I loved the book, as well as Michael Lewis’ other book MONEYBALL, and was surprised and interested to see that a movie version had been made.  It’s a good example of what is needed to turn a true story, no matter how compelling, into a “story story” that will emotionally engage an audience.  Though everything in the movie is mentioned at some point in the book, I would not have imagined the specifics of the movie from having read the book, especially some of the structural choices.  I think they did an amazing job.  I highly recommend reading the book and comparing the two, especially if you’ve got a “true story” you’re working on.  If you read on before doing so, I’m alerting you right now that there will be SPOILERS in this post…

The book opens with a whole lot on the history of the Offensive Left Tackle in the NFL, why it’s now so important and highly paid.  (Hint: it has something to do with Lawrence Taylor, explaining Sandra Bullock’s last line in the movie — which was a big “huh?” for me, since none of this material was present in the movie.)  The book talks a lot about Michael Oher’s physical freakishness, in that he has the incredibly rare (and thus valuable) combination of size and QUICKNESS that is most valued in the left tackle (who protects a right-handed quarterback’s “blind side”).  This also wasn’t even really mentioned in the movie.

Instead, they focused, I think quite effectively, on Sandra Bullock’s character, and made it her story.  It’s one of those movies with two central characters who might seem equal in emphasis (like many romantic comedies).  But ask yourself this question: “Is it more giving us the experience of being this woman who takes in this boy, or the experience of this boy who gets taken in by this woman?”  I think the answer is clear — she’s the main character.

Michael, in Dramatica terms, is the Impact Character.  This is a great illustration of the importance of this character (and relationship with the Main Character) at the center of compelling stories – including true ones.  The book presented a great Overall Story about Michael’s arc, but you wouldn’t have necessarily seen this way of telling the story from the book – with her as the MC and him as the IC.  And there are certainly other ways you could do it.  But for my money (and that of the huge audience that has supported this movie and got her such recognition), this choice really worked.

So if the Main and Impact character both influence each other, and one makes a big change at the end, and the other stays steadfast (regarding their key approach to life that the story is about), how did it work in this movie?  My answer is this: Michael, the impact character, changes – in that he finally fully trusts and relaxes into the sincere love of a family.  Sandra’s character, pressed to evaluate her own motives and goodness at the All is Lost moment, ultimately is seen to remain steadfast in her path, and the rightness of that path is affirmed.

Michael has great impact on her throughout, and she gains much from this relationship, but her basic motives and approach are only reaffirmed in the end.  It’s a lot like the Jerry Maguire-Rod Tidwell relationship I often talk about – it’s deeply moving when this character she has impacted makes some sort of change that she has caused, and helps her see that her initial approach that she has stuck with, through thick and thin and even necessity, has worked.

I was especially intrigued by the way this movie handled the climax.  When Michael was being courted by colleges and working with Kathy Bates, my attention waned a bit, because it didn’t feel like much of a “Bad Guys Close In” section (getting his grade point average up to qualify for a scholarship did not feel like a big or believable enough threat in the scheme of things)  Knowing the true story of his success, I began to worry that they weren’t going to have an “All is Lost” moment (like SAVE THE CAT talks about).  But boy, did they find one!

The issue of the NCAA questioning the family’s motives, and causing Michael to question them, is something I didn’t even remember from the book, and I’m guessing is something the movie GREATLY expanded upon in order to find an “All is Lost” moment.  And it was a great one, in my opinion, because it truly felt like the main question of this movie was now being answered with a resounding “No.”   (To me, that question was: “Will she make Michael a true and permanent part of this family in a way that changes his and everyone’s lives for the better?”  And because it really comes down to whether these two incomplete characters will end up “together,” or not, I’d classify it as what Blake Snyder would call a “Buddy Love” movie.)

This “All is Lost” sequence rocked both the Main and Impact Character to their core (but we feel it much more through the Main Character – we see things “through” her, but look “at” Michael).  And it led to a satisfying Act Three in which a new solution is found, so that the story problem is finally put to rest.

Finding a personal and emotionally compelling “take” on a true story is so important, in my opinion, to making it work for an audience.  I think “The Blind Side” is a great example of how to do that…