I found "The Blind Side" an inspirational movie, demonstrating how we from the "other side" dismiss those who are from the 'hood, assuming that they have little intelligence, will soon be dealing drugs or engaged in thievery, even murder. All of those suppositions are largely true.

But, watching the "60 Minutes" presentation last night of how one school in the worst socio-economic area of NYcity completely changed the expectation for the students of this exceptional charter school showed what dedication can accomplish. The students, who would have had no future, have been turned on to expecting to attend college, and their grades have so remarkably improved in a few short years, that college is well in the future of all of them.

As the principal explained: it was a lot of hard work and intensive schooling for both teachers and students. Their school days are much longer, even teaching on Saturdays and all the students are told they "can do it" rather than the low expectations usually given to them previously.

While "Blind Side" was only a story, it perfectly illustrates that our expectations are too often prophetically correct when they only expect the lowest scholarship for these students. When students are taught, from the earliest parental encouragement and also from the teachers, they do rise to the occasion.

Bjorn,

I saw this movie yesterday and found it, as Elaine, Inspirational.

It is "based" on a true story. Would you have preferred that since it was a "white" helping the boy it not be done? In reality a kind act was done.

Nicholson and Freeman did the "bucket list" a few years back where I would say the "black-white" outcome was symbiotic.

Anyone expecting Hollywood to be our role model however should have a "reality check." It is rare we can find a quality movie to view.

I appreciate Bill Cosby's courage to tell the black community they need to look within as to at least "some" of their plight. Using your criteria, how has "the white Democratic party leadership" used the black community as being their "savior-complex" from the 60's - Hillary? Any similarities at all? Were their motives always completely altruistic?

If we are not to judge their "party" motives, is it fair to judge the couple that helped this child from the "hood" who had no parental guidance and encouragement? What was their "payoff" other than possibly the self satisfaction in helping another human being the best they knew how when the problem presented itself?

Regards,
pat

I see the point of the article and the pattern it highlights. But, as Pat said, this particular film...and some of the others cited, like "Radio"...are based on true stories. If it was all Hollywood fiction that's one thing. There is, however, reality at the core of some of these films. So, because they fit a "white savior complex," they should never have been done?

The reality is, these stories happened for real, and they are no less filmworthy than the majority of the junk that is trotted out of Hollywood each year. In fact... they are more so.

Thanks...

Frank

Bjorn,

I will grant that many of the movies Hollywood generates strain credulity. Some do, in fact, perpetuate unacceptable stereotypes. Maybe Cool Runnings falls into one or both of these categories. But many other movies--based on true stories--don't deserve to be lumped together in the same group. To say that there is a disproportionate number of movies showing a "white savior" is unfair unless you are willing to back it up with more than anecdotal evidence.

Less than fourteen percent of the total US population is black. That means that one in fourteen movies about any kind of "savior" should portray a black person helping out someone of another race. And who better to bring those heart-warming stories to light than a black director or producer? That is why it is so disheartening, if one is concerned about movies that perpetuate negative stereotypes, to see black directors and producers churning out such material as: Menace II Society, He Got Game, Baadasssss!, Barbarshop, and Boyz 'n the Hood, to name just a few.

Why must white people be made to feel bad for wanting to help? Instead of discounting the good-hearted and well-meaning white people who are willing to spend their time and money on someone besides themselves or slamming the directors and producers who want to tell a moving, true story, why not spend your time searching out all the stories of "black saviors", "asian saviors", and "latino saviors"?

Better yet, why not leave people, regardless of their color, to help as they see fit?

There is a pattern - but it one in reality as well as in Hollywood. And there is a reason: in a society in which one race marginalizes the other, very often the only way in which members of the "other" will have an opportunity to demonstrate their true potential (or to be saved from bigoted "justice", as in To Kill a Mockingbird) is if one member of the majority sees past prejudice. So the patten is to some extent of a function of a prejudiced society - and that is bound to be reflected in creative projects such as books and movies.

It seems if there was not a antagonist there wouldn't be a story and that is no different for this blog spot. White man is over bearing, white man is a big brother, white man movie makes subtle racist intonations that keep the blackman from being fully self-realized.

This is just a movie about someone in need and someone willing to help. Why, oh why, make more out of it than there really is.

I know why, because it makes good copy and good debate.

Enough said.

Hollywood doesn't like to make movies that don't make money. Movies that entertain us, inspire us, make us feel good about ourselves, etc. sell well. This is easy to understand. The movie described does all three (Yes, I liked it a lot.) . But a pattern? We see patterns where we want to see patterns. Eight (mentioned) films is not a pattern. There are real patterns in Hollywood that are a reflection of our society that I find extremely alarming. The patterns that concern me reflect a mainstream American fascination with Occultism, Sexualized Lifestyle, Graphic Violence, and Drug Abuse. But I guess the obvious is not that fun writing about.

