looks like I got "possessed" and another person got "wound up."

[Chris Knipp]

It's a learning experience to use the new software. . . yeah, we have to edit down quotes, delete the inessentials, especially the image and titles. I'm glad if I made my comments clearer this time. I would do well to throw out that review and do another one, but my time may be better spent on other films.

[Chris Knipp]

The, to me at least, surprising listing of The Blind Side among the newly expanded ten Best Picture Oscar nominees makes it worth everybody who cares about the Academy Awards going out to see in the next few weeks (as well as Avatar, of course). And the comparison with Precious makes for discussion material.

[Johann]

I think Armond White nailed "PRECIOUS". (and I haven't even seen the movie!)

Once upon a time in the 90's my mother stopped watching Oprah Winfrey (which she watched religiously) and I asked her why.
She said she thought Oprah went overboard with her "black backlash"- that she saw a show when she had the Champion Chicago Bulls on and a member of the audience jokingly shouted "GO UTAH JAZZ!!" Oprah snapped her head to look at the audience and said "WHO SAID THAT???- Security! GET HIM OUT Of HERE!" Apparently Oprah went "all black" in the mid-90's because people were accusing her of being too white.

And my mother also feels Oprah's mentor Maya Angelou is a racist. She bought a book by her and she said it had the word "cracker" peppered through it. I don't know if THE BLIND SIDE is my kind of movie.
I have nothing to gain or learn from a film like that. But I'm sure it's fine wholesome fare.

[Chris Knipp]

Armond White is a useful corrective on black or white stereotypes, but I don't think one can simply dismiss Precious. I listen to White, but I don't trust him. To "nail" something is also not to do it full justice in the whole scheme of things. Precious deserves credit for carving a new tattoo on the collective American psyche, and for the performances. And White has no time for that. My feeling is that Oprah has long been beyond black or white. But she is a super-famous and super-rich black person, and her linking up with Tyler Perry to sponsor Precious is jumping on some kind of sensationalistic bandwagon. We are all racists; I'd have to see in what context Maya Angelou uses the word "cracker." Many black writers make understandably free use of racial epithets; they've had them used on them for generations, so they want to show how it feels. I don't go to see movies just because they're "my kind of movie," or i might stay at home a lot. But I don't know what "my kind of movie is." And many times when i see a good movie, I change that definition.

[Johann]

I haven't read the book by Angelou in question, so my Mom may be wrong. I don't know the context of how the word was used.
Oprah seems good at jumping on bandwagons involving her race. (Precious' release, Hurricane Katrina, etc.)
Precious is a movie that doesn't see the light of day too often (like Harmony Korrine's Gummo) and I'm glad it exists.
It's never a bad thing to see the kind of visceral REAL-LIFE situations that this movie has. Again I haven't seen it but I've seen the trailer and I'm aware of the story. And again, I don't want to see it because of that stupid add-on "Based on the novel". That's just plain dumb. If I want to know who wrote it I'll look it up!

I never read Armond White but he sounds intelligent. Do you not trust his "elite" mindset or just his reviews?
You can see any movie you wish, Chris. I cannot simply because of budget. So I have to limit myself to movies that are "My Kind", and I'm quite good at seeing those. I thought Gilliam's Imaginarium would enthrall me- it did very fleetingly.

[Chris Knipp]

Armond White is deeply knowledgeable about film, passionate, wildly opinionated. Sometimes he is just plain nutty and wrong. Other times he sees through stuff. I like to consult his reviews, especially when I'm in NYC when I can pick up New York Press and see them, but I take his evaluations with a grain of salt. It's not a question of not trusting his mindset vs. his reviews. He can be counted on to take the opposite view of everybody else. He is black. And he's angry. He tends to love classic French filmmakers; he's no reverse snob.

I get what you mean; if one can't go to movies a lot one has to be highly selective and will be disappointed when the choice isn't as good as one thought.

