2010 Oscars

[u2roolz]

Ok. I was a bit shocked & perplexed to see bleedorange's response to my 3 previous posts which I thought were pretty easy to follow.

I studied film and watch films and of course I know that adaptations are never exactly like the book and books are never exactly like the real people's lives and stories.

Anyone knows that. Once again that's not my main gripe with this film.

 

Maybe a better way to start this criticism of The Blind Side is to take you through my journey through my eyes.

 

I saw The Blind Side about a month after its' release. I enjoyed it and was touched by its' story. I really enjoyed the can do spirit and the idea to change and help one person out of the pit into the greener grass. I wondered what was different about it and finally about a month later I read a breakdown in my Entertainment Weekly and saw Michael Oher on 60 Minutes.

 

Let's just say that it all kind of left a bad taste in my mouth. I had felt manipulated and even worst they lied about its' main characters' traits to sell this as something somewhat different. To see how Michael is portrayed in the film as a quiet man, you can see and feel the depression in how his life is. But to pair this with his inability to not know football at all makes him seem like a bit of a fool. An innocent giant man child, if you will. But when you realize that this was changed, you kind of feel completely manipulated as a viewer because these training scenes take up a good portion of the middle of the film and as I stated earlier show Leigh Anne's relationship to Michael. Now knowing this about Michael, you can easily see how the producers of the film wanted to show Michael as a "helpless" human being who also happens to be black. And as I also stated earlier, this is where a lot of Bullock's most memorable scenes come into play and revolve around. Taking down the real Michael Oher to make Bullock look like his "savior".

 

By doing this all of the focus seemingly shifts to Bullock and lets Oher take a backseat to the story even though the film is about him, but because they made these changes it lets Bullock take rein of the film.

 

What does this say about our society to be so freely open to change a character's (of color no less) knowledge about a particular sport to serve a story that is supposed to bring in money?

[u2roolz]

 

EDIT: Any great performance owes a large debt of gratitude to the screenplay. So saying her performance is marred by the screenplay that was tailored towards her character rings pretty shallow. All great lead roles come from screenwriters that have written juicy roles for them. Her performance should simply be judged by her performance. Any other issues regarding the adaptation are separate and have nothing to do with it.

 

True in most cases.

But when you deal with race issues and how they changed this particular story around, you tread a fine line of receiving praise while simultaneously receiving harsh criticism.

 

Edit: To add for clarification: I enjoyed Bullock's performance as I watched it. But when I found out about the story my thoughts changed on that. But yes within the film she is great.

[bjorn_skurj]

 

What does this say about our society to be so freely open to change a character's (of color no less) knowledge about a particular sport to serve a story that is supposed to bring in money?

That money talks and all other considerations are secondary. (If I was that guy, I would be pissed off too. Did he get paid much as a result of this?)

[u2roolz]

That money talks and all other considerations are secondary. (If I was that guy, I would be pissed off too. Did he get paid much as a result of this?)

 

I'm not 100% sure. I would assume that he got some money for telling his story to the writer on which the novel was written about his life.

I'm sure the writer got some money when the novel was optioned. I don't know how much of that Oher actually ended up seeing.

[bjorn_skurj]

I'm not 100% sure. I would assume that he got some money for telling his story to the writer on which the novel was written about his life.

I'm sure the writer got some money when the novel was optioned. I don't know how much of that Oher actually ended up seeing.

Man. Under those circumstances, probably not much, I am guessing.

[bleedorange]

Ok. I was a bit shocked & perplexed to see bleedorange's response to my 3 previous posts which I thought were pretty easy to follow.

I studied film and watch films and of course I know that adaptations are never exactly like the book and books are never exactly like the real people's lives and stories.

Anyone knows that. Once again that's not my main gripe with this film.

 

Since I'm merely a rube, let me stress that I understand your points about the film and the adaptation and the book, etc. As far as true stories on film go, I've never understood why facts or situations are changed in the cases where there is no need. Michael Oher's and the Tuohy's story is certainly one worth telling and one that doesn't need any embellishments.

 

I can't comment on any racist overtones in the film since I haven't seen it, but I do know that Precious faced its fair share of racism claims, too.

