The Blind Side

[bloodyminded]

Everything that's wrong with pop conservatism is nicely encapsulated in this movie.

[fellowtraveller]

Everything that's wrong with pop conservatism is nicely encapsulated in this movie.

everyhting that is wrong with the star system in Hollywood is found in Sandra Bullocks Oscar nomination for her role in this movie.

[bloodyminded]

everyhting that is wrong with the star system in Hollywood is found in Sandra Bullocks Oscar nomination for her role in this movie.

That's what I call a pitch-perfect response.

[bush_cheney2004]

Everything that is right about the Hollywood star system can be found at the box office:

The Blind Side (2009)

Total Lifetime Grosses

Domestic: $255,959,475 82.8%

+ Foreign: $53,248,834 17.2%

= Worldwide: $309,208,309

[August1991]

Everything that's wrong with pop conservatism is nicely encapsulated in this movie.

Huh?

The movie was based on a book by a good writer from New Orleans - with impeccable, politically correct credentials. His book "Liar's Poker" made him a favourite of the Naomi Klein school of financial economic theory.

[msj]

Huh?

The movie was based on a book by a good writer from New Orleans - with impeccable, politically correct credentials. His book "Liar's Poker" made him a favourite of the Naomi Klein school of financial economic theory.

Sez the person who hasn't seen the movie nor read the book (nor read Liar's Poker).

[bloodyminded]

Huh?

The movie was based on a book by a good writer from New Orleans - with impeccable, politically correct credentials. His book "Liar's Poker" made him a favourite of the Naomi Klein school of financial economic theory.

That's not relevant. The movie is a terrible example of awful pop conservatism. That there's an African-American dude in it doesn't make it "politically correct," especially since the film's whole point is about upper-middle-class religious-conservative white saviours...the young black fella is just a prop for the self-indulgent sanctimony.

For good pop-conservative movies, check out Taken, or the original Straw Dogs (I'm dubious about the remake, but we'll see)...or, one of my favourites, Dirty Harry with the excellent Clint Eastwood.

[TimG]

For good pop-conservative movies, check out Taken, or the original Straw Dogs (I'm dubious about the remake, but we'll see)...or, one of my favourites, Dirty Harry with the excellent Clint Eastwood.

In other word you are only interested in movies that re-enforce your prejudices against those you call 'conservatives'.

I would say your post encapsulates everything that wrong with pop liberalism: sanctimonious self righteousness and an inability to understand other points of view.

[bloodyminded]

In other word you are only interested in movies that re-enforce your prejudices against those you call 'conservatives'.

How do you arrive at this conclusion?

Through hostility to thought, coupled with a reflexive animosity towards a liberal fellow like myself?

I don't like these movies because they ""re-enforce [my] prejudices." I like them for several reasons, but that isn't one of them.

Let's look at Straw Dogs, that brilliant and distressing Dustin Hoffman film:

Hoffman's character is a liberal. He's also arrogant, disrespectful, and rather patriarchal in his views of women (at least of his wife). In a way, he's the movie's villain.

The violence between himself and the local ruffians is due, yes, to the fact that they're bad apples. (Not necessarily "conservatives," however; that's not a relevant issue.)

But it's also thanks to his own provocations, his own personality. He doesn't mean to do it; but that doesn't change the fact that he shares responsibility.

This is not a "liberals versus conservatives" film in any way; it's a "liberal versus himself" film.

The homicidal violence that erupts is about two things: both the innately violent capacity of human beings, and the fact that violence is sometimes necessary. (Because even though he's partially responsible, once things spiral out of control, he has little choice but to engage in it.)

Dirty Harry allows us to cheer for the renegade vigilante, the "clean up the streets at any cost" kind of no-nonsense approach. At the same time, it allows for troubling nuances: it becomes very clear that Harry is not in every way a "good man," and that we wouldn't, or shouldn't, want to be him. (The subsequent sequels simplify the whole matter, more in the typical, morally-simplistic, unreflective manner of most vigilante films.) He's a hero...and an anti-hero, simultaneously.

It certainly isn't about "bad conservatives" in any way. That's entirely missing the point. It's an exploration of justice, authority, and audience participation in violent entertainment. And it makes no hard claims, gives no solid lesson we are expected to take with us. In short, it's nuanced, giving us a complex set of problems to think about.

