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]
Comments
109 responses to “On ‘127 Hours,’ and a messy little thing called opinion”
I hope you’ve learned your lesson here, Guy.
Thanks for the review, Guy.
Personally, I think this is a well-thought out opinion. Not everybody likes generally beloved films and that doesn’t necessarily make them contrary. I avoided the debate on Sasha’s piece in the comments section, but I did want to say, Guy, that you have stated your opinions well without being a “hater” for lack of better term, but instead recognizing aspects of the filmmaking that just did not work for you. I have not seen 127 Hours yet and I still would like to, but with the knowledge that maybe I won’t like it, or maybe I will, but in the end it’s up to me and my sensibilities, not what everyone else says. But then again, I suffer from being young and only so educated, so my opinions will be kept to myself for the most part and will not be taken with any authority if they are taken at all.
Guy you should be ashamed of yourself for hating 127 Hours.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion and their is no such thing as a universally good or bad film. People are allowed to dislike The Godfather and Apocalypse Now and they are also allowed to love Gigli.
It has really been a little ridiculous this year with bloggers all up in arms about negative reviews to the likes of Toy Story 3, Inception and now 127 Hours and then the whole “you didn’t like it because I saw it before you” nonsense comes into play as well.
Sasha gets very passionate to the point where sometimes a debate over a film’s quality will turn into her insisting that someone’s opinion is wrong.
However let me say this. Guy did you not recently call a group of critics “out of their minds” for saying that Kick Ass is a better film than Another Year? How is that any different than Sasha’s response to your take on 127 Hours?
Here you are, yet again, rallying for the right to an opinion. It sickens me how some just can’t seem to comprehend that there are people who may not like a film.
Very well said Guy. Awards Daily has really dropped in quality with Ryan Adams’s contributions. Not trying to bash but that site has zero respectability considering the way that he and Sasha voice their opinions so narrow-mindedly.
Matthew: You make a fair point. I complain casually about decisions made by awards bodies — hell, we all do — but I can’t in all good faith call them “wrong.” Anyone is entitled to subjectively call me “out of my mind” for not liking 127 Hours, but I bristle at the suggestion that my opinion is ill-considered or, worse still, disingenuous. There’s a line.
I haven’t seen the film yet and therefore I have no idea what my personal view on it will be. But this is a very solid review on a film, and I find it disturbing that awards season excitement or group thinking (or whatever that is) caused such a reaction on such a dependable a film critic.
I’m so glad you didn’t like this movie. I simply lost interest with the first teaser trailer. I hate the visuals. Not a fan of deep saturated colors. I didn’t like the commercial / music video cutting which gives me the impression much was needed to be done in the editing room for this film to hold an audiences’ attention. Not a Danny Boyle fan but he has my respect for The Beach.
Awards Daily really has gone down the drain. I really don’t know what spurred it, but Sasha used to be one of the most level-headed people out there, and now every other thing seems to be solely based on her own opinion. Just yesterday she was posting about Hereafter (a film and filmmaker she adores) doing great at the box office when it’s coming off of a $12m opening weekend and dropping nearly half this weekend, despite an increase in theaters. I commented about it over there, saying you’re either delusional or bought by the studio to claim that as being great.. And it’s like this all the time there now, like some crazy soapbox of opinions rather than something sensible.
Anyway, feel free to openly dislike any movie you dislike, Guy. Anyone seriously suggesting you’re a contrarian a la Mr. White are just crazy. It’s a whole other ballpark, that right there.
I don’t even think it is fair to call Armond White a contrarian. How does anyone out there besides Armond White know for a fact that he is being false when he says he likes Transformers and dislikes Inception and Toy Story?
People need to stop second guessing other people’s opinions. It’s not like Armond or Guy work for a studio. What do they have to gain by false reviews?
Don’t tell me notoriety.
Overall, I sympathize with your argument that critics shouldn’t be presumed to possess an ulterior motive. I’m not a fan of critics reviewing others’ reviews in general, but it’s even less forgivable when those critics automatically assume that you’re trying to make some sort of contrarian statement.
That said, I have to confess that you’re really just asking for trouble when you post a one-sentence review accompanied by a brusque letter grade. When you offer such paltry evidence for your ultimate opinion, people (especially ardent supporters of a film) are naturally inclined to smell a rat. Of course, this speaks more to my disgust for the concept of Twitter in general; I’m not a Luddite, but I loathe that we continue to progress down the road of insta-reactions in place of measured, thoughtful criticism.
