The easy Christianity of ‘The Blind Side’

It verges on blasphemy to question “The Blind Side.”

Not only has the movie garnered Oscar nominations for Best Picture and Best Actress, it has also made an unexpected $241 million - and counting. What’s more, the picture has been wholeheartedly embraced by scores of American churchgoers. Sermons are even being fashioned around it.

I thought the film was a crock. Yes, I realize it is based on a true story, that of Leigh Anne and Sean Tuohy, a wealthy, white Christian couple in Memphis, Tenn., who took in a homeless black teen named Michael Oher and nurtured him to an eventual career in the National Football League. Good for all three of them – they should be proud of taking huge risks and defeating overwhelming odds. I only wish “The Blind Side” had given us an honest sense of their sacrifice and struggle.

As presented in the film, the Tuohys essentially adopt a pet. Oher, played by Quinton Aaron, comes into their lives without much trouble or disruption – indeed, you get the sense that training a new puppy would present more difficulty. The lack of character given to Oher - he gets maybe a dozen lines - is insulting. (It may also be one reason the real-life Oher has been noticeably absent from the studio’s publicity machine).

Nearly everything in “The Blind Side” is incredibly easy. Issues of assimilation, racial identity and prejudice are glossed over, quickly dismissed or ignored altogether. What I can only imagine were huge hurdles for the Tuohy family are often tidily handled.

Take, for instance, the fact that the Tuohys have a teen daughter who is slightly younger than Michael. When Leigh Anne (Oscar nominee Sandra Bullock) asks her daughter, Collins, if she is uncomfortable having Michael in the house, the girl replies that all the people making jokes at school are being stupid. Cut to her friends snickering in the school library when Michael walks in and Collins leaving them to join Michael at his table. Problem solved, or avoided?

“The Blind Side” offers every single heroic moment that may have taken place in this true story, but not the times of real doubt and struggle that surely came before. It is the opposite approach of that taken by the similarly themed “Precious,” a fellow Best Picture nominee. That rough, graphic and notably less financially successful movie – about an obese, illiterate 16-year-old girl trapped in an abusive home - is all struggle, with a minimally happy ending.

Ultimately, “The Blind Side” presents a misleading portrait of Christianity as a religion free of trials and tribulations. According to the picture, being a Christian means having a lot of money, wearing a cross around your neck and plucking an impoverished kid from the projects on your way home from lunch with your society friends. But is living a faithful life this sunny, this simplistic?

Obviously I’m in the minority on this one. Did “The Blind Side” rub anyone else the wrong way? Those of you who loved the movie, what am I missing?

Login to comment

IMPORTANT Did you have an account on the old ThinkChristian.net site? Click here transition your account. This will sync all your comments with your email address.

Comments (20)

I would completely agree with this, if it was a fictional story. Seems contrived. Seems like something a junior higher with limited life experience and safe suburban church knowledge only would write. However, the fact that it was based on a true story and that the characters are alive to protest if any gross misrepresentations were made gives credibility to it. Perhaps the movie did so well because its rare and surprising to us. Audiences have had enough with "bad news only" and movies where even the bad guys are given reasons for their actions while the good guys are always a bit more evil at heart. I am not suggesting that this family did not have struggles. I am not sure why we NEED to make sure we cover all of that in every instance rather than simply show the good for once.
No, I liked it quite a bit. Sacrifice is hard, but doesn't have to be Pauline or Jobian in scope :)

The only thing that it seemed to portray that was somewhat "iffy" was the appeasement of white guilt (much like critiques of Avatar). However, when you think about the way our society has been structured, it makes sense that the rich people who need to sacrifice are white, and the people who benefit are of another ethnicity.

What about Ms. Touey's conversation at the table with her friends concerning Michael and her daughter? Being in "high society" and sticking up for the little (big) guy, putting yourself under fire AND paying for their meal on top of it was a great moment in the movie. It would be one thing to deny Michael's existence, another thing to allow them to stir up fear about her daughter's safety, yet another to storm out after she erupted, but it was altogether something else for her to call them out and then pay for their meal - shaming them in the way that Jesus asks of us when He speaks of "going the extra mile".

That and it's a true story, so it's hard to take issue with history.
Can't say I loved it and I feel you're dead-on with your take here. I guess going in, I wasn't really expected an honest portrayal of all that transpired or even the struggles that they no doubt endured. As you stated, any conflict that arose was so quickly resolved. It all felt too easy. Sure, it's inspiring and at times, emotional and Bullock does give one of her best performances but if the filmmakers wanted us to be inspired by this true story, then they could have given us more reality. Instead we're giving swelling music, a by-the-numbers script, along with feel-good montages. It's forced saccharine cinema. The only reason it is nominated for Best Picture is because of it's fan following.
i think you have a lot of good points!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I see your point, but I disagree... they made the movie fit in a reasonable time period. They showed the struggles with the time alloted to by the normal audience with short attention spans. They were sure to show the dissaproval of the mom's lunch buddies and daughter's friends. The ultimate point was that they lost a lot of worthless relationships in favor of a son. Maybe it really WASN'T that difficult of a decision on light of what they gained. Sometimes, God opens your eyes so clearly that there are no questions, and no struggles. Who knows the true story. I thought the movie was pretty good.
Interesting perspective, Josh. My knock against using this as a basis for sermon-eering, is that faith never really showed up. And maybe that's my way of agreeing with you. There were token problems, but they all ended up being pretty trivial, and all of them solved (or as you pointed out, avoided) on a human level.

To answer your last question, I think what you're missing is an addict's craving for stultifyingly simplistic romanticism. If you had that, you'd be hooked. :-)
Trust me, the very premis of the movie rubbed me the wrong way. So much so that I spent about an hour arguing about it with my family, and then another hour crying about it afterward. It's an extremely racist, or at best prejudiced, mentality that is presented (AND ENCOURAGED!!!) in that movie. It is obvious that white people really want a pat on the back instead of getting down on their knees and repenting (if you'll pardon me for waxing spiritual). Everything about that movie is confirmation about how extremely racist the majority of Americans are. I find it revolting.
I think it's interesting the way everyone is talking about the family's struggles... and how noble the family was. If everything went so smoothly then it is only a testement to both sides that they were able to form an alliance and work together toward a better future. (If there truly was, in this case, a so called "better future" to be gained). It just proves that this is a feel good movie for white people (most of whom have done absolutely NOTHING against the racial inequalities that RUN RAMPENT in our society).
You're right, and this isn't something I had initially given too much thought when I saw it.
I actually preached on this before it was a movie, the week before last year's draft, when I read a great article about Michael Oher, but once he was outspoken about not liking his portrayal in the movie (a comment that got buried quickly) I chose not to see it, basically because I assumed exactly what you said. I still think it's a good story, but still dont know if I'll watch it, even on DVD. Thanks for the post.

See the latest in:

Promotion

promo 1 promo 2
promo 3 promo 4

Donate Now