Why is Blind Side‘s Oscar Nomination a Surprise?
This morning, Glenn Reynolds linked a post listing the Oscar nomination’s five surprises. Topping the list was my choice for Best Picture, the Blind Side:
The Blind Side in the Best Picture race? Really?! Over Star Trek, A Single Man, Invictus, and a host of other films that made the top 10 lists other than this one? (Seriously, I would have been less surprised over The Hangover being mentioned instead.) My big fear here is that this nod will cinch Sandra Bullock the Best Actress crown over Meryl Streep, whom, it must be said, I am really rooting for this year, because despite her 16 record nominations, the woman last won in 1982. That’s also only a 0.125 batting average. There weren’t just gasps this morning upon the inclusion; there was also a bit of stuttering.
So, why is post author Ellen Kim so astounded? Does it somehow irk her that a movie painting Christian conservatives from the South (who happen to vote Republican) has done well both at the box office and with the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences?
Or is it that the movie does a great job revisiting of a classic Hollywood theme (fortunate person helping disadvantaged individual overcome self-doubt and realize his potential) to our times? That it shows the goodness in human hearts and has a happy ending?
So, what if it wasn’t on most tope ten lists? You know the people who write most of those lists are film critics, often with the learned cynicism of their profession and the politics of the liberal “élite.”
If film critics didn’t have such a jaundiced view of what makes a good movie, they might not be so surprised by the success of this flick. The villains (if there are any) are not drawn from left-wing stereotypes of those oppressing the unfortunate (you know, corporations, Republicans, Christians, the military, white men, in general). It shows us how necessary encouragement and guidance is for success in this world and shows how the determination of two individuals, of different sexes and different races, can help a talented young man with much talent and little opportunity.
And it celebrates the power of faith. Maybe that’s what got Miss Kim so upset.
And so what if Sandra Bullock wins the Best Actress crown? While great in Julie & Julia, Streep has delivered better performances. And Bullock was brilliant in Blind Side–and she has yet to be honored (at least by the Academy . . . as Meryl has).
9 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Weird, because I’ve heard The Blind Side as part of the Oscar buzz for a while. So where has Ms. Kim been?
On the other hand, I truly believe The Oscars have become so “inside baseball” that they are irrelevant to most people outside of the industry.
(Sorry, Dan!)
Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — February 3, 2010 @ 1:35 pm - February 3, 2010
Where, from the original post by Kim, did you surmise she is anti-faith, anti-Republican, and anti-south? Who nominated her as “the liberal elite”? And what about the fact that the same elite has put The Blind Side in the running for best picture?
Comment by DRH — February 3, 2010 @ 1:46 pm - February 3, 2010
It is a great movie. True story and all. Watch a Baltimore Ravens game and you can see the result of a loving family in Michael Oher.
I do not know where Kim has been, but for at 2 months it has been mentioned as an Oscar nomination. And please Star Trek (haven’t we done that already). And as for me, I am very tired of Meryl Streep being ont he list.
Sandra Bullock used her acting ability to become LeeAnn Tuoey, but how hard is it to watch Julia Child TV shows and become her.
Comment by PatriotMom — February 3, 2010 @ 1:47 pm - February 3, 2010
DRH, fair questions all.
Please note the “maybe” in my post above. And the fact that I make most of my points through rhetorical questions.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — February 3, 2010 @ 2:15 pm - February 3, 2010
I’m kind of curious as to whether or not this woman has EVER actually watched the Oscars. She thought that Star Trek would be nominated? Are you kidding me? The sci-fi genre is almost never nominated for anything beyond technical awards & the only sci-fi film I can remember in recent years being put in the best picture category was The Return of the King-which won and deservedly so.
What she should have been more surprised by was that Avatar was nominated as was District 9-two films that would NEVER have been even considered as anything more than popcorn blockbusters by the academy a few years ago. Yes, in years past both films would have been nominated for tons of technical awards, but the best picture category wold have been firmly out of their reach.
The Blind Side is the kind of movie that used to win best picture all the time- the story of an underdog overcoming seemingly insurmountable odds to grasp his dream and find happiness/redemption, etc. The fact that she is surprised it was nominated really says more about her than it does about the film-which was funny, sweet, inspiring and really touching. Why wouldn’t people vote for that?
Comment by Kristie — February 3, 2010 @ 4:58 pm - February 3, 2010
Ellen Kim’s comments regarding The Blind Side are nothing compared to the insipid blatherings of Washington Post “media critic” Paul Farhi on Hardball:
PAUL FARHI, Washington Post: The problem is that the black character is basically a prop to make the white people feel better about themselves, and that’s been the major criticism. It’s also the “magic negro,” in other words, the idea that a black character will emerge to provide wisdom for the white people involved in the movie.
[...]
FARHI: That character goes back a long time in movie history. This is not something new. “The Green Mile” came out ten years ago, it was the same kind of portrayal.
CHRIS MATTHEWS, “Hardball” host: Well, you know what, when you see the movie, you have your own reaction. I accept all those criticisms, and in fact, sociologically, Paul, I agree with you. But I like the movie a lot.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2010/02/02/wapos-paul-farhi-dismisses-blind-side-trite-movie-magic-negro
Liberals are just completely worthless.
Comment by Sean A — February 3, 2010 @ 5:42 pm - February 3, 2010
my god lots of projection in this post.
And I like your out there with your “maybe” post.
Just admit it. You reacted like a baby and projected your “everyones out to get us” view of the world onto someone else
Comment by gillie — February 3, 2010 @ 8:51 pm - February 3, 2010
LOL, gillie, ROFL.
I expressed an opinion, gillie, an opinion. Maybe I’m right, maybe I’m wrong, but I wanted to make sure I was keeping in all in the conditional by asking so many questions which is why, I think, DRH’s response was a perfect rejoinder.
I have met enough film snobs out here who just sneer at movies with Hollywood endings, so maybe I’m projecting, with some offering similar reactions to this film.
No, I don’t know Ms. Kim’s reasons, so I made sure to qualify my points with questions and a “maybe.”
Still, trying to figure out where you project your notion of our attitude onto me. There’s a bias out here against feel-good movies. And I’m addressing it. And if you don’t want to see how I address such things, don’t read my posts.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — February 3, 2010 @ 9:18 pm - February 3, 2010
“The Blind Side is the kind of movie that used to win best picture all the time- the story of an underdog overcoming seemingly insurmountable odds to grasp his dream and find happiness/redemption, etc.”
Perhaps that’s why its nomination was a surprise–because it isn’t very original? It doesn’t really advance the art form of cinema.
Historically, the Academy tends to honor movies that are neither too avant-garde for their time nor too traditionalist or trite.
Admittedly, the Academy often honors mediocre films and ignores great ones. But, in theory, it’s entirely possible to criticize a movie like “The Blind Side” as lacking in artistic merit without taking a stance on the politics of its characters.
Comment by Phil — February 4, 2010 @ 3:45 am - February 4, 2010