Or, if we prefer, it's straightforward, if brutal, entertainment, leaving us a sense of catharsis as the bad guys get killed. Either way works.

Taken is, yes, a more simpleminded film. Its excellence is almost purely that of surfaces, little more than a technically proficient movie that understands suspense and pacing and action. And yes, it aligns almost perfectly with early 20th century reactionary foreign policy precepts, and mostly without self-reflection or admitting to any moral quandaries: use violence to achieve your (always decent and understandable) goals; use torture when necessary; hurt innocent people for the sake of the greater goal; and that the French authorities cannot be trusted to do what's right.

It even climaxes with the terrible threat of an awful Arab about to deflower an innocent American girl!

Hell, it's out of Dick Cheney's playbook!

But it's still a good movie. It doesn't "reinforce my prejudices," because, first, it's not really meant to be taken seriously, and second, I was rooting for the fellow all along.

I would say your post encapsulates everything that wrong with pop liberalism: sanctimonious self righteousness and an inability to understand other points of view.

I think this rather applies to you, given that I've informed you of why I like these movies.

In fact, if anything, The Blind Side is the one that would reinforce people's prejudices against conservatives, if they stopped for a moment to consider the dreck that it is.

Edited August 30, 2011 by bloodyminded

[TimG]

How do you arrive at this conclusion?

Because you started an op with a criticism of an ideology/worldview rather that critiquing the movie itself. If you did not like the movie you could have explained why you did not like it without simply denoucing a POV that you don't like.

[bloodyminded]

Because you started an op with a criticism of an ideology/worldview rather that critiquing the movie itself. If you did not like the movie you could have explained why you did not like it without simply denoucing a POV that you don't like.

But I wasn't criticizing conservatism. I was criticizing pop conservatism, and only provisionally...since I pointed out three movies (off the top of my head) that I liked...two of which, in fact, I adore.

Look, it's the same with pop liberalism. There are great movies with underlying lefty architecture, and then there are those that are simpleminded sops to liberal sensibilities, lacking anything insightful or truly interesting.

See Avatar, for example.

But yes, I think there is more crappy pop conservative movies (by proportion, not by actual numbers) than crappy liberal movies, perhaps because, for reasons I don't know, conservatives are smaller in number in the realm of arts and entertainment; and so have a smaller repertoire from which to be influenced, when making overtly-politicized movies, I mean.

Edited August 30, 2011 by bloodyminded

[TimG]

But I wasn't criticizing conservatism. I was criticizing pop conservatism

Ok. It was not clear what you meant by 'pop' conservatism.

[August1991]

The violence between himself and the local ruffians is due, yes, to the fact that they're bad apples. (Not necessarily "conservatives," however; that's not a relevant issue.)

But it's also thanks to his own provocations, his own personality. He doesn't mean to do it; but that doesn't change the fact that he shares responsibility.

...

Dirty Harry allows us to cheer for the renegade vigilante, the "clean up the streets at any cost" kind of no-nonsense approach.

Huh? Sorry, bloodyminded, you're another foolish, naive liberal. And you spend other people's money to assuage your guilt.

Officer Krupke, you're really a slob.

This boy don't need a doctor, just a good honest job.

Society's played him a terrible trick,

And sociologic'ly he's sick!

Link Edited September 1, 2011 by August1991

[fellowtraveller]

In fact, if anything, The Blind Side is the one that would reinforce people's prejudices against conservatives

Is it OK if it reinforces my now automatic response of throwing up a little bit in my mouth whenever I see Sandra Bullock onscreen? Blindside is so blatantly manipulative(emotionally, not politically) that I actually left the theater a little pissed off that I had lost both $12 and two entire hours of my life.

See Avatar

If that is intended as advocacy for watching this turkey you are getting really offensive. Edited September 2, 2011 by fellowtraveller

[Boges]

I could sort of see bm's point if the movie was 100% fictional. But Micheal Oher is a really person. He currently plays in the NFL. He was taken in by this family. The only fictional aspect of this story I've heard is that Oher wasn't infact ignorant of Football as the movie indicates.

The movie and the book's goals are to highlight how important the position of Left Tackle is in Pro Football more than to make a political statement.

Anyone who thought this movie was a political statement is a so blinded by their own political agenda that I would think they should be discredited.

