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”
A lot of hate being directed towards Sasha Stone, who is being pilloried because she commented on what Guy actually said in a tweet, along with her having the audacity to point out that older people know more about stuff than younger people, which is not 100% true, but only 99% true.
I’ll repeat here what I said there, quoting Raymond Chandler: it takes a writer ten years of life to have anything worth saying about it and another ten years to learn how to say it. It was true when Chandler said it then, and it’s true now, and only someone younger than forty would be foolhardy enough to deny it.
“A lot of hate being directed towards Sasha Stone, who is being pilloried because she commented on what Guy actually said in a tweet, along with her having the audacity to point out that older people know more about stuff than younger people, which is not 100% true, but only 99% true. ”
Sasha Stone is pilloried because she spouts the nutso opinions in her head as facts. Remember last year when she called “Up in the Air’s” ending bullshit, because she didn’t buy that a woman with children would manipulate and be that cruel to Clooney because having children “changes you fundamentally as a person”?
And now this broadsweeping generalization that old people’s opinions are more valid than young people’s opinions because they have life experience? I’m sorry, this is utter horseshit.
She speaks and writes well enough, but her actual ideas are borderline-insane.
Guy, don’t bother with what these other bloggers say. You’ve always been leagues above the vast majority of them in your thoughtful criticism and maturity. Only someone who, themselves, would want the attention for going against the pack would accuse you of such.
I really wish I wasn’t on a plane and in transit all day yesterday so that I could have stepped in and maybe doused the flames a little.
I want to echo, wholeheartedly, what Nick says in comment #40. I consider Sasha a friend and don’t like seeing her or her outlet hung out to dry here. It’s fair to take exception to the way she responded to Guy’s Tweet, but I don’t want an air of ugly competition fostered here (to say nothing of Rob’s out of line comment).
This is a big enough fish tank for two of the first and, IMO, leading awards voices to roam peacefully so I’ve simply never even viewed In Contention as competition for Awards Daily or vice versa. Sasha runs things her way (lots of passion, very much a fan perspective above all else), and we run things our way.
I think there is value and legitimacy in both, so while I greatly appreciate the kind things being written in this thread about In Contention, I take umbrage with slinging mud.
And regarding Hunter’s Chandler quote, a wonderful piece of insight that obviously shouldn’t be taken literally, I agree that maturity and time bring different and more nuanced shades of perspective. But I think Guy’s piece here proves that he need not be knocked for being young when he’s perfectly capable of conveying himself analytically.
And by the way, Aron Ralston was 27 when the events depicted in the film occurred. Guess how old Guy is? 27.
One aspect of IC I particularly admire is that there isn’t much censorship . Kris does not bring out the ban hammer like I have seen Jeffrey Wells and Sasha/Ryan do in the past. He pretty much lets us say what we want.
Hunter: Maybe so, but many of the great films came from people at a young age. Welles was in his twenties when he made Citizen Kane, Coppola was in his thirties during his run of greatness in the seventies, and so on (Truffaut, Scorsese, etc.) Further, most great music comes from people in their twenties. If young people can make art, why can’t they analyze it?
I agree, I think sometimes we tend to go a bit overboard with our opinions.
Like I’m about to do now.
If you don’t like Armond White, then why talk about him or give him any relevance. I can’t understand why so many people who claim to dislike him and his reviews, pay any attention to him. WTH
James D: Welles was in his twenties when he made it, but Tom Mankiewicz was 43 when he wrote the screenplay. Coppola adapted The Godfather from the novel Mario Puzo, who was 49 when it was published. Music comes from people in their twenties because the people who buy it are also in their twenties. Of course: there are always geniuses in any age.
Perfectly said, Kris.
“There are always geniuses in any age.”
Indeed, just as there are always limited people for whom no amount of age will bring wisdom. Bottom line: nobody’s perspective should be condescended to, or elevated, on the basis of their age alone. On this I think we can all agree.
