My issue which I take against THE BLIND SIDE (aside from all the annoying everything) is the surprise car crash, which isn’t a surprise because I now expect an SCC (surprise car crash) everytime I see a person in a movie or a TV show drive in a car. The first SCC I recall in this era of the SCC as an 100% expected movie trope is the one in ADAPTATION, which really did horrify me. I also liked the one in TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE THE BEGINNING, but I didn’t like it’s duplicate in HALLOWEEN II. When I saw MACHETE there was a preview for a Zack Efron movie wherein he was driving in a car in the rain with his little brother, and I said to my friends, “they’re gonna have a car crash”, and my friends just shrugged, but I was right.

So, in THE BLIND SIDE, when the kindly protective black kid and spunky little white kid go for a drive, I was just like, “Oh, great, here we go…” and then when they turned on the radio and started singing and dancing, I was like “goddammit,” and I started counting to 10 to see how high I could get before a surprise, out of nowhere car crash that I was expecting would surprise me, and I got to seven.

It’s just not surprising! And it makes me nervous when people in cars in movies drive to places.

I didn’t know that about Blindside having black producers, and it didn’t occur to me that Daniels was the first black director to have his movie nominated for best picture. But yeah, neither Do The Right Thing or Malcolm X was nominated for best picture, believe it or not. In addition to stereotypes I’m sensitive to symbolism, and it still bugs me that Driving Miss Daisy won best picture in a year Do The Right Thing wasn’t even nominated. Also, I always wished Denzel got best actor for playing Malcolm X instead of a scenery chewing corrupt cop. But you’re right, that was more of a surprise to people. (maybe Book of Eli next year? I never thought he’d do sword fights.)

Honestly I’m not trying to make a big issue about any of these things. Which movies win the Oscar isn’t really the most important thing in the world, and I don’t think a movie needs to be a positive representation of something in order to be acknowledged. For example, I wouldn’t have complained if they gave the Irving G. Thalberg to Rudy Ray Moore. But when they keep making the same sort of choices I think it should at least be mentioned. I’m not trying to be like Charlton Heston saying “You bastards!” but more like Roddy Piper in They Live saying “It figures it would be something like this.”

Still unsure about that bucket of chicken in Precious though.

thanks Ebert

I have to point out that “The Blind Side” represents the first time two black producers were nominated for Best Picture. Lee Daniels is the first black director to earn a best picture nomination. In other words, black people were responsible for those films. So you should ask them why their films were nominated over the film produced and directed by old crusty white guys. Bringing white guilt back to the table, it bears repeating that if white people are more sensitive to the stereotypes they will do what they can to avoid them (and in the case you are making, avoiding it would be casting a black guy as a genius leader). This example supports my theory quite well.

<>

Do The Right Thing, Malcolm X? I thought those were nominated. Spike was nominated for best writing for Do The Right Thing. I’m really hoping that Inside Man 2 is what gets him that honorary oscar though.

<>

This is interesting. Perhaps you are suggesting some new kind of genre. “Progressive films”. They could be counter programmed against the Christian films that are playing in churches.

<>

I appreciate you responding, Vern.

Indeed those films are complicated. In closing I will say what my personal thoughts are regarding the reason the academy did choose those films. Firstly, I think nobody was very surprised to see Morgan Freeman play Nelson Mandela. If you asked anybody it was just a matter of time. He was born to play him. Now compare that to Sandra Bullock, who I think surprised many people with her performance. People respond well to films that take us to unexpected places. That is why a film about an obese fat black girl with HIV who was raped by her dad makes us sit up and watch. It is being rewarded for the risk it took. I think Morgan Freeman is not as risky of a proposition. Sandra carrying a dramatic film on her own was also a risk. I would say those two films were leaps of faith with the potential for disastrous results. And they turned out okay.

Ebert

Also I didn’t write or imply anything that remotely had to do with Tea parties or any of that other stuff you wrote, and don’t remember touching on any of those topics in an awful long time.