In their mind the only way a conservative family would take in a black child would be because they saw dollar signs as soon as they realized his athletic ability. Which ironically is highlighted by the NCAA women who sees what the family has done as somehow "paying" a player who should be amateur.

I'm surprised Tim McGraw's character hadn't taken heat in this thread since he clearly made his wealth by opening businesses (Taco Bell's) where the employees are paid below standard wages.

[bloodyminded]

Huh? Sorry, bloodyminded, you're another foolish, naive liberal. And you spend other people's money to assuage your guilt.

"Huh?" is right, August.

Here's what you quoted from me:

The violence between himself and the local ruffians is due, yes, to the fact that they're bad apples. (Not necessarily "conservatives," however; that's not a relevant issue.)

But it's also thanks to his own provocations, his own personality. He doesn't mean to do it; but that doesn't change the fact that he shares responsibility.

...

Dirty Harry allows us to cheer for the renegade vigilante, the "clean up the streets at any cost" kind of no-nonsense approach.

So how in Godzilla's name you ever concluded what you did...well, I doubt anyone could say. Least of all yourself.

Edited September 5, 2011 by bloodyminded

[bloodyminded]

If that is intended as advocacy for watching this turkey you are getting really offensive.

Advocacy?????

Not even a little.

[bloodyminded]

I could sort of see bm's point if the movie was 100% fictional. But Micheal Oher is a really person. He currently plays in the NFL. He was taken in by this family. The only fictional aspect of this story I've heard is that Oher wasn't infact ignorant of Football as the movie indicates.

Wrong. The very medium fictionalizes. "This is a true story" is part of the fiction.

The Coen brothers, in my view, made the final, perfect, simple statement on this little trope; Fargo begins with a "this is a true story," tagline (names of the characters changed to protect the innocent, etc).

Except it isn't; at least, not in the sense that such an assertion suggests. That is, fictional narrative (when it's good) is "true," every bit as much as those "based on a 'true' story."

Fargo is not, literally, a "true story," and the mischievous claim at the beginning is itself part of the fiction.

On the other hand, husbands have committed to having their wives kidnapped for ransom, I bet, after which matters went horribly wrong. So in a sense, it is a "true story."

But that's not even really what matters: basic plotlines are far less important--to a film's worth, and to "truth"--than what is done within the plotlines, which after all are usually little more than vehicles for what really matters.

If you watch crap like The Blind Side (or any other movie) you can instantly recognize the conventions of film, of story, of fiction.

The movie is fictional. It's not a "true story," not in any meaningful sense.

But that's not what makes it bad.

The movie and the book's goals are to highlight how important the position of Left Tackle is in Pro Football more than to make a political statement.

No, the movie's goal is to present an emotionally-laden story about family, about love and about helping others, etc.

It doesn't do it well, in my view, but that is the goal; not the importance of Left Tackle!

Anyone who thought this movie was a political statement is a so blinded by their own political agenda that I would think they should be discredited.

Every movie, without exception, has a cultural context within which it works. It is 100% impossible for it not to.

How could it?

In their mind the only way a conservative family would take in a black child would be because they saw dollar signs as soon as they realized his athletic ability. Which ironically is highlighted by the NCAA women who sees what the family has done as somehow "paying" a player who should be amateur.

I don't think anything of the sort. For all I know, the real story is genuinely a good, heartwarming one. The fiction we're giving is not; it's crass epxloitive manipulation.

Further, I don't have anything against the subgenre known popularly (if problematically) as "exploitation" cinema. What I object to is movies that are supposed to be warm, moral films, but actually are cynical, even ugly, and are near the opposite of their clear intent. In other words, I am criticizing the movie for its failure, not its politics in and of themselves.

S'why I talked about movies that might be deemed "conservative," and that I think are fantastic movies.

Edited September 5, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Boges]

Please cite portions of the movie you think are exceptionally offensive to you.

Is it when the black mom tells the white mom she did her best? Is it when Sandra Bullock threatens the thugs with the gun in her purse.

Is it the fact that he was homeless. I really need concrete examples of what you found offensive because this is the first description I've ever seen of this movie.

You must have hated the movie Secretariat.

[bloodyminded]

Please cite portions of the movie you think are exceptionally offensive to you.