On their age alone, Guy, certainly. On their experience, however, we shall have to disagree. For what is wisdom if not that which we learn from experience? Maturity can come early, intelligence bestowed from birth but the only begetter of experience is time.
The problem with Hunter is that despite claiming to know what it takes to develop analytical skills he is failing to demonstrate them in the current discussion.
Automatic dismisal of someone’s opinion based on rigidly decided criteria that take absolutely nothing of the person into account is just that – an AUTOMATIC dismisal. There is no brainwork at work here at all. What it does achieve, however, is demonstrate how shallow the person’s argument really runs.
And there is nothing weaker when people use quote as justification and then keep refering back to them as fact. I see enough of that in religicious circles.
A person who never starts thinking criticially and expressing himself accordingly because he is not this or that will never ever arrive.
“the only begetter of experience is time.”
Wrong! The only “beggetter” of experiences are experiences. And those need not take capital t “Time”. If you have had any true life changing experience you would have realized that.
And I hate to brake it to you, Sage, but experiences are not distributed uniformally.
So instead of looking at person’s age as a measurement of their level of Experience you should take a little time to get to know their experiences. And, even that is not enough. One has to look at reactions too… But you see, that part, meaning that one where you actually apply your brains, that actually takes time and it is the one thing you are unwilling to invest.
Ah, the irony.
Man, no offense but you’d make a terrible juror.
Man, no offence taken, for you have been a terrible judge.
This incident makes me glad that I check InContention twice a day, where AwardsDaily gets maybe three times a week if they’re lucky. There’s room for both, sure, but it’s clear which one is better.
I’m kind of sad that, while there’s plenty of awesome female critics, the two most prominent female Oscar prognosticators are…well, not awesome.
I have a comeback for that, but really, I’m not interested in playing that game, HT.
Instead, would you care to point out where you think I went wrong?
I would be delighted to, Maxim, but I live in Spain, and am off out for the evening. Check back later for a reply.
Alright. Have a pleasant evening :) .
“And by the way, Aron Ralston was 27 when the events depicted in the film occurred. Guess how old Guy is? 27.”
Thanks for feeding me this straight line again, Kris.
Surely you’re not arguing that being the same age as the protagonist is all the qualification we need to completely appreciate a movie. So everybody should have The 400 Blows all figured out by the time they’re 15? How old do we need to be in donkey years to grasp the full philosophical implications of Au hasard Balthazar?
As I said a couple of days ago when Guy pulled the same counterfeit Ace card on me: All that most of us can claim at age 27 is to possess the same reckless judgment as Aron Ralston, and that’s how we sometimes get pinned down in tight spots at that age. The crucial difference between Aron and Guy is that Ralston has endured and survived a horrible lesson, and learned from it. Until Guy has to amputate his twitter finger in a freak trashing accident, then neither he — nor any of the rest of us — is equipped to fully understand that level of spirtual/emotional enlightenment 127 Hours seeks to convey.
Either you commit to the belief that age has nothing to do with one’s evolving critical perspicacity, or you avoid setting up false equivalencies (27yrs, 27yrs = same life! spiritual twins! voila!).
You say a lot of smart things in your response here, Kris, and you don’t need my thanks or stamp of approval for what you got right. But yes, I will pounce on such weak-ass excuses when they’re intended to mock reasonable rebuttal. (Because, as we know, that’s what I do: find the soft spots to poke at because that’s the easy way to hit back.)
Though I still think he’s sadly missing the point of the screenplay’s intentions, Guy’s review here is a much better expression of his feelings that any Tweet could ever be. Twitter reviews are abomination enough, even with the most judicious phrasing. Guy knows the impact of his words and, to some of us, his dismissal seemed deliberately constructed for maximum blunt force trauma. That’s the harsh blow he intended to deliver, so I don’t really understand the girlish gasps when somebody mutters “ouch!”
