Precious Blind Side

, moFinally got around to watching The Blind Side and Precious. I watched them back to back because it felt like the thing to do. The comparison is natural. They're both films about poverty and redemption and the power of education. The first was hyped by the studios in the traditional mass appeal fashion while the later was more of an independent project backed by Oprah. And to no surprise, liberal newspapers hated The Blind Side and loved Precious.

I was hesitant to enjoy The Blind Side. Having read and enjoyed the novel by Micheal Lewis for its insightful analysis of football strategy and economics. The Lewis novel structures the history and background parallel to the personal narrative. Needless to say, I was hesitant to watch a movie about benevolent white people. The critical response to the film did not help, either.

In watching the movie, I must retract all initial impressions. As with many book adaptations, the film offers a smorgasbord of moments while failing to deliver a full meal and yet the film's soft vignettes offer their own sweet satisfaction.

On surface level, you get a series of vignettes about as heartwarming as a precious moments gift-ware. You know, that stuff on QVC? And the running joke of the film is: what if a precious moment scene randomly featured a token black guy? And honestly, you can get quite a bit of mileage out of that joke.

Beyond that, there is a story about white guilt and the intangible rewards of charity. You get a subtle nod to the color blind nature of the free market. Football does not care about your politics, your religious upbringing or your political orientation. Football cares only about the value you can bring to a team.

Precious offers a much more gritty picture. Its a pretty stiff contrast to the lifetime gloss of The Blind Side and your mom probably won't like it.

Also, Precious shows the inner workings of volunteer powered outreach programs, which appeals to liberal people. If The Blind Side was pitched to your average blue state conservative, Precious is aimed at your average metropolitan social worker and enlightened cynic.

Cinematographer Andrew Dunn paid special attention to the use of color in this picture. The yellows feel dreamy. The blues feel defensive. The browns feel secure.

The characters of The Blind Side may have been based on real people, but the characters in Precious feel more real. This is not a film about rhetoric and it has no political agenda. Precious is a story about people and interpersonal relationships.

If The Blind Side is a story about redemption, Precious is a story about pushing through when there is no redemption. Precious boldly points to the source of the problem but is slow to offer any solutions. Again, it's non-political. It's interpersonal. Precious favors the acclimation of little victories over the grandiose.

Neither film is smarter than the other. Neither film uses less stereotypes. Neither film is brilliant. But both films are worth watching and both films will offer conversation fodder. Good times.

the blind side by mike lewis

Have you seen the preview for The Blind Side? You should take a look. Seriously. Next Hollywood blockbuster with a pay-it-forward sort of feel good moral. Its based on a true story about white people helping black people with their homelessness and drug addiction. And guess who the hero is? Football!



I read the review of the story in The Stranger and The Seattle Weekly.

I am sure the authors of these reviews all went to fine liberal arts universities and I commend them in their ability to point out the racism. Somebody please give them the Bill Cosby award.

If they had read Micheal Lewis' book, they would also know that the true story is aware of all their criticisms. Behind the movie script and the literary journalism are real people and a real moral dilemma regarding not only race and economic prejudice but also the sport of football and the impact it has on education and society.

It is easy to criticize white people for being so pompous as to paint themselves as the savior of poor black people and it is a legitimate argument. Michael Oher is adopted by the coach of Briarcrest Christian School for the explicit purpose of winning football games. The selflessness is a thin disguise for the true story of opportunists.

Also real are the benefits appreciated by Big Mike. He really was homeless. His mom really was a prostitute. His father really was a deadbeat living on the streets. Football changed all this.

Mike Lewis simply tells the story as any free market capitalist would see it. The sport of football presented a need for a tall athletic heavyweight and Big Mike was available to fill that need. Of course, Big Mike could not have made it on his own so he found assistance from Sean Tuohy and his wife.


The important dialogue that is being passed up here is: Sean Tuophy morally wrong for taking advantage of disenfranchised youth? He does pick the kid off the streets and give him an education. Is capitalism wrong for rewarding selfishness? Is football morally wrong for providing a means for the rags to riches story?



I can't comment on the movie because I have not seen it yet. I would not be surprised if the moral dilemma of the book is missing from the film. Please don't judge a book by its movie adaptation. All objections to the movie are actually the subject matter of the book. The "selfless and benevolent white people" are actually fully aware of their post-racist behavior and are torn between helping the kid and leaving him starving on the street. In the book, there is actually a parallel development between "Big Mike" and a lesser (little?) Mike character who does not get a football scholarship.

Friday Night Lights might be a better film but the literary story telling of The Blind Side is a terrific book. Also check out Mike Lewis's other novels.