Is it when the black mom tells the white mom she did her best? Is it when Sandra Bullock threatens the thugs with the gun in her purse.

Is it the fact that he was homeless. I really need concrete examples of what you found offensive because this is the first description I've ever seen of this movie.

You must have hated the movie Secretariat.

Why do people respond as if they haven't read the other's posts, under some pretence that they did so?

What you're really implying here is that I dislike When Harry Met Sally because I'm offended that people fall in love, meet obstacles, and ultimately discover romantic happiness. After all, that's what that movie is ultimately about. Therefore, that must be my problem with it.

Similarly, I'm not too happy about the Twilight movies (which are superior to the unbearable The Blind Side, just incidentally)....and my reason? Well, evidently I don't like teenaged love either, or perhaps am terrified by Native-American werewolves, handsome vampires, or sullen teenaged girls. There just couldn't be anything other reasons.

I don't like the Bullock movie because it's maudlin and queasily unbelievable, even though it's sold to us as Inspiration-Real; that Big Mike is not even protrayed as a person, an actual character, but some sort of feel-good symbol; that the movie despises reality, and so indulges in the "true story" catechism to give us broad brush-strokes of what a conventional feel-good movie is supposed to be; and finally, because movies like this make us stupid.

[Boges]

I like how when I ask you to address this movie you talk about other movies.

[bloodyminded]

I like how when I ask you to address this movie you talk about other movies.

I'm glad you enjoy it, though that's not the reason I do it.

I do it to offer an analogy; you name parts of the film (Bullocks' castrating conservative matriarch standing up to thugs; or because it had "homeless people," which I must not like...?????) and then "wonder" if that's what I didn't like about it.

Fatuous as hell, but I generously explained it anyway through analogy.

In the other instance, I was informed that I didn't like anything that was conservative, or something foolish along those lines, so I aptly explained that I do like movies that are often considered "conservative," as a counter to this assertion.

You know, when you simply run out of counter-arguments, no one is forcing you to write anything, Borges.

Edited September 6, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Boges]

I'm glad you enjoy it, though that's not the reason I do it.

I do it to offer an analogy; you name parts of the film (Bullocks' castrating conservative matriarch standing up to thugs; or because it had "homeless people," which I must not like...?????) and then "wonder" if that's what I didn't like about it.

Fatuous as hell, but I generously explained it anyway through analogy.

In the other instance, I was informed that I didn't like anything that was conservative, or something foolish along those lines, so I aptly explained that I do like movies that are often considered "conservative," as a counter to this assertion.

You know, when you simply run out of counter-arguments, no one is forcing you to write anything, Borges.

I can't really argue about tastes. If I say I hated Inception and you loved it, not much you can say to convince me otherwise.

I just don't like how you somehow typecast this movie as if it's conservative propaganda. Other than the fact that the family in question is clearly conservative I don't see how this movie forwards conservative ideals.

[bloodyminded]

I can't really argue about tastes. If I say I hated Inception and you loved it, not much you can say to convince me otherwise.

Yes, taste always comes into play, of course. I'm just talkin,' here.

I just don't like how you somehow typecast this movie as if it's conservative propaganda. Other than the fact that the family in question is clearly conservative I don't see how this movie forwards conservative ideals.

I don't know that it does. It's the simpleminded lack of honesty and reflection of what I deemed "pop conservatism" that I don't like. Much like you'd get with watching "7th Heaven" or some such abortion.

Like I also said, there's a type of "pop liberalism"--easy answers, premises presented as objective facts (whether through politics or though simple film convention), simpleminded views on human nature--that commits the same errors.

Now, sure, one answer to such critiques is that "it's only a movie! Relax"!

To which I'd respond, "I know it's only a movie; and I am relaxed."

I find these topics interesting, nothing more than that.

Edited September 6, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Boges]

Yes, taste always comes into play, of course. I'm just talkin,' here.

I don't know that it does. It's the simpleminded lack of honesty and reflection of what I deemed "pop conservatism" that I don't like. Much like you'd get with watching "7th Heaven" or some such abortion.

Like I also said, there's a type of "pop liberalism"--easy answers, premises presented as objective facts, simpleminded views on human nature--that commits the same errors.

Ever see the movie John Q with Denzel Washington? I suppose that would be considered Pop-Liberalism.