 

But, while I see the points you are making, I just happen to disagree with you and how it applies to the judgment of a film. Is Birth of a Nation a great and groundbreaking film? Of course. Is it tragic and despicable in its portrayal of African-Americans? Of course. Both those judgments can coexist.

[u2roolz]

Since I'm merely a rube, let me stress that I understand your points about the film and the adaptation and the book, etc. As far as true stories on film go, I've never understood why facts or situations are changed in the cases where there is no need. Michael Oher's and the Tuohy's story is certainly one worth telling and one that doesn't need any embellishments.

 

I can't comment on any racist overtones in the film since I haven't seen it, but I do know that Precious faced its fair share of racism claims, too.

 

But, while I see the points you are making, I just happen to disagree with you and how it applies to the judgment of a film. Is Birth of a Nation a great and groundbreaking film? Of course. Is it tragic and despicable in its portrayal of African-Americans? Of course. Both those judgments can coexist.

 

Yes, but my main gripe lies with trying to go back and watch this film again with a blank slate which would be terribly difficult to do.

Unless, if someone has one of the devices from Men In Black.

Now that I know this about the novel, I find it hard to separate one from the other.

In my mind, that's kind of lying to myself if I try to watch this with an open mind and forget about what I read.

 

I hope that you don't think I take you for a rube. That wasn't my plan. Unless, if you're admitting to being one. But no, I was here to criticize the film and not attack you.

 

And the Birth Of A Nation example: You really answered your own question. Everything is subjective. I'm not denying that. To use my quote from Boston Globe film critic Wesley Morris ""Enjoying the Blind Side depends on how "blind" the viewer wants to be."

[Guest Runaway Jim]

I haven't seen The Blind Side, but from the clips I've seen, I think Sandra Bullock's performance looks awful.

[Atticus]

I was thoroughly disappointed by The Blind Side, but I seem once again to be in the minority.

[Winston Legthigh]

I recall that A Beautiful Mind received similar criticism - changing the "real" story to make it more appealing. (Actually the criticism, IIRC, was about cleaning up, or neglecting to portray, more sordid details about the main character's life).

 

Meh, I don't really geev sheet. If a movie isn't selling itself as a documentary, then I don't hold it to historical accuracy standards. Any movie with the "based on a true story" disclaimer means just that. It's fiction, based on real events. Sometimes the story follows the REAL story very closely. Sometimes major details are changed for dramatic effect. Either way I'm not going to watch a Sandra Bullock movie unless I'm in the doghouse and I need to negotiate TV time to watch hockey later.

[cryptique]

Tarantino certainly didn't care about accuracy in Inglourious Basterds.

 

Didn't keep me from loving it.

[bobbob1313]

I've read the original book, it's one of my favorite books (gets right into my nerdy sports wheelhouse).

 

Michael Oher did not really know how to play football when he got to the school. He had played before, but he had actually played basketball more. He wanted to be Michael Jordan. I'm not sure how the film portrays it, but he was not a blocking machine when she found him. He was a really raw player who dominated high school players because of his sheer size and natural quickness and strength.

 

He was only a 4 star recruit coming out of high school because he was so raw at LT. He played more defensive tackle as a junior, I believe.

[The Inside of Outside]

Either way I'm not going to watch a Sandra Bullock movie unless I'm in the doghouse and I need to negotiate TV time to watch hockey later.

 

Best line of the day!

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

I've read the original book, it's one of my favorite books (gets right into my nerdy sports wheelhouse).

 

Michael Oher did not really know how to play football when he got to the school. He had played before, but he had actually played basketball more. He wanted to be Michael Jordan. I'm not sure how the film portrays it, but he was not a blocking machine when she found him. He was a really raw player who dominated high school players because of his sheer size and natural quickness and strength.

 

He was only a 4 star recruit coming out of high school because he was so raw at LT. He played more defensive tackle as a junior, I believe.

 

Glad you posted this dude. It seems to be really popular is certain circles to portray this story is a negative light. The Touhy's were wealthy and Mike Oher wasn't an obvious future NFL star.

The movie crated some scenes for dramatic effect...the nature of movies (I'm surprised nobody brought up the contrived scene of Leeann confronting the drug dealer).

[u2roolz]

[Sir Stewart]

http://www.collegehumor.com/article:1802286