[Howard Schumann]

THE BLIND SIDE

Directed by John Lee Hancock, U.S., (2009), 129 minutes

In the fact-based film The Blind Side, a burly homeless black teenager Michael Oher (Quinton Aaron) is taken in by the family of Leigh Anne Tuohy (Sandra Bullock), a spunky white Christian mother of two and assisted through school until he achieves success as a football player in high school and college, eventually being drafted in the first round by the professional Baltimore Ravens. The film, written and directed by John Lee Hancock and adapted from a book by Michael Lewis, is undemanding entertainment that lacks a great deal of subtlety but is continuously entertaining and emotionally involving and redefines the true meaning of family values.

Michael who is known initially as “Big Mike” has been abandoned by his drug-addicted mother and survives in the slums of Memphis, Tennessee only by his wits. He sleeps where he can find a warm place -- a friend's couch, a Laundromat, a school gym -- when a family friend intervenes and helps him enroll in a private Christian high school. Sensing the boys’ potential, football coach Cotton (Ray McKinnon) convinces the administrators of the school to admit him although he knows that he will not be eligible to play football unless he can keep up his grades. Seeing Michael alone wandering the streets, he is given a lift and taken home and made a member of the family by Leigh Anne, an interior designer who lives with her husband Sean (Tim McGraw), teenage daughter Collins (Lily Collins), and SJ (Jae Head) an expressive little boy who provides most of the film’s comic moments.

Living with the Tuohy family allows Michael to learn to trust and to begin to express some of his feelings from a life of poverty and neglect. Michael who is so big that Leigh Anne can hardly find any clothes to buy for him is also gentle and lacks the killer instinct required of a football tackle. Tutored by the adorable SJ and counseled by Leigh Anne to view the team as a family he has to protect, Michael begins to develop his aggressiveness as a left tackle and develops his skills, eventually turning the team into winners. To raise his grades to be eligible for a college scholarship, the Tuohys hire Miss Sue, remarkably performed by Kathy Bates, who admits to the Republican family that she is a Democrat, prompting Sean to remark that he “never thought they would have a black son before they met a Democrat.” Besides his grades, however, Michael must overcome several more obstacles that stand in his way before he can enter college.

The Blind Side shows Michael Oher achieving a transformation in his life based on his relationship with the family who took him and nurtured him to independence and self-respect. Sandra Bullock delivers an emotionally resonant performance as a woman whose life is enriched by her simple act of kindness and courage to act from her values. While the film breaks no new ground stylistically, it also resists genre clichés, has no movie villains, avoids cheap sentiment, and, in spite of patronizing images in its trailers and advertising posters, is a humorous, heartwarming, and satisfying experience. Ultimately, The Blind Side is not a film about sports but about the rewards of showing love and support when it is not always accepted or understood by the community.

GRADE: B+

[Chris Knipp]

I think we generally agree. This is not a subtle or penetrating film but the story it tells is substantially true, however it may look like a feel-good fantasy. The disturbing thing that has happened to Michael Oher when the action is beginning is that he has learned his father has been murdered. I don't know if technically it's right or not to say he was "abandoned by his mother," though some do. She was a crack cocaine addict and he was in various foster homes and also sometimes on the street or couch surfing. I'm not sure he was actually homeless at the time when Leigh Anne took him home. That scene is an invention of the film and not recounted in the standard bio of Oher. The being "Tutored by the adorable SJ" is also perhaps a fiction of the movie, and I don't find him so "adorable" so much as merely "pint-sized and hyperactive," and I find that aspect of the story as depicted in the film, as well as Big Mike's extreme recessiveness, somewhat dubious. However there is no doubt that Leigh Anne is a force of nature and a key factor in Oher's academic and athletic transformation leading to his being a player for the Baltimore Ravens. One can appreciate the positive aspects of the story and the film, but one can't I feel endorse every aspect of it. I'm sure you'd agree.

[Howard Schumann]

You make some excellent points, some of which I was unaware. I know the film is given the standard Hollywood treatment but I enjoyed it for its fine performances and good message, though I'm sure it won't make my ten best list. Anyway, thanks for commenting. it is always good to hear from you.

[Chris Knipp]

You're welcome. Likewise.