To be clear, I’m not suggesting that your eventual review was inappropriate (I haven’t seen “127 Hours” yet, so I’ve avoided reading your review in order to remain as spoiler-free as possible, as I always do). It’s more that the trend toward capsule writeups and a quantification-heavy number/letter grading system — a trend only exacerbated by Twitter’s massive popularity and minuscule character limit — is prone to result in this sort of misunderstanding.
BRA. VO. Maybe because I had my own “D+” reaction two years ago to what I saw as the formally slapdash, dismally scripted, and rather grossly touristic Slumdog, I had no trouble imagining that someone might earnestly react to another Boyle film as you did to 127 Hours (though I know you liked Slumdog well enough, and I’m still holding out some hope for this one). Nonetheless, as you already know, I was vicariously miffed by the overwhelmingly hard time you got from bloggers and commenters, simply for intimating a first impression of this movie that there was no reason for anyone not to credit as sincere, no matter how many people have reacted much, much more favorably. Hopefully this well-written and perfectly judicious review silences the “mini-controversy,” or at least squares it within fairer terms.
Now I just can’t wait to see it, to find out whether or not I agree! I admit that you’ve put a knot in my stomach. I’ve really liked Boyle’s work on several occasions (Sunshine, 28 Days Later, Trainspotting), but the reservations you express match pretty much exactly with the worries I felt upon hearing him attached to this project, given what feels recently like his default style. Feeling most optimistic for Franco, for sure.
The reason ppl might call you “out of your mind” for disliking the film is simple…127 Hours is an emotional movie. To not be moved by it sort of implies you’re a stone cold person. Not saying you are,Guy, but that’s the implication. I’ve seen the film and, like others, cannot for the life of me imagine somebody not getting wrapped up in Ralston’s predicament and subsequent triumph over it.
I liked 127 Hours on the whole, largely *for* the garish, Gatorade-swilling, oversaturated aesthetic: to me this suited the survivalist, kind of vapid mountain-biker narrative Boyle was telling, whereas the same aesthetic seemed awkwardly grafted onto the fairytale structure of Slumdog. But I’m in total agreement about the ending, which I feel cheats by leaving Franco’s Aaron, a creation I liked, to give us bullet points about the real guy, and make a swooping statement about affirming life, respecting our families, etc etc. It struck me that Boyle et al were anxious that perhaps staying tight on Aaron’s story would not make for a good enough message — that they needed to go universal, and make him representative of modern isolated man, cut off from the flow of everyday life, or something to that effect. Boyle’s endings have always felt rough to me, and this was no exception.
At any rate, I appreciate your comments about ‘reviewing the reviewers,’ as I always do, although I celebrate our ability to frankly disagree, provided the forum allows for a good back-and-forth. (Twitter is hit-and-miss on this point, as you observe.) What alarms me about this trend is that saying “Come on, like anyone actually believes that” is not a way of talking back to critics, as some claim it is, but of passive-aggressively asking them to STFU until they get with the program. And what program? Who decides when something is D-proof? And what is it about a wildly different interpretation than the norm that strikes people as being so personally offensive or indicative of an inexperienced critical outlook , anyway?
I’d peg 127… at a B, personally, but I can’t say I was crestfallen to see you’d hated it, or instantly wanted to call you out for not getting what Boyle was doing, or not having the *chops* to get it. I read you on a regular basis, so I trusted that you had a reason, and isn’t that what respectfully disagreeing with a film writer you follow is about? I think we all need to do a better job of examining where this testiness about unpopular opinions is coming from.
Jeremy: I don’t entirely disagree with you about Twitter — before I joined, I was very sceptical about the value of such short-form communication, and I certainly don’t think it should replace longer-form writing.
But as my followers will know, I use Twitter as a kind of diary to keep a record of most films — old and new, big screen and small — I see, and the brief assessments add a bit more colour to the process, as well as inciting chat about films I otherwise have no time to write about. (The letter grading, a practice filched from friends, is just a bit of fun.)
A tweet for a new film, particularly in a busy festival environment, is often intended as a mere teaser for a longer piece — either way, I see no harm in giving people a rough idea of where I stand on this film or that. And I don’t think there was any misunderstanding of my 127 Hours tweet, which accurately, if incompletely, expresses my feelings on the film — just of the motivation behind it, which could just as easily happen with a full review.
