House Negro at the Oscars: Why I liked Precious and didn't like the Blind Side

House Negroes, in the eighteenth and nineteeth centuries were privileged. Privileged in the sense that although they worked long hours, they did not have to face the unrelenting sun on the cotton and sugar plantations on a stomach half empty with meagre rations, fearful of rotation, suffering facelessness and with no home and firth. Yes, House Negroes had to answer to “Massa” but they were subsumed as part of the greater “family”, their tasks were difficult but not onerous, and they owed the “adopted” family their loyalty in exchange for a roof over their heads, food and clothing. They were portrayed as smiling and gentle, docile and non self serving, in contrast to the other specie- The Field Negro.


Upon analysis, I didn’t like The Blind Side. It’s strange because it felt good enough in the cinema. My conspiracy theory is that it insidiously reinforces stereotypes by hiding them behind a feel good, underdog story. We all love feel-good, underdog stories. Big Mike, I felt,was cast as the chosen one who was given a chance at being the House Negro: he was too docile, too submissive, too gentle to be real. I know the script is based on a true story but the film is telling by what it chose to include and what it chose to leave out.

Sure, my eyes welled up when Big Mike was cold and alone and wandering from the gym to the Laundromat with nowhere to stay and this generous woman, who did not know him from Adam offered him her home with such magnanimousness. Being the softy that I am, I melted when he went “home” and he had to hide behind a wall because there was no “home”. I cried again when he became part of Lee-Anne’s “family” and wondered- how many other people would genuinely do the same? I loved Lee-Anne. However, I found that The Blind Side’s categorisations were too trite, and its stereotyping too insidious to leave me feeling comfortable, and certainly the story was not poignant or layered enough to garner its leading lady a Best Actress Globe (although Sandra Bullock did a fine job with the material that she was given).

Would a boy who has grown up in the worst areas of the inner city and passed around in foster care be so defenceless? He was never once angry. Would a crackhead be so rational to tell her sons to close their eyes while she was shooting up? Did he really not witness things that a boy should not have witnessed? Typical for House Negroes, Big Mike was seen to have no real personality or character trait except that he had a “strong protective instinct”. He was not contaminated by the “filthy projects” so he was regarded as acceptable to live in the Great House. He did not live up to the expectations that he would steal (honest) and he would hurt himself for his adopted family (self-sacrificing). That was all we saw. Did Big Mike have a girlfriend at school? Did he fall in love? Did he ever get angry? I am sure the answers are all yes, but it would have probably pricked the sensibilities of the target audience too much to enter this humanistic realm. The portrayal of Big Mike as comfortable in his alone-ness, his only friends the children- with the subtext that only they understood his innocence- beggared belief.

Apart from the person who tried to get Mike into a good school (who ultimately threw him out of his home) there were no good black role models in the film. All the evil forces were black. His mother was a black crackhead, his peers were black drug dealing, lustful and violent men and at one time Big Mike had to encage Lee-Anne in her car to protect her from their claws. Even the “extra” roles were intriguing in their portrayal of us: the scowling uncaring woman at the Laundromat was black, the mouthy administrative officer at the foster care centre with an attitude was black, the guy who owned a store for big and tall people who didn’t really cater for big and tall people was black, the intimidating woman who mercilessly interrogated Big Mike about why he chose Ole Miss was black. Themes of saving persons from a life of savagery through assimilation evokes tales of a merciful slave master- Lee Ann’s friends did not enter this no go area, they did not help to build its schools and its organisations, could they have contributed to the oppression and neglect that led to Mike’s exclusion?

The story also reads as if it could fall straight out of a Sarah Palin campaign draft: “Republicans Love Black People Too”, a struggle in the hinterland of Obamaland to present a world that is post racial. I appreciate that football and sport in America occupy sanctified territories but I would have been more impressed if the story was about a Republican family who had taken a young boy from the projects or from the streets and helped him to become the next star doctor, engineer, or political scientist. Are there any of those who have made it? We have enough ballers and rappers already. That’s not all we can do.

This is particularly affecting when the other Academy Award winning actress was Monique for her role as an unfeeling abusive mother in Precious. Although the theme of redemption flowed through both films, I felt that the characterisation of Precious was much more textured: Precious was monosyllabic and underperforming in the same way as Big Mike was, but she was much more than an abused teenager. We were allowed to get into her head- she had her own dreams and her own plans, she was funny and resilient in the face of adversity. Precious, was, in her own way, winning. She had real peers. She was surrounded by real people. Her redemption did not come unaided but she largely had to work out her own salvation. Her story ended sadly but positively: she was going to move on with her babies, in her own space, in her own place.

There was a tremendous overload of abuse in the movie- Precious was obese and pregnant, HIV positive, with poor self esteem and a Down’s Syndrome child, pregnant by her dad, beaten by her mother, waiting on a heart attack. Some black people don’t like it because they thought it reinforced negative stereotypes. I say tough. Not all the black people in this film were like Precious. I think the film presented a wide array of characters and circumstances. It probably bothers me more that Barbara Bush led a special screening of the film: poverty porn is disgusting.

Why is it that I like Precious and not the Blind Side? Not because I believe Monique really went out of her comfort zone to play her role. I feel it is very easy to play mean. There were no vulnerable moments, I felt her acting lacked subtlety- her performance was “Cruel and Sick 101”, “Cruel and Sick 102” and “Cruel and Sick 103”, even in the dénouement at the end. I liked Precious because some black people are cruel and callous and are welfare queens who abuse their children and they need to be outed. In the same way that it outed that there are black folks who give up their lives to mentor and support inner city kids. I liked Precious because we saw both sides of Harlem. I liked Precious because it showed us that true help is self empowerment. Hollywood does not owe black people happy endings and positive portrayals. All I ask for is a fair one.