poses more questions than it answers

Rating: 7/10 (27 February 2010)

I started thinking about seeing Blind Side on the basis of that grab in the preview in which Leigh Anne bullocks her way to the head of a government shopfront queue, and both the front-of-the line, queue jumpee and the government flack-catcher are genuinely interested in seeing and hearing what she will do next. That summed up the cleverness of the approach Sandra Bullock took to depicting the character – sassy, unsentimental and an unblinking belief in the God ordained rectitude of her actions. But what really got me into the cinema was the controversy about the relative merits for Oscar glory of Avatar versus Hurt Locker. That whole fatuous debate arises from the kind of misguided insistence that Leigh Anne would probably display in comparing apples with oranges. The Hurt Locker is a fine film, even if it has to tack on an apparently much criticized epilogue to deliver on its opening statement that War is a Motivating Force that gives meaning the existence of those who are caught up in its rancour. That quote comes from the book of the same name by Christopher Hedges. In the book he argues that the real challenge to humanity is to find meaning in the simple events of every- day life – in faith, hope and charity rather than anger, hatred and destruction. Judged on that basis, the film fails to deliver on the theme it has set itself, even though it is a tense and riveting commendation of the American fighting (and bomb defusing) man. Avator is something much more momentous. It is to the first decade of the twenty-first century what Star Wars was to the last three decades of the twentieth century. Like Star Wars, the film Avatar is a story that can be enjoyed by children and adults alike. Its theme is somewhat more condensed but none the less compelling. It amounts to an articulate and compelling condemnation of the kind of post World War II foreign policy that resulted in the boys in Hurt Locker having to risk their lives in Iraq, to say nothing of the citizens of that country. Leigh Anne's kids would probably enjoy it as spectacle, then learn the message it seeks to impart from their teachers and peers when they go to university. Leigh Anne may well be voting for Sara Palin by then. Faith, hope and charity. That's what has me ruminating on the film long after the corn syrup sweetness that lingers in the mouth has dissipated. Long after the film's refusal to come to terms with the big picture causes of the ugliness and violence that can be kept largely at bay in suburbs full of palatial mansions has left the viewer feeling that something essential is missing. Did I feel a certain guilty pleasure in watching Bullock's performance? Yes! Am I inclined to think it was a cynical and exploitative exercise in the kind of self delusion that bolsters the Republicans in their quest to frustrate Obama's health care reform legislation? Now there's a question! Did it reflect the kind of sentiments that would lead to the more cinematically literate fringe of the Evangelical Right embracing Hurt Locker as uplifting, patriotic, sound doctrine and dismissing Avatar as mindless entertainment? So many questions...so few answers! But the more you think about it, the more it resonates with the all too- familiar right wing themes. The institutional advocates for African American self empowerment just get in the way of decent, right thinking white folks in their efforts to assist the coloured people. If you can do a reasonably good impression of someone packing a gun, you can face down the more dissolute members of the African American community. All you need is a bit of kindness and tolerance to take members of that (self)-disenfranchised community into your home and turn them into model citizens, ready to go out and put their bodies on the line to protect what you perceive to be your own interests. Leigh Anne's husband inspires his amazingly self disciplined African American foster child by quoting from the Charge of the Light Brigade. Subtext – do as you are told, even if the folks who are ordering you to lay down your life are foolish and evil. But then, it has to be admitted that the Leigh Anne character accomplishes more than all the cynical critics of the film will ever achieve. You never see her reading the bible. You never see her meditating on its precepts. She seems to be that kind of genuinely happy individual who revels in leading the unexamined life. But then... and I am going to hate myself for suggesting this... but then if you think about what Paul is saying in the first two chapters of his biblical letter to the Roman Church, about those persons who have never read the Law of Moses but show by their actions that what that Law says in written upon their hearts... then you find yourself ruminating on Blind Side. Has the Leigh Anne character intuitively divined the invisible qualities, the eternal power, the essential nature of God? (Romans 1:20). Can her actions that seem to bear all the hallmarks of God's Law written on her heart bear witness to the unfair accusations of Black civil rights guardians? (Romans 2:14-15) But ultimately, it is the very glibness of the film that robs the viewer of the opportunity to form a judgement on these matters. How would the Leigh Anne character react if, like the biblical character Job, she lost her health, wealth and loved ones? Would she emerge from such experiences a better person, like Job?
The screamingly funny but very dark 1988 film La vie est un long fleuve tranquille ( "Life Is a Long Quiet River") by Etienne Chatiliez posed just such a dilemma. Would her spirit have been embittered? That is something that neither the film's script (based upon actual events) nor Bullock's performance can hide.