Plus, I’ve come to embrace the challenge of subjectively capturing a film in 140 characters or less — regular readers will know that I have a tendency to overwrite, so it’s a pretty good exercise in discipline for me.
Regarding the lack of intimacy you mentioned, it doesn’t sound surprising. I haven’t seen it yet, but I remember reading that Boyle’s not a nature guy, so that may have been a contributing factor.
This is a great piece of writing. I’m sad that Sasha Stone has become so irrational and, dare I say, mean, lately. The attacks on you were unwarranted, and all the people involved should recognize what they did was wrongheaded, and try to avoid ever doing that again. And, I mean, all this off of a brief Twitter review? Nuts.
I like Sasha a lot and am quite fond of what she does in her site but (though “but” is not the right word) she is known for being very sure of her opinion.
What I mean is, it’s her thing. It wasn’t surprising.
I actually didn’t take seriously any reaction to your grade because 1) Your opinion is very often off-consensus. 2) Sasha and Anne often (not always) tend to be more emotional in their reactions 3) Kris loved The Lovely Bones
so I don’t see how they expected you to necessarily agree with them. Their reactions were immature but I felt they were more emotional and “in the moment” than sincere.
But, really, some people hated Slumdog Millionaire. Why is it surprising that (at least) one person kind of hated 127 Hours?
Plus, when Chad hates a movie, it’s just Chad. When you do it, it’s weird and suspicious. That can only mean Chad is crazy/contrarian and no one has to take him seriously. But he has proved he has respectable reasons for feeling the way he does each time.
I’m almost happy Nick Davis isn’t that popular yet because people would make him apologize all the time.
And I loved the review. Strangely, Maxim did, too. Once you seem like the negative one and he’s right there to support you.
I kid, Maxim ;)
“I don’t think there was any misunderstanding of my 127 Hours tweet, which accurately, if incompletely, expresses my feelings on the film — just of the motivation behind it, which could just as easily happen with a full review.”
Well, I’d like to think that the resulting hullabaloo wouldn’t have arisen had Sasha Stone, et al. read your fully fleshed out piece as opposed to your Twitter post.
That said, I don’t have a problem with you using Twitter as a springboard for eventual reviews, so maybe the letter grade — in combination with the tweet — is the larger issue. Perhaps I’m wrong, but I’d wager that if you’d omitted the D-plus from your initial tweet, this flap-up never would have occurred. Obviously I acknowledge that you’re welcome to use whatever sort of evaluation system you choose, but I still maintain that combining a cursory tweet with a black-and-white grade is a recipe for danger, regardless of how effectively you eventually clarify your opinion.
I can’t disagree with that.
I’m so sick of people like Sasha who believe movies can be “objectively” good. I don’t even believe in objectivity (how do you live an objective life?), but even for people who do believe in some sense of objectivity, how can something as personal as film be “objectively good” or “objectively bad”.
Awards Daily has gone off the tracks and I rarely visit it anymore. Both Sasha Stone and Ryan Adams have become militant about their opinions (movies, politics, or anything else), so it’s not fun to read their stuff anymore.
I don’t always agree with you Guy (like Picnic for example), and I haven’t seen 127 Hours yet so I don’t have an opinion on that film, but even though our taste differ you are a well-written and articulate critic that is a pleasure to read. Keep it up!
In terms of mentioning Armond White as a contrarian, I think that people assume he has ulterior motives because he doesn’t seem to back his opposing views up with actual evidence from the movies. Armond White is obviously free to love Transformers 2 and hate Toy Story 3, but the problem I think arises when he attempts to mask his opinion in some nonsensical theoretical conceit which he then does not back up with actual evidence from the film. He is, if anything, a highly intelligent fanboy, enjoying schlock films (and what a lovely thing to enjoy!). But acting like his opinions are anything more than being borne from the enjoyment of being entertained is deceptive. That’s why Armond White deserves criticism.
There is a difference between opinion and argument, enjoyment and critical value judgment, I think. I don’t enjoy Apocalypse Now, but I see why one can consider it is a great film. My lack of enjoyment in watching it arises from my poor attention span or something like that, I can’t quite sum it up in words. But my recognition of it as a great film arises with what it is doing, in terms of matching thematic conceit with technical bravura filmmaking, etc.