=====
Aleksis says: “I gave up on those two when they made all those rape apologist defenses of Polanski”
Don’t forget to accuse Sasha and me of being holocaust deniers and White Supremacists, while you’re frothing, Aleksis. The only stand I ever took on the Polanski incident was to suggest the US judicial system stop whinging for a do-over of its own fucked-up ruling. They blew it. Case closed. My position has since been backed up by the Swiss courts.
(Anyway, you didn’t stop commenting at AD until 3 months after the Polanski extradition case. You stopped coming around weeks later, the day you got in a snit over “KStew” during one of your “Leave Britney Alone!” moments.) If you waltz around making ugly remarks about “rape apologists” then be prepared for me to correct that smear and point out that you’re a hysterical liar.
====
Matthew Starr: Let me make clear, there’s no “ban hammer” at AwardsDaily. The only person who’s ever been permanently banned was someone who needed to be reported to the police for death threats she was making. Yes, there is one other individual who gets his comments held for manual approval in moderation from time to time — because we get dozens of complaints about this guy from other readers. We don’t let serial haters run rampant. (But it’s just this one problem child. And even with him I can’t be bothered to babysit his remarks all the time, so he’ll only stay in the “Time Out” room for a couple of days. The he’s always let loose to roam free again.)
What happens very rarely is that Sasha or I might selectively edit an especially vulgar hate-speech comment if there’s something we deem too noxious and over the line. There are a couple of comments on this page at InCon that would have had a word or two removed at AD — because, nope, we’re not going let a “RETARD” remark stink up the joint. It would risk hurting too many innocent bystanders. Kris has a different attitude, and that says as much about him as Awards Daily’s policy does about us in setting a standard of discourse. (But I guess that policy makes us Berserk Fascist Skull-Fuck Enablers in the eyes of Aleksis.)
The rare discretionary defusing of offensive comments happens maybe once every 6 weeks. No more than that. Not necessary. Because the type of people compelled to use that sort of language soon realize they’re not gonna get away with it at AD. So they migrate someplace else where they can be be as crude, as shameless and as rabid as they please.
“What happens very rarely is that Sasha or I might selectively edit an especially vulgar hate-speech comment if there’s something we deem too noxious and over the line. There are a couple of comments on this page at InCon that would have had a word or two removed at AD — because, nope, we’re not going let a “RETARD” remark stink up the joint.”
But claiming conservatives are mentally ill isn’t hateful? And it wasn’t a bit over the line to come here and make these remarks after Kris made a plea that we all tone down our criticism of AD? Once again, I’m glad I gave up AD. As you say, different blogs suit different people, and I’m much happier here.
I’m guessing that the not-fully-articulated point of the “27=27” quips is that, whereas 400 Blows, et al., are clearly child-centered movies aimed at adult understanding, the whole Ralston meme in the initial media coverage, and from what Guy and Kris say about the ending of the film, is overtly intended to “universalize” a message that anyone should be able to get, even (maybe especially?) by the age Ralston was when he had his grisly epiphany. And the aesthetic style and ads for 127 Hours both aggressively court a youth audience. So, unlike the extreme yet not really apropos examples Ryan seizes on in order to critique an impacted point, it seems that 127 Hours is not only a bad platform to choose for the “You have to be old enough to really get it” argument, it sounds from Guy’s review as though the filmmaking labors hard – maybe too hard? – to expand and abstract Ralston’s very specific experience into a simplistic takeaway that we can all “get.”
Hero:
>> “But claiming conservatives are mentally ill isn’t hateful?”
I didn’t say that. And I didn’t say it’s a ‘disease’ either, as Aleksis claims.
I said, “conservatism is an illness that can strike at any age” — and I was teasing a reader who’s a friend, a reader who was expressing his strong feelings that conservatism and narrow minds might be connected.
You might not agree with that, and you might not like our wording, but it’s not offensive language — it doesn’t cross the line of ugliness and cruelty.
I mean “illness” in the sense of malady or ailment, and No, I do not not think that’s as bad as ‘RETARD.’
