Blindsided

Yup, we got around to watching "The Blind Side" last night.



We tried to be open-minded, honest we did. After all, the story itself is interesting. If you're not familiar with it, the movie, based on a book by Michael Lewis,

tells the true story of Michael Oher, an essentially homeless youth, born with certain genetic gifts--enormous size, speed, agility--that make him an ideal football player. He is a prototypical left tackle--the offensive lineman generally responsible for protecting a quarterback's "blind side," and thus, on average, the second-highest paid player (behind the quarterback) on most NFL teams. Despite a deficient academic background, Oher, thanks to his physical gifts, was accepted into a prestigious Mississippi private school. While there, he was effectively adopted by Leigh Anne and Sean Tuohy, who brought him into their luxurious home, helped him succeed academically, and eventually watched as he was drafted by the Baltimore Ravens.

The movie takes this heartwarming tale and turns it into. . . well, into a heartwarming tale. And therein lies the essential problem. Everything in the film is geared to pluck at the heartstrings. And even though we probably know from the get-go where the story will end (especially if we're football fans), the filmmakers miss no opportunity to drill their points home.

Case in point: At one moment in the movie, Leigh Anne (Sandra Bullock--more on whom later) is discussing Michael (Quinton Aaron) with one of the administrators at his school. His records are incomplete, owing to his transient youth, but there is some information on his various childhood test scores: He scored in the lowest percentiles in such standard academic areas as reading and IQ. But, the administrator says, he did score in the 98th percentile in one category. Which one? Protective instincts!

Get it, everybody? He's protective! What a great quality for a future left tackle! Thing is, who evaluates schoolchildren's "protective instincts"? How would you evaluate a child's protective instincts? Assess their willingness to give their lives in defense of their Tickle-Me Elmo's? We don't recall being tested for "protective instincts" as a child (although we did score in the 99th percentile for cynicism). Sure Oher, like other NFL prospects, probably underwent a series of psychological evaluations before being drafted, and we believe he would score highly in that area--we just doubt that he was tested for that as a child. But it makes for a good dramatic moment, right?

Well, no, not really.

Of course, the main reason we're watching the movie--aside from our commitment to see all the Best Picture nominees--is Sandra Bullock, Academy Award winner for Best Actress. Now, bottom line: She was perfectly fine in the movie. Whenever the wealthy Leigh Anne is confronted by some evidence of Michael's horrifically underprivileged upbringing, she looks down, looks off to one side, and photogenically pulls herself together in exactly the way you would expect an actress to pull herself together to indicate shock and dismay at receiving news of a young black man's horrifically underprivileged upbringing. The most noteworthy moment from her performance is probably the moment where Leigh Anne explains to Michael what he has to do on the football field: She explains that he needs to think of the quarterback, running back, and other members of his team as members of his own family who need to be protected. And the reason the moment works is that it's basically a comic moment, and Sandra Bullock is essentially a comedic actress. (That's not an insult, by the way: Comedy is much harder than drama.) Frankly, the movie would have benefited from quite a bit more humor.

The main problem with Leigh Anne Tuohy's character is that, by the end of the movie, you still have no idea what motivated her to bring Michael Oher into her home. Does she suffer from white guilt? Is she motivated by a near-fanatical sense of Christian duty? Is it all just a ploy to ensure that Michael, when he ultimately gets a football scholarship, will play for the college of her choice? Who knows?

In fairness, this is more the fault of shoddy screenwriting than of deficient acting. Still, a superior actress could have pulled it off. Not to put too fine a point on it, but if Meryl Streep had played the part, we would know what makes Leigh Anne Tuohy tick.

In the end, "The Blind Side" is a perfectly adequate Lifetime Movie Network film. Sandra Bullock's Oscar win is testament to the oft-lamented dearth of high-quality leading roles for women. The film's Best-Picture nomination, though, is inexplicable and may convince the Academy that it needs to rethink its decision to expand the field.

A Kinder Murder

The orderly heard Lecter whispering
to him, all afternoon, and Miggs
crying. They found him at bed check.
He'd swallowed his own tongue... .
Lecter did it to amuse himself.
--Silence of the Lambs

If a guy wants to commit suicide, is it illegal to agree with him? Obviously, the answer is no: One can agree or disagree with anything. But what about telling the guy you agree with him? Telling him you think it's a good idea? Encouraging him?

In Minnesota, William F. Melchert-Dinkel, a former nurse, stands accused of assisted suicide. In fairness, the details of Melchert-Dinkel's case make him look less like Dr. Kevorkian than Charles Manson. Melchert-Dinkel, you see, didn't work with terminally ill patients in unbearable pain; he trolled internet chat rooms conversing with the suicidal under a variety of personae. Frequently, he offered advice on the best way to off oneself. He also pretended to be suicidal himself and made suicide pacts with his interlocutors. Authorities can link him fairly definitively to two suicides, one in Canada and one in Great Britain, but Melchert-Dinkel has admitted that he probably contributed to the suicides of several others.

Now, Melchert-Dinkel is undeniably creepy. There's something in his actions reminiscent of Hannibal Lecter's coercing "Multiple" Miggs into his fatal seizure. It makes us wonder, though, about one's legal--as opposed to ethical--obligations to the suicidal. WOS makes the point that people who go to these websites are, whether they admit it or not, seeking help. Even if a person emphatically declares his suicidal intentions, the very act of publicizing these intentions is on some level a plea to be stopped: The truly suicidal don't talk, they do.

So, assuming that Melchert-Dinkel tipped someone's mental balance from salvation to perdition, does that make him guilty in the eyes of the law? We are not so sure, even if the state has on its books a law against assisted suicide. To put it another way, is encouraging someone to kill himself akin to assisting him? And what constitutes "encouragement"? "Go on! Kill yourself. You're worthless, and the world would be better off without you." Probably. "I can see why you want to kill yourself, and it makes sense to me." Gray area. "I don't know. I wouldn't do it, but it's up to you." We think not.