The difference between Guy Lodge and Armond White is that Guy actually backs his opinions, his arguments, up with evidence. They are validated opinions, not just opinions. Someone like Kris can have an opposing opinion, but he still backs it up with evidence from the film. These are validated value judgments and interpretations. Sasha Stone, though I love her site at times, is not contrarian, as she often sides with the majority of critics (Shutter Island and Hereafter, notwithstanding), but she does tend to have opinion without evidence. Again, there is nothing wrong with having an opinion, but to mask that opinion saying its objective criticism and then to not back it up with critical evidence is a load of nonsense. It’s the difference between fanboy cheer and honest critical opinion.
Kind of like this whole comment is nonsensical and vague. Hope it made some sense, and does not inspire vitriol from either side of the argument. I honestly don’t think I actually communicated what I meant to say. Oh the glories of internet commenting.
That was overly long, but one thing I can see some folks recognizing in my argument is a type of elitism. That isn’t intended, I just mean to posit that there is a difference between validated interpretation and fanboy opinion. Something like that.
(Though fanboy opinion is not a bad thing, per se, as mentioned above. I’ll stop now.)
Holy smokes, I just read the Awards Daily comment section! Scary stuff.
I don’t like the argument that one needs a certain type of life experience to understand certain films, it’s an easy/lazy defense. Sometimes a film simply doesn’t work and one’s background/age/race/gender doesn’t matter.
Unlike Ryan, I can’t side with either Guy or Sasha because I haven’t seen 127 Hours yet. But once I do, I’ll revisit The Great Battle of D+.
That post Sasha made on Awards Daily was really aggravating. I can see how she meant to say something good but she kept going all over the place, contradicted herself and the whole thing felt very condescending – though she did admit in later comments that she would change the tone a little to not to make it seem as much.
I think films with decisively divided opinions can often bring about the best kind of enthusiasm. I think back about your mini-review for I Am Love last year, and then I saw it for myself for the first time and I totally understood why you were kinda meh on it when people were raving left and right. But since my initial reaction for it was love, I then thought about what you said, did some more probing and because of that I thought of all the elements I didn’t even pay as much as attention and it made me love the film more, because I then looked at the elements you didn’t like, and think why I liked them. When reactions/reviews are more or less all the same, I think it doesn’t offer any room for some real deep looks at elements that really alter the entire experience. So with that, if anything your review makes me want to see the film more because of how thorough you are when you review. Sasha has her enthusiasm in spades – if not machetes – but trying to label you as flat out wrong is one of the things that could lead to the death of true film criticism.
Proud of this, Guy. No one should feel compelled to follow the pack. (And of course I was mostly kidding with my Tweet.)
I’m boarding a plane or else I’d write more. Later, though.
The lesson of the day. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, so long as you can flesh it out and back it up, and people get pretty passionate about defending something they care about when others come out on the other end of the spectrum. But really, turning this into a thread bashing other bloggers because they get passionate about defending a film is asinine. Just as we are all entitled to our opinions, we’re all entitled to the right to defend said opinions. I’m pretty fed up with the critic/blogger wars this year with Inception and now 127 Hours. It like lately people aren’t allowed to be passionate and love a film and rave about it without someone attacking them for doing so, or bashing the film to add some illusion of balance to the conversation (read Rex Reed’s pan of Inception, or any other Nolan film). Anyways, I say enough is enough. Why are we all devolving into “Yes it is! No it isn’t!” this year?
I definitely am on the opposite side of the “127 Hours” train than you, Guy. You gave it a D+; I’d give it an A-, if I graded in letters. As someone who was profoundly disappointed in “Slumdog Millionaire” (Boyle’s worst film), this one came as a relief to me, and I believe it’s Boyle’s finest work. I embraced the (as you succinctly put it) Gatorade-ad style. It acted as a choppy equal in power and effect to “Into the Wild” (similar types of films with very different outcomes). I only wish it was longer.
But anyone comparing Guy’s noncompliant viewpoint of a film that a lot of people have not seen to someone as genuinely contrarian to both critics and audiences as Armond White is frankly laughable. Speaking as someone who is not a fan of films like “Avatar,” “Inception” or “Minority Report” but is a fan of “Terminator Salvation” and “2012” (keeping in the realm of sci-fi for a moment), I can state that I oppose popular opinion quite a bit. Like Kris and Guy (and obviously Chad), I’m okay with that. I have nothing to prove, as White does in every one of his contrarian reviews. (Though White is spot-on when he’s correct, I must say.)
