So this is my take on the movie...some of my gut reactions, unfiltered, if you will:
1. It was way too Hollywoodized and things were kept a little too scriptish to feel raw and real. There were so many moments where I wanted to know if that really happened or if it was just scripted. I just kept going back and forth between believing it and questioning it.
2. I was surprised they kept some of the more obvious racist and racial concerns in the script. That made it a little more realistic, but they tried to play down the racial tension and racial stereotypes at the same time. For example, the first night Michael stays with the Tuohy family, Mrs. Tuohy (Sandra Bullock) says something to her husband about whether or not he thinks Michael is going to steal anything from them. That scene closes with Mr. Tuohy saying, "We'll see in the morning," as though he doesn't want to really be concerned with it, but at the same time he acknowledges that the possibility is there. Now, in one way, it was accurate and honest to keep this conversation in the movie script, but it just underscores how people can act one way to someone's face so as not to appear racist, and then have doubts behind closed doors. (They just assumed that because he was African American, he would steal from them? Come on!!)
3. The one thing I did appreciate about this movie was that the Tuohy family actually ASKED Michael if he wanted to be adopted and if he wanted to be part of the family. I, myself, was curious how that topic came up in the movie and why the Tuohy family would adopt Michael on the brink of adulthood. I guess I appreciated that scene because adoptees rarely, if ever, get asked that question. Adoption is usually a one way street only; most adoptees are just adopted. End of story. I was glad to witness in this movie that the adoptee had a say in the whole process--that was refreshing and quite surprising, even though the scene itself was cheesy.
4. Personally, I don't think they got gritty enough in this movie--it was Hollywoodized to attract and audience, let's face it. And, what I mean by that is that I don't think enough was portrayed from Michael's point of view. Sandra Bullock was the headline actress in this movie--she was the golden goose that Hollywood wanted to attract ticket buyers. I have nothing against Sandra Bullock (I actually like her), but I think it would have been more gripping to have another, lesser known, even perhaps, an unknown actress, play Mrs. Tuohy. But then, who are we kidding? It is a movie and Hollywood wanted to sell tickets. That being said, I think the young man, Quinton Aaron, did a superb job at playing Michael Oher (not that I know Michael Oher), but he portrayed him as a "gentle giant" (I hate that phrase) or as Sandra Bullock called him, "Ferdinand the bull." I think what was disappointing for me was that we didn't get to see as much of what Michael was going through internally, except through quick flashbacks for dramatic effect. What Quinton Aaron brought to the screen was a lovable, endearing soul that audience members could take pity on, while at the same time admiring his resilient spirit. Let's get back to the "Ferdinand the bull" reference. Mrs. Tuohy uses that as her ultimate metaphor for Michael. She likens him to that black bull who does not want to fight, but would rather look at the flowers in the field. Now, I don't know if this was intentional, subconscious, coincidental or not coincidental, but I found it particularly interesting that this parallel was drawn between a black bull and Michael Oher. Was it done to point out how racially type cast people can be? Or, was it used to show that there should be no such thing as stereotypes and we should not judge based on appearance, category of animal or in this case, someone's race, ethnicity and size. What is remarkable in this film is that Michael Oher wasn't initially good at playing football (which I didn't know) like the coach and the administrators assumed he would be based on his tremendous size. He wasn't inherently aggressive on the field like the coach imagined that he would be. Instead of approaching football with aggression, Michael Oher was taught to play defense by virtue of protecting his team as he would protect his family. After Michael sees football as a means of protecting, instead of attacking, he plays successfully. This is a very good example of how there are multiple ways of seeing or doing something to achieve the same goal. Moreover, this is also something that subtly reminds the viewers that not everyone learns the same way and we, as a society, have to remember not to harness one cultural bias for teaching and learning.
5. I do feel that Sandra Bullock did a much better job acting than I thought she would have done and this might be one of her best performances yet. She played the rich, Republican wife perfectly! She was a bit two-faced. She kept one face to her family, her friends and to Michael Oher and one to herself. It was as though she wanted to appear fearless and in control, but she was also subject to her own personal racist beliefs; she was struggling to overcome them and pretend they didn't exist, so she could do her Christian duty and help someone she thought was in need. This is exemplified when she is at lunch with her friends, and her friends imply that it is dangerous and worrisome to have a "black boy" living under the same roof as her white daughter (do I hear an allusion to Richard Wright's Native Son here?). Mrs. Tuohy shames them for saying that, but then the next scene cuts to her asking her daughter if she feels safe and okay with having Michael living there with them. I guess in some ways this movie could arguably be more about Mrs. Tuohy's journey and transformation. She was quite exposed in the sense that the audience got to see how sheltered and limited her worldview was before she met Michael. She had obviously never met anyone before who never had his own bed, let alone someone who carried around one change of clothes in a plastic grocery bag. Mrs. Tuohy openly admitted that in all the years that she lived there in Memphis, she never went to "that" side of town, where Michael used to live.
6. Let's get back to some embedded racist remarks that go seemingly unnoticed by the majority of audience members. One particularly disturbing scene was the when Michael Oher gets a new car after he gets his drivers' license. What kind of car did he get? A big, black truck. Now, on the surface, this scene seems harmless enough. It appears to be a rite of passage moment in the movie. It appears to showcase the generosity of the Tuohy's. Then everything goes downhill, in my opinion, when the daughter asks, "He wanted a truck?" and Mr. Tuohy replies, "Michael thinks he's a redneck." I'm sure to most audience members this line was considered funny. If I were a betting person, I'd bet that most audience members laughed at this point. I would also bet that the script writers wrote this intending it to be a funny moment in the movie. Now what is wrong with this statement? Why does it go so unnoticed? Well, it undermines Michael in every way to say something like that. In no way, shape or form, does he think he's a redneck. He is reminded every day of his life that he is not white, simply through the way he is seen and treated by other people. Just because he wanted a truck does not make him a redneck (I hate that term), nor does it or should it imply that he thinks of himself as one. It's almost as though the Tuohy family expected him to want another type of car, something more stereotypical of his demographic. This scene just did not sit well with me at all, mostly because I'm sure it sat fine with most of the audience! I bet no one was thinking there was anything wrong with what Mr. Tuohy said. Even if it was a joke for a joke's sake, it's the fact that something like that could be viewed as funny that bothers me. Why should someone's taste or preference for something be tied to ethnicity or race?
7. What did seeing this movie do for me? It made me want to read more about Michael Oher's real life. I don't want Hollywood's watered down version with cheesy lines and icing on top. I guess I should explain why this movie initially made me sick to my stomach. It just seemed so cliched in the previews. It seemed like another one of those movies where some "poor" African American was "saved" by a generous Caucasian family. The only reason this story was made into a movie was because Michael Oher is a successful professional athlete. Now, if he had become something else, some profession with less national attention, I doubt this would have hit the box offices and I know Sandra Bullock would not signed on to play the mother.
One thing that I found interesting is that if you Google this movie, all the tweets from twitter scroll on the screen in real time. Most people tweet about how they love this movie and it's so great, etc. It has been a tear jerker for many people. I don't think most people see past the Hollywoodization of this movie--they don't know why this movie makes them cry--which is why I decided to write about it. There were some things that I did appreciate about this movie, but there were also some issues this movie that I felt deserved a more critical lense. I don't want to give a generic "thumbs up" or "thumbs down," because it is not that kind of movie. It is a mixed bag. This movie is what it is (forgive the cliche) and I just hope people won't view it blindly, but rather analyze the implications of this movie and the implications of the reactions to this movie.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.