Behaviour In The Blind Side

The Blind Side is an award-winning Hollywood film and a perfect example of yet another white saviour film created by Hollywood. The white saviour complex is defined by Pragnya Prabakaran as an ideology that people of colour need to be saved by white people, who are superior, but help the helpless. Though it is important to acknowledge this movie is based on a true story, the movie revolves around the experience of the Touhy family, specifically Leigh Anne Touhy rather than the experience of Michael Oher. Michael is a homeless black boy that gets adopted by the Touhy family and becomes a football star, yet in this film, is over shined by Leigh Anne’s character. In addition to this, the movie also fails to address the issue of race directly and

Coach Cotton was shown in the movie to call out racist referees for their discriminatory calls against Michaels black body in the football games. Though he sticks up for Michael it is important to disclose that these actions were again for selfish purposes and for the benefit of the team which would eventually benefit the coach. Again, for the benefit of the team Leigh Anne tells the coach that Michael has a high percentile in protective instincts and uses this as a tool to make Michael perform his best on the field. Leigh Anne and coach Cotton go on throughout the movie exploiting his high protective instincts to their own benefit. Coach Cotton goes out of his way to stand up for Michael when the referee fails to call out one of the players who hits Michael. This scene presents the coach protecting Michael. After this, Coach Cotton refers to Michael as “son” saying he will have his back. He does that to bring out Michaels protective instincts which he wants to use as mobility for his own team and career. Towards the end of the movie, the assistant director of enforcement for the NCAA interrogates Michael on his decision on choosing his university and points out that coach Cotton got a contract to work at the university after Michael accepted

One of the more troubling comments is from a white lady who mentions she was born on the poor side of Memphis, but she worked hard and eventually got out and became the rich individual she is today. This comment comes from the common belief that the people in situations, such as those in poverty came to be there from their own lack of hard work and commitment to get out of those conditions. Though, it is much more than just working hard, especially when one faces multiple intersecting variables that hold them back. This ideology is common in the eyes of many people of the upper class and places the problem on the shoulders of the people of colour and marginalized communities. They missed out on the perfect opportunity to shine light on the causes of poverty in black communities in the United States and how poverty affects bodies of colour differently than those of white ones. The movie showcases the significant differences on both sides of town, yet fails to touch base on the systemic issues that caused coloured communities to be impoverished compared to the nice suburb white communities. The movie fails to incorporate the corrupt intentions of racial capitalism that was not only built on black bodies, but continues to put black communities in the marginalized subsections of the United States. Garakai Chengu