Great write-up, Guy. It’s never fun to be on the opposite side of majority opinion. Good for you for laying it all out and describing your issues with the movie intelligently. Even those who loved the film should be able to comprehend (if not agree) your critique.
The most disappointing thing about Awards Daily is how easily the contributors get sucked in to political nonsense, usually completely off base, and always angry, insulting, and totally intolerant to any opposing point of view. It’s not surprising that they’re liable to do the same with movies.
In don’t know if you guys hear this enough at Incontention but I really appreciate how non-political the site is and how reasonable the discussions are. The contributors and the commenters display a maturity uncommon in this corner of the web.
This. ^
Well said, Everett. I do find In Contention to be level-headed in what it writes about, and doesn’t get caught up in whatever soapbox bullshit that’s going on with all the other larger awards blogs. David Poland seems to more often be criticizing other writers than doing what he’s supposed to be doing.. I’m glad In Contention is (mostly) free of all that bullshit. Stick to the movies, don’t have any need to hear that writer-to-writer backstabbing.
Also, props to Matt King for saying what I was going to (but better) regarding Armond White versus Guy. Guy can give you a reason why he didn’t like something.. White just seems to make no sense, in fact I kind of hope he’s being a contrarian on purpose because otherwise it would probably mean that he’s crazy. As in it could be determined by doctors, for real crazy.
Last, but not least, reading that Sasha Stone piece I find it utterly remarkable that she would go off on such a thing against Guy solely based on a tweet! It’s 140 characters, it can barely pass as a brief opinion, let alone a fully formed one. Absolutely ridiculous, quite frankly.
I also support Everett’s comment, well said.
Awards Daily should really read this comment thread and instead of getting angry and bitchy like their tendency has been, learn that they’re alienating their readership. I guess they could continue on in denial, but I would prefer one of these more rational options: 1. start valuing everyone’s supported opinions and foster a sense of respect among movie lovers on their site. 2. quit if that is not their aim
I liked the film very much, but I do agree with you on one of its major drawbacks: the emotional and universal themes, especially in the finale, are pushed way too hard to the point where it feels like overkill. I commend the screenwriting duo for trying to conceive a universal theme out of Ralston’s story, but I think they would have been better off going for something more subtle.
I also didn’t think the flashbacks were entirely effective. Granted, they are probably authentic in conveying Ralston’s state of mind, but their ultimate effect is minimal. It seemed to me as if they merely slowed down the proceedings rather than adding to the emotional depth of the character’s journey.
Awards Daily has been far too sloppy this year I reckon. Sasha’s become the most middlebrow person imaginable who likes every single movie that has one iota of Oscarbility about it (didn’t she call “Secretariat” a masterpiece, or something akin to it?) and always going off on people in the comments section when they dare disagree (and this time framing entire entries around it). If having enough “life experience” to properly watch movies means liking any half-baked Oscarbait movie out there then I hope Guy never ages. That site acts as a personal PR machine for her own pet projects, it seems.
This entry of hers though was just pure and utter stupidity. She uses Twitter herself and as someone who has experienced its side effects, she should know not to take one man’s tweet about a film as gospel and as an affront to her belief system. By pure virtue, Twitter doesn’t allow people to express beyond 140 characters and while some people are content to leave it at 140 characters she should know that someone like Guy was always going to expand upon that and really detail the hows and whys to his D+ grade.
But the general thrust of her article was an insulting one. Basically anyone under the age of… what? 30? Need not apply to wanting to write about films in any critical manner. They’re not old enough, not enough life experience to truly grasp cinema?
Awards Daily did get a little crazy last year pushing The Hurt Locker. You could not say you didn’t like the film there without being told you were an idiot.
I really have no problem with anyone not liking 127 Hours which is far from a perfect film but which moved me and thrilled me in its use of the film medium.
What I don’t like is grading films with letters.
I read many Oscar blogs on a daily basis (including Awards Daily), but as Everett and a few others have said above, this is the only site I feel comfortable enough to actively join in the conversation. For the most part everyone is left to have their own opinion if they are willing to back it up, and no one acts immature. It is uncommon and worth commending everyone involved with this site (both the writing staff and the readers) for keeping this site an unbelievably welcoming and nurturing place for film discussion.
