Oh my, what a gem! For flaming liberals like me, Sandra Bullock's act of adopting a poor, lost soul runs so far left that I'm left in the dust! And most powerfully, this extreme generosity is set in a rather conservative social framework, where LeeAnn (Sandra) goes about her mission with simplicity and honesty.
Loved when she told off her snotty lunch friends. Loved when she pinched the coach's butt and went out on the playing field. Loved so many scenes. Wow!
I am most touched by the family's easy acceptance of their new member. LeeAnn's husband (played brilliantly by Tim McGraw) does not question his wife's motives...he simply acknowledges her kindness and bold, driving personality. The kids, a pretty teen and spunky little boy, round out the portrait of a family that sees no boundary between rich and poor, black and white, big and small, literate and semi-literate. I was touched when the daughter sat by Mike in the library. I was touched when the little brother negotiated for Mike.
Quinton Aaron plays Michael Oher with amazing subtlety. We realize as the film progresses that "BIG MIKE" (his un-favorite nickname) is far from stupid. He's just a traumatized soul who's hiding behind a silent mask...kind, caring, and finally loving.
I was prepared to argue against Sandra Bullock for best actress...particularly after seeing Carey Mulligan ace her performance in An Education. I was also rooting for my ol' fav, Meryl Streep, to win for her uncanny resemblance to the real Julia. But lo and behold, Sandra won my heart! She stepped into her role of determined, moral, high-road, sassy woman-of-action with charisma and pizazz!
I enjoyed her a lot in Speed. But in truth, I've liked every work she's ever done. Remember her comedic efforts in Miss Congeniality? Remember The Net? Well, our heroine topped off all her roles here...what fantastic acting!
So I give the acting and story an A+. A really unique, feel-good film that should not be missed.
Back to you, film buddy.
Let's start with agreements. Each performance was a strong one here. The subtle, yet clear, transformation of "Big Mike" was so effective. As a linguist, I am fascinated by the profound change that can occur through a simple word change - Big Mike becomes Michael. Words help define our reality or perception. (I had a friend in high school who was a large girl - tall and big-boned, as we used to say. Not fat. Everyone affectionately called her "Moose." I just could not. I called her by her name. When we graduated, she let me know how much that meant to her. I had had no idea.)
ReplyDeleteThe strength of this movie is the factual story of it. Wonderful, wonderful theme and message. Authenticity of the characters in final footage brings home the point. Love, love the Bullock character. (Side note: I wish the Tooheys had been Black, so this didn't become a "privileged white benefactor makes better parent than stereotypical black druggie mom and absent father.")
Now, the other side. I didn't want to see this movie because I suspected the best lines were in the trailer which I saw over and over again. I was right. This was a pleasant film. That's all. I was not surprised by any of it, not challenged, not even provoked. I found it predictable. I was put off by the perfect Toohey family in which there was not one hint of conflict, even from the perfect siblings.
Everyone likes Bullock, she was dead-on for the role, and her Oscar was a show of affection, but did you see Cottiard or Cruz in NINE?
It was a LOVELY story that needed to be told! But as an art form, it won't keep seeping into my psyche for weeks or years to come. I know, I'm a tough sell.
Very good points, Valerie. You're right about his film not staying with us like some very potent, searing movies. You're also insightful in noting that the "white helps black" theme is iffy. And I must heartily agree that there could have been some conflict in the Touhy family to make matters just a touch more real. So yes, there is a too much Hollywood here. But I also appreciate Sandra Bullock's tough, no-nonsense character. Keep being a tough sell... David
ReplyDeleteThis film will go down as one of my all time favorites! It is both heartwarming and inspiring. Although I do agree that the plot is a bit "white helps black", I also think it goes the other way. Bullock's tough nature is softened by the bond that she nurtures with Mike. I guess I am an easier sell only because I was not stuck on the racial factors but more on the growth that Mike's character experiences. Looking deeper into the actual detail of the film, I do see the controversial black vs. white distinction but the heart warming aspects of the story overshadowed it for me. I do believe that this was Bullock's finest performance to date. She was believable and captured both the tough and soft side of her character.
ReplyDelete-Ashley
Good point about the reciprocal effect of giving. A worthy lesson. LeeAnn's line, "No, he's changing me," is my favorite line. I do wish they would save some of those great "punchlines" from trailer loops.
ReplyDeleteAshley, thank you for writing. Very perceptive additions. I agree that this role is Sandra's best to date. She did indeed capture both tough and soft. Knowing that you love horses, to you have a favorite "horse" movie? David
ReplyDeleteValerie: Yes, that single line was the best of the movie. I've long griped about trailers that give away too much. Just wish Hollywood would show us less....but they will do anything for a sale.
ReplyDeleteI'm a stickler for details, so i must correct myself: the line is "No, he's changin' mon." (that's "mine" with her Tennessee accent. haha)
ReplyDeleteGood point, English teacher. While we're on the subject of Sandra Bullock, why did she pick such a louse for a husband?
ReplyDeleteThis really fascinates me. Her Barbara Wa-wa interview revealed that she has resisted marriage all this time into her early 40s. I've learned to not question any union (many laid their bets against my own happy one with Tom). Often "opposites" really aren't, except where it can be a complementary plus. And anyone can be duped. The bigger question is how J.James could be so despicable, reelin' in the accolades in her acceptance speech. David Brooks had a great column in NYTimes regarding which is better: career high or relationship high. (The answer is the latter.) I am sick to death of high profile infidelities and the moniker of "addiction." Yechh.
ReplyDeleteI share your disgust with high-profile wanderers. Tiger Woods, Jesse Jackson, Bill Clinton.... I put them all in the same class of louses. My argument: If you're fed up with a relationship and want to play around, man up and admit it. Be truthful. Don't go sneaking behind a loved one's back. Same goes for women. If the going gets rough in a relationship, each partner has a responsibility to tell it like it is. Then, if necessary, move on...and then, and only then, is it okay to chase others. Seems simple to me: Tell the truth, be it good, bad, or ugly. But alas, the world is not as David would like it. Folks prefer deceit over honesty. Guess most folks are cowards. Bummer.
ReplyDeleteActually, I would only alter your last two statements to, "...Some folks prefer deceit..." and I don't agree that "most folks are cowards." Pollyanna, I guess, but I believe most folks aren't the immoral ones.
ReplyDeleteGood points, film buddy. Suffice it to say that we are both equally as unaccepting of Tiger Woods types. I feel for the actors in their private lives. How hard it must be to be in the limelight and hold a real life together. There are a few standouts: Paul Newman and Joanne Woodward come to mind. Who among them remains down to earth amid the glamor and lights? It's entirely possible that some of them think they walk on water. Who knows? Do they??!! Back to you.
ReplyDelete