Debating the Blind Side

There is sort of an unwritten rule that says comments on a site kind of belong to that site. But this one came up over at Hollywood-Elsewhere as part a debate about the film The Blind Side – why it was doing so well at the box office, and why it seems like just the kind of movie America-at-large craves. Director George Hickenlooper offered up this explanation:

I know John Lee Hancock. Our sons were on the same Pasadena T-Ball team. John is one of the great ignored and underrated Hollywood writer/directors. His films harken back to the golden age when movies were about telling stories and not narratives littered with characters being quirky and snarky to titillate the postmodern sensibilities of the effete New York literati. The polarity of tastes that has grown between the so called fly-over states and the two coasts is not the consequence of the dumbing down of the Midwest, but rather the infantilization of New York and Los Angeles. Where high art has become confused with the puerile masturbatory self examination of stone dead emotional detachment and characters who no longer mirror real life but are rather created to titillate the cynical sensibilities of critics who have seen too many movies and are no longer emotionally engaged with reality.

If it were me, I’d create an entire film around a character who talks like that.¬† The funny thing is, I don’t disagree with him.¬† But does it have to be so extreme on one side or the other? Middle ground is probably where Oscar lives. Not in the world of the wholly dumbed down, but not in the world of singular naval gazing. Still, because of the money involved, it’s not entirely out of the range of possibility to consider The Blind Side. With ten nominees, it’s possible to have one for the heartland, isn’t it? Throw in a Carrie Underwood or Taylor Swift number at the telecast and boom, insta-ratings bonanza.