I am glad Guy had the opportunity to expand his thoughts from his initial tweet. I wish I had seen the film already so I can offer my opinion but I will honestly say that I am happy to see some well-written thoughts offering a completely opposing view to the majority of what I have read so far about 127 Hours. I will still see this opening night but reading a balance of opinion is actually a good thing, and not worth condemning. It really calls into question the professionalism (and maturity) of bloggers who go on unfounded rants about other bloggers for giving a negative review. Why don’t the bloggers simply state their own views and offer a link to other sites that have a different opinion, and then start a dialogue going on that site explaining their opinion. Keeping things civil and offering fully realized critiques no matter how much they differ from the majority opinion can go along way and is so rarely practiced these days it is sad. Thank god this site is still willing to fight that fight.
I agree that this site in general sets a good standard of civility, and of staying out of the fray of what can easily become turf wars or pot shots among sites covering similar beats.
In fairness, then, I’m wondering (a bit like Kevin K. above) if preserving that example might constitute its own good incentive to find ways of applauding or engaging Guy’s detailed, clear defense of his position on 127 Hours—exactly the sort of thing that I love IC for posting—but without explicitly knocking Awards Daily, or any other site. Bygones, etc. Whatever one’s feelings about this recent kerfuffle, I doubt it’s in the interest of overall web morale or of IC’s editorial mission to play unwitting host to our private criticisms of other sites, even in moments when we feel they’ve been earned; I doubt Guy or Kris wants to see an “us vs. them” dynamic emerge. In the spirit of U.S. Election Day: vote with your eyeballs and your clickage and your time. If Guy can manage such a neutral tone, and succeed so brilliantly in centering the discussion back on the actual film, it probably behooves all of us to the same. (Apologies if that feels sanctimonious.)
P.S. The above is as much a reminder to myself as to anyone, and certainly not targeted at any other commenter in particular. Just a Random Act of Pollyannaishness. Which is not a word of which SpellCheck approves.
I’m glad I’m finally reading what people think of what Award Daily has become lately, I thought I was the only one.
They went crazy last season with The Hurt Locker, you couldn’t even say it was a good movie (it had to be at least great), and if you didn’t like it, your opinion was immediatly dismissed.
I can’t comment on 127 Hours yet, but I just wanted to share that about AD, they’re losing readers.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: Sasha Stone is an extremely articulate RETARD.
Well said, Nick Davis.
Rob, that’s not a word anyone should be described as.
But back to “127 Hours” and all that. I would’ve thought a D+ from anyone would’ve been good for the fans. Certainly it isn’t much fun just sitting amongst a bunch of people who love the movie all nodding theirs heads at everyone’s comments on how good it is. Discussion is born out of varying opinions.
I was a bit depressed with that dubious article on AD, too. I admire both AD and Incontention very much and don´t feel the need to champion one site over the other, but to me it´s kind of strange even having to point out that different opinions are fertilizing discussions about art.
That´s quite essential to me, and such thing as being “right” or being “wrong” does not exist in terms of film criticism. One has to deal with disagreement, period.
And Guy Lodge is a good and eloquent writer, no matter if I will love “127 Hours” or not.
Guy, you’re a credit to your profession and this site. Well said.
Also, well said Everett. When I want politics, I go to a news site. When I want movies, I come here. After all, don’t we all think straight news people look like idiots when they try to talk movie awards? Don’t the Oscar bloggers realize they look equally stupid when they try to talk politics?
It cannot be wrong to dislike a film. I did not like three films that most people loved – Exit Through the Gift Shop, Inception and The Social Network. Am I wrong? No. It is my opinion and everything is subjective.
I look forward to seeing 127 Hours. I hope that I will at least like it. But if I don’t it doesn’t mean that I am wrong (even if it gets numerous Oscar nominations). I thought that Slumdog was greatly overrated but those that love it aren’t wrong either.
AD? I gave up on those two when they made all those rape apologist defenses of Polanski back when he was arrested. (Ironic to see Ryan Adams state that conservatism is a disease in that thread today.)
Thank you again, Nick. I really don’t see the point in this aggressiveness towards Sasha. Last time I checked, she was an imperfect person and not the Devil.