But if the word “illness” in that context is offensive to you, then yeah, you don’t need to be coming ’round AD and maybe you should stay off the internet altogether. And unplug your TV.
We get plenty of readers slamming and teasing Liberals all the time, and we can take the punches. But if anybody called a conservative or a liberal a RETARD then that word would be expurgated at AD. (Heck, I wouldn’t even call a Creationist a RETARD.)
>> “wasn’t a bit over the line to come here and make these remarks after Kris made a plea that we all tone down our criticism of AD? ”
Is that how it works? Everybody attack AD for 24 hours, and now that Kris is home nobody’s allowed to answer back?
No, that’s not how it works.
I hate to add flames to the fire on this “Oscar blog war”, because there is absolutely room enough for both Awards Daily and Incontention, but if you read Guy’s and Kris’ posts, and then compare it to Ryan’s post, you get a clear idea of the differences between the sites (and why I prefer this site).
“Surely you’re not arguing that being the same age as the protagonist is all the qualification we need to completely appreciate a movie.”
No, I’m not. It only seems to me that a perspective has developed (however grossly expanded upon Sasha’s initial, fair assertion that film criticism has devolved into a movement largely dominated by a young male voice) deeming age as the key ingredient in appreciating a film, specifically this film.
But in fact, what you see develop in 127 Hours is a spiritual awakening experienced by a 27 year old. Boyle puts his signature on it, but what is, I think, strikingly emotional about the film has more to do with the story being told, not the manner in which it is told. So it is therefore fair, I think, to put forth the equation. But your points about Ralston’s experience are of course valid. In fact, if anything, they prove the point that it is indeed not age but experience that should be a true gauge, and I don’t think many would disagree with that.
“All that most of us can claim at age 27 is to possess the same reckless judgment as Aron Ralston, and that’s how we sometimes get pinned down in tight spots at that age.”
Often, that may be the case. Not always. And I think the only thing anyone is really fighting here is drastic reduction and sweeping generalization (not to mention simplification).
Nothing I wrote, by the way, was written with the intention of mocking. I’m not sure I could say the same about what you’ve written on the matter the last couple of days. Case in point, your Au Hasard Balthazar quip (which I guess was “an eye for an eye” in your view, but, again, it wasn’t meant mockingly on my end, and I think I’m safe to say Guy’s, too).
By the way, I think you ought to see the film before mentioning whether you think Guy is missing the point of anything here. I respect that you’ve read the script but what Boyle does with it as a piece of cinema has a major impact on how it is viewed as an overall work.
“Guy knows the impact of his words and, to some of us, his dismissal seemed deliberately constructed for maximum blunt force trauma.”
I think to know Guy is to know this is not the case. He actually misinterpreted my joshing tone when I Tweeted that he was “trying to go down a certain path,” which is why I responded with a quick “You live on a cloud” comment (in reference to Jeff Wells’s jab at him vis a vis his interpretation of a Cannes film).
“That’s the harsh blow he intended to deliver, so I don’t really understand the girlish gasps when somebody mutters “ouch!””
Again, it wasn’t his intention, it was his honest perception (as perfectly outlined in detail here). And I think muttering “ouch” is over-simplifying a bit, but again, to circle back, I think much of this became a slight misinterpretation of what Sasha was trying to say in her post. My opinion, of course.
(I should also note, since it has been brought up here and you are responding to the criticism, that I have had harmless comments withheld abruptly in the midst of heated debate at AD, as I think you’re well aware. And continuing on that, I actually have banned multiple users before for extreme insults or aimless negativity. So it’s not a free-for-all at IC and so no need to subtly knock our “standard of discourse.”)
Nick Davis,
All good points, well-expressed.
(Should I bother to point out that I myself have never argued that “You Have To Be THIS TALL To Really Get This Movie”? Does it really matter to anybody that I’m only defending Sasha’s right to feel that life experience is important without being called a MORON (on Twitter today) or a RETARD (on this page).
