Hermenuetics

Comments

Thank you for including the racial and class aspects of this movie and the issues it brings up as well as glosses over. Perhaps I won't mind watching this movie in the future.

Posted By: Virginia | November 30, 2009 3:12 PM

This movie isn't a documentary on the race/class warfare. They are talking about one person--Michael Oher--because it's HIS life story. The story of how a family took him in because he had no one. His mother was on crack/coccaine and was wasn't even sure where her 13 children were--which, by the way is fact and not just trumped up by Hollywood to show her as "incapable of making good decisions".

And, of course, you jump at the chance to infer the Tuohy's are evil, rich white people. Here's a fact for you. Sean came from nothing, was dirt poor himself, and is a self made man. Because he took a chance on something and made something of himself, and he is the one you look down on? That used to be called living the American Dream.

Wow, this is "Christianity Today"? You certainly couldn't tell it by this article.

Posted By: Amanda | November 30, 2009 6:01 PM

Amanda: Did you read the same article that I did? It was honest and open, trying to understand the good and bad, and recommending the movie. Thank you CT.

Posted By: Chuck | November 30, 2009 10:05 PM

Yes, I read this article and I'll quote it "She listens to the nudging of — well, maybe it's God; no one else successfully nudges Leigh Anne Tuohy." or "On one hand, the movie struck me as racist and anti-Christian, reinforcing stereotypes about African Americans being mostly incapable of making good choices, and doomed to their bad ones unless a white person comes along to save them." and "The ease with which she intimidates such a man comes from the protection of her status as a rich, white female." and "The storyline stays on the easier-to-accept individual level, failing to consider how the Tuohys' wealth emerged from a stratified system that makes it easy for some to achieve success and others to stay trapped in poverty."

I could go on quoting this article but these make my point. What you call open and honest I call pretentious diatribe.

Posted By: Amanda | December 1, 2009 9:28 AM

"The ease with which she intimidates such a man comes from the protection of her status as a rich, white female. The structural inequalities and the deep history of racism that lead to the sobering realities found in low-income housing projects in cities like Memphis don’t garner any attention. The storyline stays on the easier-to-accept individual level, failing to consider how the Tuohys' wealth emerged from a stratified system that makes it easy for some to achieve success and others to stay trapped in poverty."

Wrong. First, the Tuohys are rich because Sean Tuohy was a great athlete, made the best of his college education at Ole Miss, and became a successful businessman. Tons of blacks have done the same, and most of them didn't even need to dribble a basketball to do it like Sean Tuohy.

Second, anyone who knows anything about drug gang members knows that the vast majority aren't these sadistic animalistic thugs that you often see depicted in the media, especially police dramas and action movies. Nearly all of their violence is directed at rival gang members, and that is generally for economic reasons (control over a local drug trade), not savages just looking for someone to kill indiscriminately.

"On one hand, the movie struck me as racist and anti-Christian, reinforcing stereotypes about African Americans being mostly incapable of making good choices, and doomed to their bad ones unless a white person comes along to save them. It also reinforces stereotypes of wealthy Southern Christians as being mostly white Republican snobs."

This is absolutely ridiculous. This movie is based on a true story. The things depicted in the movie actually happened, and further many of the worst things from the book were toned down for the movie (such as incidents where Oher was taunted with vicious racial slurs during games) or omitted altogether, and many of the worst things that actually happened never made it into the book. Is your problem with the movie that it was made at all?

Also, so many critics mention why Oher's background wasn't explored more. They know fully well that the main subject of the book wasn't Oher and his background, but the left tackle position in football. Also, the problem is that Oher refuses to talk about his background. Oher created a "move on, live in the present" defensive mechanism to help him survive his difficult circumstances and maintain a basically positive mentality, as opposed to, say, internalizing or repressing it, which generally leads to violence. So, in order to delve into these matters, the movie would have had to contrive it using generalizations or mythical elements that may not have even been true in Oher's case. It would have transformed it from a legitimate story of the life of an actual human being into turning him into a socio-political screed. Also, the very people criticizing the movie for its negative depiction of blacks would have had even more fodder.

