Sports films are the kind of films that, no matter how cliche or familiar it is, people just simply fall in love with them. It's a rather simple formula: follow the life of an underdog, who is continually hounded by his peers, give him a sage and determination, then sit back and watch people get choked up as the underdog becomes the catalyst for a team's run to a championship. It's a tried and true formula that delivers an overdose of sentimentality. Said sentimentality is doubled when you base it around a 'true story'. So, it should come as no surprise that "The Blind Side" has formulaic moments and is heavy in sentimentality. Yet, it's this aspect of the film that I never really minded. Yes, the film does tell a 'true story' of football player Michael Oher who worked his way from poverty to NFL rookie stud with the help of a rich family, more specifically the Tuohy family. Without a doubt the life and times of Michael Oher is inspirational, as is the generosity shown by the Tuohy family, but the problem with "The Blindside" is that it can't strike a balance between both. Instead, it seems like Michael's story is merely a vehicle for the Tuohy's, rather than being the other way around.
This is an issue because we never fully come to know Michael's story and obviously his is the most interesting side to hear. Never do we see his difficulty growing up, never do we see how he adapts to his new lifestyle, and most of all we don't get a chance to see all of his accomplishments build up to a tremendous achievement: becoming an NFL player. Instead we get an over the top dose of charity from the Tuohy family.I must reiterate, the Tuohy family is gracious, but the film never seems to peg any kind of motivation for the family and their adoption of Oher. It just happens because they feel it's right. Or so the movie dictates. Director John Lee Hancock doesn't seem too interested in the voice of Oher, nor the motivations and inclinations of the Tuohy family. Instead he is far more focused on creating a glossy and smooth film that seemingly has no conflicts. No real perspective on the rich suburbs and the ghettos that encompass the Memphis landscape. No perspective on Michael's transition from being homeless to living in the house of a white family who, for whatever reason, are spending dime after dime on him. It's almost as if Hancock and his screenwriter were too afraid to disrupt the status quo; too afraid to instill some kind of cynicism in their work. It's through this lack of gull that Hancock loses Michael's perspective and from this comes a stilted interest in the Tuohy's charity which is an interest that is just blindly accepted.
So, the film floats easily along a constant breeze with no disruptions what so ever. Certainly there is a place in film for lightheartedness, but when the film seems to roll over Michael's entire life and struggle, it just feels manipulative and dishonest. Now, for as much as I have hated on the film, there are aspects that I enjoyed. The most obvious one being Sandra Bullock's performance as the matriarch of the Tuohy family, the charismatic and strong minded Lee Ann Tuohy. Bullock's performance is often the buoy of the film's drama, as she delivers some of the film's most compassionate and endearing scenes. In addition to Bullock's performance, the film at one point veered off its good natured path and attempted to tie in the assumption that the Tuohy family was acting as boosters for Michael as a means to get him to play football at their alma mater Ole Miss. This added a small (at least in the eye of the film), yet effective conflict that added some depth between Oher and his surrogate family. The problem was obviously resolved through a movie-esque speech and treated as a footnote, but it still added a level of cynicism that the film needed to counter act its sweet disposition.
But, as alluded to, such moments are passed over in favor of plot devices that are far more heartwarming and trite. Is Michael's story inspirational? Yes, but it comes at the posterization of the Tuohy family, whose charity has more clout than Michael's underdog story. And because Hancock and company are more interested in creating a safe and accessible story, the danger and peril Michael faced are contrived and treated with very little significance. My guess is that if you want to hear Michael Oher's story, it would be far more palpable and dramatic if heard from his lips or the literary source from which "The Blind Side" is based off of. At least this way we get Michael's voice and not a sugar coated perspective that only allows Michael's story to breathe for a few moments through a surrogate.
No comments:
Post a Comment