On ‘127 Hours,’ and a messy little thing called opinion

Posted by · 2:08 pm · November 1st, 2010

It all started, as so many conflicts do these days, with a tweet. After spending a morning and afternoon musing on “127 Hours,” following a breakfast-time screening on the last day of the London Film Festival, I accepted the hard fact that I simply didn’t like it very much.

I wanted to feel differently. Danny Boyle, in addition to being one of my favorite ever interviewees, is a vital filmmaker whose previous misses I’ve even found more stimulating than most directors’ hits. James Franco is shaping up to be among the most pleasingly off-kilter leading men of his generation. The tech geek in me was excited to see the long-underused Enrique Chediak working on a large canvas, alongside the justly rated Anthony Dod Mantle.

I had, I admit, harbored doubts about how Team Boyle could cinematically enliven Aron Ralston’s simple-if-grisly survival tale, one that could promise no surprises after ample media coverage as recently as 2003. Some blinder of a structural or technical choice, I assumed, was being hidden up someone’s sleeve — and when I saw only a familiar collection of hopped-up editing tricks and multimedia interpolations that designerised the protagonist’s plight without deepening it, I wasn’t afraid to say I felt a little crushed.

Handing the film a D+ rating — letter grading being my habitual system for Twitter-haiku reviews — I offered a single curtailed sentence as explanation: “Boyle’s off-his-Ritalin visuals and Franco’s charisma can’t mask fact that this story has no second degree.”

It was intended, as always with such tweets, merely as a stopgap until I found time to write a longer piece, so I was somewhat blindsided by the attention my 140-character amuse-bouche received. A surprised Anne Thompson posted it on her blog, and brought it up again on Friday’s episode of Oscar Talk with Kris. Meanwhile, Sasha Stone used it as a trigger for an entire essay on her relationship to film critics, raising the issue of relative “life experience” that she’s used before to defend films she loves, and bluntly stating that, as much as “it is about subjectivity,” I am still “flat out wrong” for disliking the film.

The ensuing comment debate spiralled far away from “127 Hours” itself — though Stone’s aide Ryan Adams, who hasn’t seen the film, did offer a defense of Boyle’s vision — and more into the currently popular online meme of reviewing the reviewers. As game as I usually am for such debate, it seemed strange to be arguing over a reaction I hadn’t yet fully expressed.

So allow me to return to the movie for a minute. If you came within touching distance of a newspaper, or TV news broadcast, seven years ago, you probably know that Aron Ralston is the young American mountaineer who amputated his own right arm with a pocket-knife after getting it inextricably trapped under a boulder during a hiking mishap. The 127 hours of the title refer to the time Ralston spent in this captivity, and they’ve been fashioned by Boyle, co-writer Simon Beaufoy and editor Jon Harris into a conversely restless 90 minutes of film that darts between part, present and even future, but interrupts the protagonist’s emotional arc so frequently that the person never supersedes the plight.

The filmmakers can’t be held to blame for the audience’s certainty of the outcome — like many a horror film, it’s a narrative that hinges not on what, but on when — but Boyle’s attempts to implant urgency by way of split screens, rapid-fire cutting and timeframe hopscotch feel both dated in execution (those “glorified Gatorade ad” jibes you might have heard aren’t entirely out of place, not least when the film indulges in pointlessly self-aware product placement) and inorganic to the story at hand. There’s a presumably deliberate irony to this onscreen activity in the face of Ralston’s entrapment, but it’s a glib joke that comes at the expense of sequences that might build a more sustained sense of panic, despair and, yes, something approaching suspense.

The camera’s reluctance to stay on Ralston could be read as a nod to the faint hollowness of the character — and it’s to the credit of Franco’s bright, alert lead turn that he undersells neither the man’s smarminess nor his selfishness — but Boyle and Beaufoy attempt to have things both ways by pitching his eventual escape as a broadly relatable feat of spiritual triumph.

Egged on by the cod-inspirational, Dido-voiced strains of A.R. Rahman’s score (the repeated lyrical motif of “rise” pushing the Jesus-isms a little too hard, if I may), the overblown finale skips straight past Ralston’s personal victory to universal moral riffing on that old “no man is an island” chestnut, and I’m not convinced he’s a sufficiently compelling individual vessel to take us there. As moved as some viewers have been by the depiction of his ordeal, I felt little emotional connection to the story beyond lurid “what would you do?” finger-pointing; it remains something interesting that happened to someone else, but my understanding of his courageous act is no richer or more conflicted than it was the afternoon I first heard the news in my car.