The real criticism of this movie is the fact that white conservative Christians did something positive for a black person. THAT is why this movie gets attacked while Madonna, Angelina Jolie, and other non-Christian Hollywood celebrities get to adopt African kids all the time without anybody batting an eye. So why not just call it what it is? The people criticizing this movie do so because they would rather not be confronted with their own prejudices against white southern rich people, especially if they are Christians. Ironically, these very same people loved "Precious" and "Monster's Ball", which are nothing but black exploitation movies for this era.

Posted By: Gerald | December 1, 2009 11:32 AM

Thanks for the great post, Lisa. I haven't seen the movie yet, but when I do I will be glad to have your perspective in mind as I process the racial and class issues that underlie this one particular story--an important task. When I first saw trailers for the movie, I thought, "what a nice story." I was surprised when my friend sitting next to me, who is a sociology major at Wheaton, expressed concerns similar to yours--I hadn't even considered its larger implications. But the truth, and reality, are rarely as simple as Hollywood would generally have us believe. Yes, this story really happened, and it's incredibly moving. I think everyone would say it is a wonderful thing, both for the Tuohys and Oher. But if the movie doesn't carefully consider all the factors that contributed to its events, it's not accurately portraying the full reality. As viewers and Christians, we need to be sure we're seeing the full picture, not just the "Hollywood lite" version, so we can address evil where it exists and praise goodness. I found your review to carefully temper these hesitations with a positive endorsement: "the movie went beyond such stereotypes to show what’s possible when one responds to the nudging of God." Thanks for helping us be learn to be better moviegoers and Christians!

Posted By: Laura Leonard | December 1, 2009 2:27 PM

If you want to read an accurate review with a positive endorsement you need to read Brandon Fibbs' review because this is one pure hogwash.

Posted By: Anonymous | December 1, 2009 2:52 PM

Wow...you really have to have a tough hide to write for CT--you try to honestly look at the possible criticism against this film, you negate that and people still want to rip you to shreds. You even say that it "went beyond such stereotypes to show what’s possible when one responds to the nudging of God."--asserting that your own preconceptions of what it could have been were overcome by what it was. Lisa, just keep in mind that some people are always looking for something to attack without giving the benefit of the doubt or even trying to be respectful when they disagree. They'll claim that you are being un-Christian while their responses are full of vitriol. Don't let it get to you, girl--you're doing a good job regardless of what they say.

Posted By: J | December 2, 2009 8:46 AM

I don't think anyone called the author un-christian. I think what upsets most people is that she goes out of her way to be negative. I don't think she negated any "possible criticism". If anything, her article portrays the movie negatively with only a side note of oh, and all this aside, it's ok to go see this movie. Some of her facts are wrong,as Gerald pointed out, which she's done before (see review on "earth"). Her whole article reads like a sociology report, and given her background, makes sense. But, as a movie review it does not.

Posted By: Anonymous | December 2, 2009 9:28 AM

Thanks, J.

Posted By: Lisa McMinn | December 2, 2009 10:00 AM

Thanks, Lisa, for a thoughtful review that goes beyond the film to the context in which it exists. It is hard for many people to look beyond the surface messages of art forms to think about the wider context and deeper messages. By "messages," of course, I don't only mean the ideas the film-makers had or things that were part of the history of this story, but the ways in which a film speaks to other things people think, know or think they know.

I haven't seen the film yet, but I've also heard people struggle with the lack of critical exposure of systems of inequality. Of course, one film can't do everything. Thankfully, we have insightful reviewers like you to bring out these important points.

Great review. Keep up the terrific work.

Posted By: Brian | December 2, 2009 3:43 PM

This was a comment that was made:

Wow, this is "Christianity Today"? You certainly couldn't tell it by this article.

This is an implicit way of saying it was un-Christian...

And frankly--though I haven't seen the film myself, just looking at the trailers made me wonder some of the same things--I'm betting there are other people who felt the same way, so her addressing those issues makes sense--I really think that her intention was just to look at this critically. It seems that people are taking this way too personally. And as far as a "sociology report", films reflect the values of society and can also influence the values of society. There's nothing wrong with exploring this. In fact, it seems like anyone trying to pick quality movies for their family should actively examine the images that are represented in our media--and though one may disagree with Lisa's opinion, maybe vehemently so, one should at least appreciate that she's trying to look a little deeper than secular critics might.