Another pattern that has been around a while that I find interesting is a fascination with either the catastrophic termination of life (as we know it) on this planet, or the post-apocalyptic world that would follow such an event. I stopped counting at around 50 movies. I count myself among those who can't quite tear themselves away from this spectacle regardless of the weak storylines. Perhaps it is my Adventist childhood instilled fear of the "Time of Trouble" that was just around the next corner. I think that a fascination with CGI special effects can neither explain the "2012" phenomena nor the string of similar movies that have gone before. Nor do I think that my reading of "The Road" will keep me away from the upcoming film adaptation.

Forget blaming Hollywood - they just make what will sell. This usually means that even stories 'based on a true story' are usually more fiction that truth, and the decisions.

Ask yourself instead why the population likes the resulting fiction.

For example:

"Pearl Harbor" - almost no bearing on reality
"U 571" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U-571_(film)
"Patch Adams" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patch_adams
"Defiance" - http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/mar/05/defiance-film-poland

When it comes to movies that don't pretend to be true, the resulting disconnect from reality is so wide as to be either annoying or funny - the physics, chemistry, medicine, police work, etc. are rarely plausible.

There are a few exceptions, so brilliant they are worth pointing out, eg:

"Das Boot"
"Apollo 13"

/Bevin

There has obviously been a lot of debate over the past decades about affirmative action and discrimination/reverse discrimination. In my technical professional, Blacks are under-represented, mostly because disproportionately few of them pursue and complete the educational requirements for a career in my field. Asians are over-represented because many of them do, or immigrants have. Partly because of this, Blacks are aggressively helped by senior management (mostly White) to progress rapidly through the organization at a rate disproportionate to their representation in the organization. So, is this yet another case of White Savior? Should Blacks work legislatively to end affirmative action? I don't see that happening, and until it does, it is inconsistent to whine about White Saviors.

I suppose another stereotype is the Male Rescuer. Similar arguments could be made, on both sides.

Our son is from India. Am I a white savior? I just wanted to be a dad to someone. If we had different laws concerning adoption in America we would have adopted from this great land.

"Das Boot" is still a classic: I have seen it twice and it never fails to be riveting.

In Malcolm Gladwell's prescient "Outliers" he explains why Asians are a much larger proportion of college and grad students. Their centuries-old culture of hard work necessary to succeed is the secret.

Other cultures have more difficulties to overcome. Yesterday's WAPo had an article about Latina pregnant teen agers--two 14 and 15-year-old sisters--who became mothers simply because they wanted babies. They have no expectations and motherhood, at least, gives them some recognition.

To change such long-standing traditions and the cultural acceptance, is a real problem in the U.S. today. How should the government (or should it be government) that seeks to change a tradition of culture that is so limiting for its young people?

Ditto for many young black males growing up in the inner cities where drugs and gangs are all too common.

Well spoken. This isn't to say that in our every-day lives, whatever our race/creed/gender/class/religion/ethnicity may be that we shouldn't work to be a force for justice and equity in the lives of others. However, when we ignore these subtexts, we fail to recognize how important it is to be attentive to the racism, sexism, ageism and imperialism that still lingers in much of the American (or any other dominant/dominating country, group, etc.) subconscious (or conscious in some cases). Awareness is vital to addressing these ills that still haunt us.

I haven't seen this movie but the trailers for it gave me the same impression - white, blond super mom rescues big dumb black kid from other predatory blacks.

Now I don't know, maybe they did this, but I suspect the only way to rescue such a script from the stereotype would be to show that the white family was every bit as screwed up in its own way, that what was done was not necessarily from (if you will excuse the phrase) lily white motives, and that the real beneficiaries were in fact the helping family.

Guess I'll have to go see it now to see how they did.

Mark

We sometimes see movies where a black person helps white people overcome their un-hipness, un-coolness, uptightness or humorlessness. See, e.g., Beverly Hills Cop, Men in Black, 48 hours, etc. I'm sure there are alot more of these, I just can't think of them at the moment. Does that qualify as a "black savior complex" genre.

Well, it is not the occasional featuring of a white or black person in a particular role the at turns it into a stereotype. What makes it a stereotype is that it is most frequently portrayed in a very narrow range of personality.

Maybe an example might be the "black God" complex, as in "The Legend of Bagger Vance" and "Bruce Almighty". :-)

Concerning this particular film, why doesn't someone ask Michael Oher, who was a well remunerated first round pick of the Baltimore Ravens and is now playing for them, if he has a problem with it? After all, it is a dramatization partly about his life...isn't it? And while we're at it, why doesn't someone ask him if he has a problem with the possibly "less than pure motives" of the family that took him in.

Thanks...

Frank

"Rogers’ problem isn’t with the portrayal of an isolated case of generosity but more with Hollywood’s history of being “a major purveyor of White paternalism in this country."
----
What many of the comments here missed is that statement above.
The problem is not this ONE story, it is the prevasive HISTORY of portrayal of blacks on film and in the larger culture. And this within a culture which had an historical deliberate campaign to degrade the God given nobility in black people for economic and social gain and to forster white superiority and privilage of a white majority which more often than not saw themselves as "christian".