I’d be happy to accept the film as less a heart-and-soul movie than a cool exercise in narrative limitation — extending this year’s odd streak of confined-space thrillers, including “Buried” and the decidedly underrated “Frozen” — if its technical properties weren’t also so hit-and-miss: major credit must go to the wincingly vivid sound design, but the teaming of Mantle and Chediak doesn’t entirely satisfy, as their jittery camera swoops and jazz-hands angles read occasionally as an imposition on the majestic locale they’re shooting. Boyle has never done austere, and we wouldn’t want him to start now, but as he and his crew aim to repeat the pop dynamism of “Slumdog Millionaire” — to an extent that feels surplus to the demands of this one man show — his sense of intimacy has gone astray.

That is my opinion, and it’s a sincere one — despite the insinuations of some (including even Kris) that my stated dislike of the film is rooted in contrarian reaction against its success thus far. The film will surely find an appreciative public audience, and may even be the Oscar contender that many are predicting, though I can just as easily imagine a sizable contingent of voters not taking to its bare-bones, youth-oriented story — not to mention its grisly money shots.

Either way, as fun as such speculation is, it’s not a consideration that has a place in my critical response to this or any other film, and I’m disappointed that Sasha Stone — or anyone else — might interpret an off-consensus opinion as “a need to cause a mini-controversy.” When the dust of the season settles four months from now, all we’ll have are the movies: we may as well get our relationship with them off on an honest footing. I may have criticised (in a figure of speech that irritated some) “127 Hours” for having no second degree of subtext, but in this case, I haven’t one either.

[Photo: Fox Searchlight Pictures]




→ 109 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , | Filed in: Daily

109 responses so far

  • 1 11-03-2010 at 4:30 am

    Michael said...

    oh and thanks for clarifying what you meant by second degree Guy. I didn’t read the thread at AD (and after reading the thread here I shudder to think what that thread is like) but after reading your review again it seems you made that point clear already and I was just missing the connection.

    If I may offer a suggestion – once the film is released wide, I really think y’all should post one of those “What Did You Think Of” threads for 127 Hours. I for one can’t wait to read what the readership of IC has to say about the film after they have SEEN it. I think the mix of responses from more than just the few who have seen it so far will be very intriguing, and it wouldn’t surprise me if more people start appearing that share similar reactions to Guy’s. Just a suggestion.

  • 2 11-03-2010 at 4:58 am

    timr said...

    I’m not even ON this thread, and I keep nervously clicking refresh. What’s wrong with me?

  • 3 11-03-2010 at 7:05 am

    Hunter Tremayne said...

    I promised a poster here that I would reply to a few questions he asked me last night, but I won’t bother as everyone is hooked on the Guy and Ryan Show!

  • 4 11-03-2010 at 8:55 am

    Michael said...

    @timr – umm, I don’t think you are alone. I have been reading IC for over 2 years and I can’t recall too many moments where things got as heated as this (maybe a few times with things that Chad said) and I find it fascinating. I kinda think (hope) that the the worst is behind us though, but that hasn’t stopped me from popping my head in every couple of hours as well LOL.

    @Hunter – maybe save your response for the next 127 Hours thread where it will be fresher and won’t have to compete per se with an ongoing epic blog battle (j/k)

  • 5 11-05-2010 at 4:01 pm

    Jasmine said...

    This is the first review I have read of yours and I was very impressed. I have not seen 127 Hours yet, and I am still very much looking forward to it. I feel like you eloquently expressed your opinions, backed them up with strong evidence, and challenged those who challenged you without becoming immature or going off track. Well done, you have a new fan!

  • 6 11-07-2010 at 11:30 am

    Rashad said...

    I didnt like 127 Hours at all either.

    What I don’t get is how people can criticize Tony Scott for his hyperactive editing, yet Boyle does it on steroids and it’s praised as “vibrant” and “full of enthusiasm.”

  • 7 11-21-2010 at 10:53 pm

    Paolo said...

    Because I’ve been living under a rock (sorry), I haven’t seen this piece until now. Read Sasha’s schizophrenic piece when it came out. My opinion was in the past sentence.

    Anyway, I just saw the film two hours ago and I’d say it’s distracting but confident. I don’t know what letter grade that is. I do agree with you on what sections of the movie I didn’t like. Your piece was very rational, and I’m looking forward to reading your reviews on films to come.

  • 8 11-21-2010 at 11:52 pm

    Robert Hamer said...

    So, is this still a Best Picture lock? Because it seems like the enthusiasm for this one has died off somewhat.