We may strongly disagree with each other--and it's fine to respectfully voice those disagreements--but let's also remember to be encouraging to our fellow Christians instead of "eating our own". Lisa is a fellow Christian, she deserves the benefit of the doubt instead of having her article slammed as "pretentious diatribe". The bitterness and resentment in some of these responses is downright palpable--it seems like there should be a better way to persuade someone to change their views--unless it wasn't intended to persuade at all but to cause harm. Even if one turns it around and thinks her article was intended to harm (which I don't) that is no reason to respond in kind.

I'm glad you're on the CT staff, Lisa. And I look forward to more reviews. Good work.

Posted By: J | December 2, 2009 7:57 PM

I've actually seen the movie. I don't know for sure but it seems like all the people on the Lisa band-wagon haven't. They seem to preface everything with "I haven't seen the movie...but".

J, it's also interesting that you are doing the very same thing you are repremanding others for. Interesting.

I loved this movie. I thought it was a positive movie with a message of love and acceptance. That there are no odds you can't overcome with a family that fights for you. No one, except his coach who persuaded the school to enroll him, had ever fought for him before he met the Tuohy's. According to Michael himself, the Tuohy's aren't just some rich, white family that took him in, they are his family. He actually calls Mrs. Tuohy "Mama". I think the most important thing is that the people the movie is actually about agreed that it fairly represented THEIR story. If they, the PEOPLE THE MOVIE IS ABOUT, are ok with it...why in the world would you search for and tear apart the so-called deep underlying meanings of the movie. Don't look so deep you miss the whole point of the movie.

-Kara

Posted By: Anonymous | December 4, 2009 12:26 PM

"J, it's also interesting that you are doing the very same thing you are repremanding others for. Interesting."

If I reprimanded others, it was for being disrespectful in their disagreements, not the fact that they disagreed. I believe it is possible to reprimand/to disagree and also be respectful about it. If I gave the impression of doing otherwise, I apologize. That was not my intent.

Even if I see this movie and decide to disagree with Lisa's assessment I just wanted to show support for her as a person--to show love and acceptance for her. Perhaps I did go about it the wrong way, originally. But I hope that my intent to do good is given greater consideration than my inadequacy to communicate well. I suppose my exhortation to respond with kindness is directed to myself, as well....But whether or not I personally follow the advice I've given--the advice is Biblical and sound.

Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear. Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you. Ephesians 4:29-32 NASB

Please give special attention to the last sentence....we could all use more of that....

Posted By: J | December 6, 2009 11:50 AM

Thank you very much for sharing your perspective on "The Blind Side". I appreciate your comments.

Posted By: Claire | December 8, 2009 7:40 PM

That a rich southern white family would give a poor black person a home is something to celebrate and is like a breath of fresh air where many white people still commemorate their "lost cause" and wave the traitor's flag. However, such acts of kindness from one race to another remains rare at least in the south! And unfortunately, the reaction from blacks and whites is likely to be visceral if he dates a white woman, Christian or otherwise! Actually, I dont even know how the real life Tuohys would take to that!

Posted By: Geroge | December 14, 2009 10:02 AM

I have seen the movie and at first was feeling positive and enjoying the movie but then realized I was pulled in to many stereotypes of African-Americans I have seen in my life.

I would be curious to see if anyone in full support of the film is actually African American. I am White and the movie certainly tried to play on my white guilt. Safe to say that about 95% of the African Americans in the film were portrayed negatively - drug dealers, violent, misogynistic? I have still yet to hear an African American say the movie was great.

Sure it is a film about Michael Oher, but at the same time it was told in a way that was very demeaning to African Americans. Even Michael's football skills couldn't improve without the help of white people. I'm glad Sandra Bullock and her young son taught him how to play. He apparently had no skills without them.

I do agree there were some good messages in the film and caring for those less fortunate is always something to live and pursue. But in the end, this could have been told in a much less demeaning and degrading way.

Posted By: Sean | December 15, 2009 5:21 PM

And this is why I respect Christianity Today, even though I often disagree with it--because your magazine and your blogs are nuanced. The egregious racial stereotypes in this film are often glossed over by the white, narrow-minded evangelical christians that make up most of your readership. That you mention the problems with the movies is a breath of fresh air. Keep up the good work and God bless you!

