Surprise! (Just kidding, I suspect many of you saw this one coming). In adhering to the compliment sandwich for, well, criticism, I’ll begin by telling you what I like about the movie. Sandra Bullock appears as charming and likeable as I hear she is off screen. She clearly elevates the movie and nails her role. Further, I was impressed with the supporting cast. There weren’t any truly moving performances, but all the actors were convincing and played their parts well. I was impressed with Jae Head (S.J. in the film). I thought he showed good timing, sharpness, and presence that most child actors struggle with. More than anything, though, the best compliment I can give The Blind Side is that it delivers on the premise it promises. It is exactly what it claims to be: a warm, heartfelt, family movie about redemption, triumph, and family. The problem is, it’s not what the Academy nominated it to be: a best picture caliber movie.
I could speculate and throw out unfounded theories all day about why I think The Blind Side was nominated, but I’ll spare you the headache and just tell you why I don’t think it’s on that level. First, the story doesn’t challenge me at all. What makes it so easy to watch and great for the family is that you know the entire story when you see the trailer (or, in my case, watched the 2009 NFL Draft- yup, they covered the whole thing). It shies away from anything unpleasant or any of the grittiness of the story: Michael’s background in the projects, his relationship with his mother, etc. I’m sure these elements occurred in the true story (which is amazing and inspiring) and would have made the movie sizzle with more conflict (much like Precious). Rather, the filmmakers went the Disney route.
Secondly, it doesn’t have the best picture “style”. This is hard to specify, but you can tell when you see it. Some examples I see where it lacks the style are: the football stock footage and voice-over which explain the title before the movie even really starts, the parade of groveling real life college football coaches (coaches aren’t Oscar worthy actors and I see Lou Holtz drooling enough on the set of ESPN during football season), and the fudging of reality in a story based in reality (Sorry, I don’t buy a mother getting away with stopping practice to lecture her son. I especially don’t buy the fact that her lecture about protecting his family transforms him from a bumbling backup to a technically sound, blue chip recruit. That’s just one example.)
Finally, the story isn’t crafted and executed THAT well. It’s a good story overall, but it suffers from a crisis of identity. By this, I mean: whose story is it? Who is the main character taking us through this journey? The obvious first choice is Michael Oher. He has the furthest to go and is in the most need of change, so he sets up to be an interesting main character. However, his timidity makes him very passive. He’s a tag along in the film. He goes with the flow. The first major decision he has to make is made for him. He doesn’t want to spend that first night at the Tuohy residence; Leigh Anne tells him to and this proves to be the rule, not the example to it. He does not drive the story forward at all and, therefore, is not the story’s hero (unlike a similar character who DOES drive the story forward in another Best Picture nominee that may have been mentioned earlier…)
Anyway, The Blind Side was NOT Michael Oher’s story and it’s a shame because his story is the most interesting one. Rather, it is Leigh Anne Tuohy’s story, which has potential, but there was a lot of meat left on that bone. To put it shortly, Leigh Anne is too perfect and everything goes too smoothly for her. There’s no struggle and her character is flat- meaning she does not change or evolve throughout the film. Where’s the fun in that? Part of what makes a great story is the struggle of the main character- her ups and downs and how she must adapt to her unforeseen circumstances so as to persevere and not crumble. At the heart of change is conflict and without conflict, there is no story. Sadly, I think a lot of the conflict and change that exists in the true story was absent in the film.
Now, it’s time for the other piece of bread in the compliment sandwich. This may seem like a very meaty sandwich, but keep in mind I’m judging this film on the best picture level, which I think is unfair. Further, if the only good movies were best picture quality, we’d only get a handful a year (if that) and Hollywood probably would have gone out of business decades ago. Like I said in the beginning, this is a good movie for what it is. When you watch it, you can’t help but get a goofy smile on your face and feel all warm and fuzzy inside at times. It’s extremely easy to watch and the characters come across as genuine, good people- a refreshing lark into the metaphorical world of white-picket fences and smiling neighbors. The Blind Side provides this type of reprieve and if you like that type of movie, this film’s for you! If that’s not your preference, I think there are plenty of films out there that'd you prefer more, but I can pretty safely guarantee it’s not the worst way to spend two hours. (You could have spent it listening to Tim McGraw “Over and over again…”)
Scale:
1- Lots of Better Movies at Blockbuster
2- Might Be Worth Renting
3- Rent It When You Get to It
4- A Must Rent, at some point
Nice review...I agree with your point about Disneyifying the movie instead of presenting the real story. How bout the little detail that Oher was always a stud in football, which provides legitimacy to the NCAAs investigation into Michael...why did they change an incredible story?
ReplyDelete