The Blind Side

As I write this, it is both the day before the Super Bowl and the day of the biggest blizzard in recent years. The snow is so deep here you can barely see the cars.

Since I have one Best Picture Nominee left to watch, before the snow set in, I finally went to watch “The Blind Side”. It’s a good thing I didn’t go outside to shovel snow today, because I’m still tired from shoveling the two hours of bullshit in this film.

“The Blind Side” is the true story of Michael Oher, an African American boy taken in by a wealthy white family led by Leigh Ann Tuohy (Sandra Bullock, in a not-even-Oscar-stratosphere performance). Leigh Ann is a “cracker jack”, which basically means that she gets away in the Film World with things that would NEVER happen in the Real World. Think Julia Roberts’ Erin Brockavich character with a southern accent and more expensive clothes.

Leigh Ann takes on all comers, from calling Michael’s high school coach during a game, to a verbal alternation with a drunken fan during a game and even sparring with some drug dealers. All cower in her wake – due to her fierce stare? That’s about all she’s got – except for the aforementioned nice clothes.

This film is based on a book. It’s obvious to me (and to Michael Oher, given some of his recent comments), that there was MAJOR dramatic license taken with the material. Case in point, Leigh Ann’s husband is played by Tim McGraw. But pictures of the “real” family show Sean roughly fifty pounds heavier. And box office defeats realism! Also, allegedly Michael knows nothing about the game of football as he goes to stay with the Tuohys – the same game he actually started playing at age eight.

The film is loaded with clichéd, stilted, we-are-not-racist dialogue, such as “You changed his life”. Beat. Wait for it… “No, he changed mine”. There’s also racism apparent during the football game, when the redneck officials flag Michael’s coach after Michael’s opponent kicks him in the head. There’s racism in the south? Say it ain’t so, hoss.

I’m not even really sure whose story this is supposed to be – his or hers. According to the press that this film has been given (and Bullock’s own Golden Globe Acceptance speech), it’s hers. But last time I checked it was more about him. Or maybe I’m wrong.

If the Academy hadn’t expanded to 10 films, this film would NEVER have gotten the BP Nod. Everyone agrees with this – and everyone is right. If the argument is that the Academy wants more films that people actually saw, then why not include “Transformers 2”? It seemed about as realistic as this did.

Do I admire what Leigh Ann did by taking in a troubled youngster? Of course – it’s an admirable thing to do. But what I don’t get is why Hollywood needs to make oxymoronically fictionalize the truth.

Or maybe that’s exactly the way it all happened, even if one of the protagonists of the film disagrees. But then again, he’s not really THAT important. Is he?