Posted By: TT | December 18, 2009 2:03 PM

What an interesting place to find this review! I saw this movie, and was also troubled by the lack of structural perspective regarding the important context of racism and classism that is a part of the context in every personal story, and deeply significant to the people portrayed in this movie.

The movie was a touching one personally, and I too walked away with unease due to race and class privilege being in ample display without much, if any, self-reflection on the part of the privileged characters. Perhaps one of the best aspects of this movie is exactly the kind of dialogue being posted here. Understanding and talking about race and class as an important part of each of our lives isn't "warfare", it's a most significant recognition of the contexts which determine so much of our lives.

None of us lives in social isolation; we all exist within the fabric of our shared society. The differences that class and race create are ameliorated by personal good and personal drive, but the starting line for personal achievement is not at all in the same place for everyone, and naming this leads us all to a greater ability for compassion, and yes, the social justice changes from which we all benefit.

Posted By: Rebecca Lane | January 5, 2010 10:09 AM

The movie isn't about Michael Oher as the main charactor. It's about the woman who took him in.
to summarize why I thought the movie was poorly done.

Males are not shown as being strong. Which is pretty funny being a movie centered around football. They are shown as being dominated by women. Especially attractive women. The husband is described in the movie as being lazy. It was said, not just implied. Men who are commentators for an NBA team broadcast are not "strong silent types...in general". If they were silent they likely wounldn't be in broadcasting. Men who are all SEC conference in basketball are pretty alpha male types.

Playing in the NFL is not for Beta males who get measured in "protectiveness" by schools. To be in the NFL and be a starter for a winning team, only aggressive guys need to imply. I've coached high school sports enough to know that "Mama's" influence can only go so far. No way is this guy a docile teddy bear in everything but protectiveness. The movie is designed to show how women are in control.

The villian teacher was male. The football coach was shown as being goofy. The football players were not smart gorillas or lead around by the facemask by a woman. The lesser villainous teacher was an unattractive female.

The black man who approached the school was dominated by the woman of the home.

Fact is the husband was the main person behind Michael's coming to the family and not just a matter of: "Hey Michael, where are you going without a coat on a cold night?".

The football coach was as I said shown as goofy. Not too many goofballs get hired by a major college football team to assist in coaching (which is what happened in real life and likely what really started the NCAA investigation). Btw, the asst. coach was found in violation of some 20 infractions involving other players. Again, goofballs need not apply.

Not one guy was shown in the movie as a real leader except for the gangsta who was majorally dissed by the Mama...

About the race card...

You can't tell me that Michael didn't have one positive influential black male in his life. Not one black person (male or female) was shown in complete positive light (the guy who let him stay at his home was dominated by his woman). The villian NCAA person was a black female. There were 2 real big racial stereotypes (aside from the project gang). One was when the guy who took him in said something like: I got money (implying he could pay for the other kid to go to the private school), you see I got a job across town as a mechanic. Nothing against mechanics, it was how the scene was portrayed.

The other was the other young black male who was seen as......playing basketball when he had nothing to do. These types of things sting very sharply when you are in the minority..

Other points I thought were stupid were:

Here is a "conservative Christian" woman who pats goofy football coaches on the behind and out of the blue makes a very awkward statement about being "attracted" to Nick Saban (right with her husband present and nothing more said about it). It just is dumped in and left without comment in a very awkward way.

And her big conversation about the birds and bees to Michael consists only about cutting off a certain body part...and said right in front of her young son and teenage daughter....again it came and left so out of the blue.....

The idea of helping a young man who needed help.....Great
The idea of sacrificing to help someone...great

A feel good sappy movie with a happy ending.
I have no problem with showing housing project life as it really is for some.
I do have a problem when every black person in the movie was cast in some way stereotypically or negatively...and the same thing with males who can do good if they have a strong female to help them.

Certain changes could have made this a very good movie and less offensive to people. What is really funny is that my dw was the first of us to actually mention most of these things (even though I was already thinking it).

Posted By: Brooks | January 5, 2010 11:33 AM

I love watching the movie "The Blind Side
I can watch it over and over again, I took thought in your review, it made sense, I disagreed a bit on your omments, but totally respectful of what you interpreted from the movie. I wish you could of talked more about race and class barriers from the movie.

Posted By: Anonymous | December 11, 2011 11:19 PM