Let’s face it, films are cultural products, and as such, they reflect the values and attitudes of the society that made them. In doing so, in being non-confrontational, in conforming to the mass audience and appealing to their senses, our cinematic narratives can only hope to reinforce the world.
I wanted to take a moment then, to focus on one of the most significant, yet often ignored, tropes in Hollywood. To do so, I will need the assistance of Sandra Bullock, who, I’ll be honest, I’ve mentioned many times on the #cinetv pages, and will do so in the future, because I love her.
Specifically, we need to have a look at ‘The Blind Side’.
Now, here's where perspective comes into it. What do we see in the promotional material? At the heart of the image, it is easy to see relationships - There appears to be a connection between these two character constructs. If we were being particularly curious, we might suggest a power imbalance in favour of the footballer, who towers over the petite woman. If we look another way, we might notice her face is revealed, giving her character some depth - while he, remains faceless, yet coloured.
Going further, the ethereal light, and the way the small white woman guides the larger African American man implies a sense of privilege, it places Sandra Bullock into the mold of the 'white saviour'. It is a perpetuation from colonialism - where colonising powers would sail from Europe, where one of their duties would be to 'tame the savages' and to civilise them into, largely, British ways. If we're talking tropes, we would call this 'the other'. This act of civilising, is of course where we get the trope of the 'white saviour' - who aligns themselves with a good moral, often Christian, value set - and who acts, therefore, out of a position of duty to help the less fortunate.
You see, 'the other' is anyone who is not like us. They're different - they look different, often perceived as 'less than' and in turn, assumed to have values which are inconsistent and alien to our own. If there was someone in the audience who would stand and cry out, 'What about the children?' - I guess she'd be helping us recognise 'otherness' at play.
I guess though, the film makes it hard not to see the character Michael Oher as anything but 'other'. His oversized clothing and shopping bag as school bag set him up as different, which is heightened by the juxtaposition to the other children in the film - but in terms of size and race. It is immediately clear that he is meant to stand out, and not for reasons the film would consider 'worthy'.
The film makes it clear Michael is not educated (Let's get him into 'our' school). His father is absent, and his mother is a drug addict (Let's allow him to join 'our' household).
This continues, even as Michael is taken into the Tuohy family home. Can you see the odd one out in the family's Christmas photo shoot?
Yet, the audience is positioned to start to see Michael in a different way. As he demonstrates impeccable manners consistent with the new setting he's been invited into. He goes to school, and he joins 'our football team'. All of a sudden, Michael is given a future.
Why? Because Leigh Anne Tuohy chose to save him. I'm deliberate in my words here, 'chose' not, 'was able'. It's the language which reinforces the power of the trope.
The film concludes, with Michael progressing onto college football (University of Missisippi) - of course he choses to play for the college his 'new' family/guardians went to. The investment the Tuohy family paid off, as they get the star footballer on their team.
In the final credits, the film is clear that this narrative was based on a true story. Our hearts ought to be touched - it's a feel good film afterall, and I remember feeling so much joy, I am at my core, a sucker for a happy ending.
But the question lingers: where would Michael be if the 'white saviour' did not enter his world? I think the film hints strongly, that he would be living a life, not worth celebrating - afterall, how many films follow the true story of illiterate 'others' living in disadvantage? ** The purpose of this post was not to judge the film, but offer an insight into how our narratives are embedded with cultural biases.**