Anyone who believes a film is just a film is not truly aware of the mind manipulation and subtexts that goes on the large and small screen (ever notice any product placement in film-I guess that means nothing also. Eventhough companies pay major bucks to have their products placed.)The best filmmakers are fully aware they are not just making pretty pictures-THERE IS ALWAYS a subtext/point of view.

I saw ads for this film and my mind said the same thing, another white savior film-PASS!(eventhough I think Bullock is one of the best most socially aware actresses working today). As a black man in the image business I smile to myself when people say things like its just a picture or image-that's the perfect mindset for easy manipulation. For anyone really intrested in understanding historical portayals of black images in American culture over time, Marlon Rigg's documentary "Ethnic Notions" is a must.

Al

P.S. For every film that anyone can give to counter Roger's argument I will give you 10 that suppport it. Therein lies the problem.

Al's final point is well taken, but it is worth observing that "Invcitus" shows a black man effectively saving not only the players on the South African rugby team, but also the sporting life of virtually every White in S. Africa, inasmuch as it was (rightly) banned from world sports. This really hurt the Whites, esp. not being allowed to compete internationally in the sports that they most valued: rugby and cricket.

Hi Bjorn, Your article is excellent. I agree with you that by having white people helping black people it tends to cast a negative reflection about the group always being helped. Hollywood does need to reverse that unfortunate trend. I just had one comment that I would like to make in regard to Clint Eastwood's Gran Torino. To me it showed a development from extreme racial prejudice based on his experiences of fighting them in the Korean war to the point that he preferred mixing with them than he did his own family.

At the end, instead of being the great hero that guns down his enemies, he goes unarmed knowing that by having them gun him down in front of all of those witnesses those bullies would we locked up where they belonged. (His physician had only given him a short time to live anyway.)

To me the effect of that movie had a positive influence in helping the average american view a minority group in an extremely positive way realizing that they have positive things to offer that are better than what the average American gets in his/her own culture. (For example, the great cooking, the togetherness of their families and embracing and welcoming Walt into their group.)

I really liked it at the end when after his death in the will that he left, instead of giving the Gran Torino to his white grand-daughter, he had left it to his Korean neighbor, the very one who had tried to steal if from him!

"That means that one in fourteen movies about any kind of "savior" should portray a black person helping out someone of another race."

Another quota system suggested? It's time for everyone and I mean everyone to be colorblind. But it will not be profitable for Al Shrapnel or Jessie if that happens.

Re: "That means that one in fourteen movies about any kind of "savior" should portray a black person helping out someone of another race."

To Your Friend: Sorry, but you missed my point completely. That statement was made to highlight how ridiculous the original article's premise is to begin with. My point is that either we shouldn't be counting at all regardless of what color the person directing or producing the movie is, or we should hold all in the movie industry equally accountable instead of singling out one race. Opportunity abounds for those who seize it, and it is far past time to stop demonizing well-meaning people of any race.

As Frank has pointed out, if anyone should be concerned about this stereotype, it should be Michael Oher, who probably sold the rights to his story and made a boatload of money from it.

I wonder, as RT1 does, why blacks don't work to end affirmative action since it was certainly enacted and nurtured by a bunch of "white saviors" in Congress. How degrading to be forced to live within such a system!

LOL@ the based on a true story comments.

But there are Black maids and butlers!! Why shouldn't they be represented in film!!

Yes, Sandra Bullock had no control over her multi-million dollar production company, and these movies, just green light themselves.

White people simply chose "not to see" this racial typecasting, because it would mean recognizing their inherent white privileged.

Thank you for this article. Since noticing the white saviour movie problem as a teenager, I have watched Hollywood roll out one after another for the past 20 years. It's just nauseating. I wish people would understand that the point is not whether an individual story is true. The point is which stories are chosen to be made into films. And if the response to that is that Hollywood makes what people want to see, which is no doubt true, these choices are still a reflection of the ongoing racism in American society. As far as I can see, people who enjoy these movies are either comfortable with the stereotypes of black people being poor, down and out, and in need of help from whites, or they take some kind of "liberal" comfort and inspiration from the fact that the white person was so "good" to help these poor blacks when, goodness knows, they didn't have to. And oh look, the races can get along! Who knew? Seriously, having these responses to these movies in 2010, is, in my opinion, just more racism. I could not be more sick of it.

For those that claim that the black-white dynamic of the entire movie can be explained by the "Based on a True Story" tag, I would like to remind you that the book the movie is adapted from, has Michael Oher as its main protagonist, in all his imperfections and glorious moments. Making a movie that creates such a 2d character that must be saved by the eponymous white family actually denigrates the real family that did an act of kindness. Michael Oher doesn't seem to be borderline retarded nor completely simple; he has more complexity than "black friendly giant". The movie's portrayal of the family seems to portray them as adopting a large albeit scary-looking dog.