What's particularly troubling about this case is the fact that Melchert-Dinkel didn't just offer encouragement; he pretended to be suicidal himself. He convinced people that he would in some sense join them in their final act. If that was the ultimate factor that convinced these people to take the plunge, does that make Melchert-Dinkel more culpable? Would it have made a difference if Melchert-Dinkel had truly been suicidal but then changed his mind?

On the one hand, this man is nothing more than a serial killer with a fascinating M.O. On the other hand, the authorities need to be wary of decisions that effectively criminalize speech. We know and agree that there must be limits on free speech, such as proscriptions against yelling fire in a crowded theater. But if a theater is already engulfed in flames, and someone decides he wants to stay and burn, is it a criminal act to tell him you think it's a good idea?

Know More of Your Rights (A Brief Post)

We see that Blogger has finally decided to post a new "Blog of Note" in the Blogs of Note space. We couldn't help but notice that it wasn't, y'know, US. Still, at least there is, once again, hope.

In other news, according to a recent report on "Stop and Frisk" data from the New York Police Department, black people were significantly more likely to be stopped than white people. According to a chart only 10% of the more than 580,000 stops last year were of white people, while 55% were of blacks.

Racial profiling? Police bias? We didn't think so. But then we saw the form that police must fill out after stopping someone--a form that lists acceptable reasons for stopping and frisking:

1. Resemblance to a suspect

2. Furtive behavior

3. Loitering in front of ("casing") a location

4. Use of the word "hizzy"

5. Other

A Teacher's Lament

Semester's end fast approaches, and we've been busy reading exams and essays. It's tedious work, at times, but, y'know, these students aren't going to fail themselves. A rule of thumb: The more an essay resembles beat poetry, the less likely it is to pass. In our lower-level writing class, students were asked to write about the advantages or disadvantages of serving in the military. One student responded with a series of twenty or so sentences, all of which began "Been [sic] in the military. . . ." We could almost hear the bongos punctuating the "paragraph" breaks. The smell of clove cigarettes hung heavy in the air.

We also made the mistake of allowing students to hand in late work up until yesterday. Our desk is buried 'neath a mound of rushed mediocrity. It's not the mediocrity that bothers us, though; we're depressed by the lack of self-respect. These young people who wouldn't leave the house if they had a hair out of place, or if their shoes didn't match their nail polish, think little of turning in work in which they represent themselves as hopelessly unkempt thinkers.

We're not talking about an ill-conceived sentence or a less-than-fully formed argument; we're talking about those writers who present work that doesn't even address the questions we've asked, essays that have obviously not even been spell-checked (never mind read through for clarity or correctness).

We had an acting teacher years ago, a wonderfully affected old dear--he wore an ascot, for Pete's sake! As far as he was concerned, students were expected to be in their seats before he entered the room. Anyone who walked in after him--even if he had literally just taken his seat--would be greeted with a withering, "Oh, why bother?!?" One can only imagine what he might say were he to read some of these lesser examples of the compositional art. Why bother, indeed?

From the Department of Stupid Questions (A Brief Post)

So, this morning, the DJ on our local rock radio station informed his audience that yesterday was Bono's birthday. The U2 frontman, noted humanitarian, and Nobel Peace Prize nominee (or so it's been rumored) hit the big 5-0,

DJ: "So, do you think it's better to be 50 when you're Bono than it is to be 50 and, say, me?"

Know Your Rights

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration said Sunday it would seek a law allowing investigators to interrogate terrorism suspects without informing them of their rights, as Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. flatly asserted that the defendant in the Times Square bombing attempt was trained by the Taliban in Pakistan.
--Holder Backs a Miranda Limit for Terror Suspects

You have the right to remain silent. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided to you. The Miranda warning arose in response to the 1966 Supreme Court case, Miranda v. Arizona, when a conviction was overturned because the police did not inform the suspect of his constitutional rights. Controversial, sure, but fair enough. No one should be compelled to provide self-incriminatory statements, and this proscription necessitates that people be aware of their rights.

Nowadays, though, one hardly needs to be officially Mirandized to know one's rights: If you've ever watched an episode of "Law and Order," you know 'em.

In spite--indeed, because--of this, we don't understand the Obama administration's logic in not informing suspected terrorists of their constitutional rights. If they've spent any time in the US, they're already aware of the rights. And, even if the suspects are not explicitly informed of their rights--well, let's put it this way: Does the administration think terrorism suspects are so deferential to the authorities that they will feel a need to cooperate with the nice policeman unless they are told they don't have to?

Upon taking office, President Obama wanted to signal a break from the more egregious unconstitutionality of the Bush regime. What purpose is served by withholding Miranda warnings from terrorism suspects? The warning should be recited, shouted--posted on the walls of police stations in English and Arabic and Urdu. It's a small reminder of the sometimes questionable civility of the nation upon which these people have allegedly declared war.

Momday

We don't have much to say today--spare us the obvious witticisms ("As opposed to. . .") Just a lazy Mother's Day at Solipsist Central. WOS is attempting a creme brulee; she's a good cook, so it should work out all right. Of course, culinary experimentalism can often have tragic results. (See "Chicken Cordon Bleu Massacre," Chicago, 1948.)

Don't worry, we called MOS already, and WOS called MILOS. We know that Mother's Day was a holiday invented by the greeting card industry way back when. Of course, since our generation (and, we suppose, our mothers') was born after the holiday had already been established, it's an official enough part of all our lives that we have to accept it.

So happy Mother's Day to all the moms out there--and the dads, too, why not? And now, we can go on unappreciating you for another year.