Discussing
The Easy Christianity of The Blind Side

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.

This was thought provoking, and I'll probably check the book out from the library because of it. Watching the movie, I assumed time constraints prevented getting into those struggles too much. I did some googling to see if there was any more about it online and it turns out they apparently did take a lot of heat from their social circle. The movie glossed over it but Touhy said,

"We got nasty letters and nasty phone calls. Nasty innuendos," Leigh Anne says. "It was endless, but we just decided early on that you can't let those people interfere with your life or ruin your life. If you did, you'd just be crazy with trying to ward off all the naysayers."

I think a bigger focus on this sort of thing in the movie would have made it seem a lot more self-serving. As for Oher's struggles - I remember a scene in the movie where it's commented that he just didn't remember a lot of the trauma he'd been through. He'd blocked it out and Sean Touhy advocated NOT sending him to therapy to dig it up. If it is Oher's personality or psychological reflex to block unpleasantness and basically "go with the flow" then it's entirely possible that he didn't agonize over racial issues & assimilation more than what the movie briefly addressed.

I don't think the movie presents Christianity as a religion free of trials and tribulations so much as it shows wealth glossing over those things. Christianity was barely addressed at all. Theology, it's not - but it's nice to find a movie which doesn't contain profanity, graphic sexual scenes, and an anti-Christian agenda.

Negative comments from friends and community aside, how different was their experience (as portrayed by the film) from being a host family to a foreign exchange student? I much more appreciated the real story as presented by the news media. If the story is good enough and the screen writer/director adequate to the task, audience attention span should be a non-issue.

How can you put aside negativity from friends and community? Isn't that THE difference? Isn't the major roadblock to adopting an older black male from the "wrong part of town" the fact that society sees through the eyes of division and negative stereo-types and will alienate you before recognizing an act as genuine, Christ-like love? You cannot put "negative comments from friends and family aside." This negativity is the root of possible doubts, fears, and waverings.

Now I agree that the film didn't show the Touhy's with many doubts, fears, & waverings. But they did show that the community did not like what they were doing. Maybe it couldnt' shown it more. But it made its point. However, I'm not sure that the rude messages on their answering machine or the belittling remarks of those around them were handled much differently than the movie portrayed. The quote that Laura posted above from Leigh Anne Touhy seems to suggest that their eyes were to set on the beautiful big picture to lose sleep over the opinions of others.

"...we just decided early on that you can't let those people interfere with your life or ruin your life. If you did, you'd just be crazy with trying to ward off all the naysayers."

Like I said, sometimes God makes a calling so clear to you that it isn't difficult to confidently stay the course.

I appreciate the Touhy's and Oher's story; I just don't feel the movie version did it enough justice. I'm with Larsen on this one; another spunky Sandy Bullock character role highlighted at the expense of a strong story.

As someone who was the temporary guardian of 17 year old twins, I did find that the movie made much of the typical struggles of late adoption "easy." Particularly disheartening was that they depicted Oher of never doing anything wrong, something that is quite antithetical for teenagers in general and those from broken backgrounds specifically.

I thought the story was good (and I'm sure the actual events were great) but the movie was definitely overly "rosey"

To be honest...you aren't being unfair. But, as someone who read the book, the biggest problem, which I think might be what you're picking up on here, wasn't the Christianity of the Tuohy's.

There are many rich, private school, evangelical Christian socialites in the south, and the book paints a very similar picture of their Christianity. I'm not saying anything negative about it, but that's the picture Michael Lewis paints (though in fairness, he doesn't share their views which might shade his opinion). True or not, the movie was faithful to the book on that point.

The problem was, the book was about the family and Michael (and half of it was about the Left Tackle position in football, but that's beside the point here). Equal time was given to the family members in the book, but Sandra Bullock signed on to do the movie, so it became a one woman show.

My husband and I have raised 7 "Michael Ohers" but have not been given the gift of the NFL. The gift of prison still for 3 (which has proven positive), small steps of success for the rest. There are loads of adjustments and work that the movie didn't cover but there is no way the movie could have covered such small and personal stuff. The book covered way more but I doubt even that could have covered the monumentous change of thinking that these boys need and the every day show of love and words of encouragement that is required.

Brian,
A couple of thoughts for you-- I haven't read the book so I can't contrast
whether or not the movie skewed it at all; however I am interested in how strong
your reaction to the movie was. It seems to me that the theme of many movie
reviews is to find the relevance or positive theme, no matter how vile the movie
is, the only exception being if it is a film made for a Christian audience or
with a Christian theme. Are we so jaded that we can search so intently for the
"good" and yet have to criticize simple goodness. The Christianity portrayed in
the movie was simple and perhaps maybe cultural. If you have never lived in the
south, you may not have experienced it. Two things stood out to me however. One,
that was not portrayed in the movie, but in other reports I read, was that
Sandra Bullock was surprised to find people that walked the walk, for the first
time ever, who were not known for what they did not do but what they did. The
second is that sometimes, when God prompts us to take a step that makes no sense
whatsover, He shows up in a big way and His yoke can be easy and His burden
light.
Heather Cordasco

I personally was very inspired by The Blind Side. Before reading the negative posts on this site, I had just watched a number of videos of interviews with Sandra Bullock, Michael Oher, Quinton Aaron (actor who played Michael Oher), and the real-life Tuohy family. You might be interested in some of their thoughts:

To quote Leigh Anne Tuohy, "It's amazing how a child changes when he is clothed, hungry and you feed him, and you educate him. There's a transformation in a child when he's loved, and full, and smart, and he feels like he's on the same page with everybody else."

Responding to those who criticize the movie saying it promotes racial stereotypes by portraying a wealthy, white family helping a poor, black kid, Michael Oher stated, "I don't know why people would feel that way because as long as somebody's helping somebody and taking somebody off the street---I don't care if they're black or white or whatever---it shouldn't ever be a problem." (From 20/20 story on The Blind Side---Part 3 on You Tube)

To the same criticism, Sandra Bullock responds, "Anyone that says we're pointing out the stereotypes has obviously not walked on the other side. I think if your money has cultural boundaries, religious boundaries, color boundaries, then you're not really using your money in the right way." From 20/20 story on The Blind Side---Part 3 on You Tube)

Sandra Bullock was so inspired by the Tuohys that she transformed the New Orleans movie premiere into a fundraiser to help Warren Easton High School, a struggling charter school in New Orleans that she has adopted. And putting her money where her mouth is, she also donated 1 million dollars of her own money to the school. Leigh Anne Tuohy has received hundreds of letters from people who were inspired by the film to reach out and make a difference in their own communities, one person at a time.

So for once a movie, instead of just entertaining, has inspired a myriad of people, from many different races, religions, and creeds, to make positive changes in real life. What's to criticize about that?

Good thing the homeless person was a guy. What if the person was a sexually abused girl?