>> it sounds from Guy’s review as though the filmmaking labors hard – maybe too hard? – to expand and abstract Ralston’s very specific experience into a simplistic takeaway that we can all “get.”
That’s how Guy makes it sound alright. And that opinion might make a whit of difference to me — if not for the fact that reading the script on the naked page didn’t already make me cry.
That’s fine for Guy, if he got nothing out of it. Too bad. Not my problem.
However, I do think it’s dubious to give a movie with such lofty intentions and filmmaking fluency a grade of D+ — even if it doesn’t soar, I can’t see how it can fail on the same level of negligible value as Marmaduke or Sex and the City 2.
I suppose this might mean Guy feels 90% of movies every year rate a D or lower. That’s just kinda weird to me, and I’m not shy about saying so.
Again, though, bottom line, reviews like this don’t shake my faith in 127 Hours. Just shakes my faith in Guy.
oops, should have read that last paragraph again before hitting ‘submit’ (I have a problem ‘submitting’ have you noticed? haha
— nope, I don’t have any problem with Guy’s full review. I don’t agree, but so what?
What I mean to say is that plastering this movie a with a grade of D+ shakes my faith in the calibration of Guy’s grading scale. And simply, shakes my faith in Guy’s reliability. (as a useful guide, for myself). That’s all. But again, so what?
Thanks for that cool-headed and well-aimed reply, Kris. You’ve actually made me feel a lot better about all this — which could be a first for us.
Ryan – Though I don’t like this going on and on, I’m glad the tone has been lowered (is that correct?) and interesting points have been made by all of you (Guy, Kris, Nick and yourself).
But, again, you are trying to make Guy apologise for having the mentality he does. Why? His grade showed that, for him, the movie failed to do what he felt it wanted to do. If a movie like Sex and the City 2 (or any light-weight movie) is, for him, more successful at what it tries to do (for example: be superficially entertaining), it makes sense for him to give it a higher grade.
I guarantee you he doesn’t hate as many movies as you think.
Again, isn’t it good for him that he gave it a low grade because he felt it was a failure, even though the story is a moving one?
Should he like all films that are based on powerful stories?
Oh, I posted before reading tese two last comments. I’m covered.
(whew, so me and Jim T are cool.
only 897 more InCon readers yet to charm.)
If I came across as trying to get Guy to apologize then I did a rotten job trying to explain how I feel and what I wish.
Do I wish every movie writer with an important voice (not just Guy) would refrain from Twitter reviews? Yes.
Do I wish I knew what “the story has no second degree” means? Yes. (I enjoy language as ammunition and hate to think I’m missing out on some clever new weapon.)
I rather hope Guy has better things to do with his time than see and evaluate Sex and the City 2. I know I do.
Myself, I would reserve D’s and F’s for hideous debacles — total wastes of time, money and effort. For me, D movies or F movies should never be unleashed in theaters.
me, I find all kinds of beautiful things to love about honorable movies that most people think are failures.
So here’s why I’d never give a movie a D or an F: because I’d probably never see those movies, much less waste my time writing about them.
So yes, it’s mostly a matter of that grading scale, and it’s my own inability to understand half of what Guy mean in his Tweet.
Those would have been my only problems, and not even important enough to merit my response.
(I honestly wouldn’t have seen Guy’s Tweet at all if the tidal wave of backlash had not engulfed Sasha’s Twitter page. Then it became my fight too — and one I’m honored to fight — ’cause that’s the chivalrous Fool side of me that rushes in while my Angel side says, “yikes! duck and cover!”)
Patriotsfan:
to paraphrase As Good As It Gets,
“You make me want to be a bitter man.”
If I might hazard a guess, “second degree” probably means that Guy thought the film remained flat even when it entered territory meant to be uplifting. It never reached the next level, and I don’t think he’s entirely wrong about that. In my own reserved perspective from Telluride, I remember thinking the visual ideas ran their course and that the film seemed to just wrap itself up and didn’t fully feel like something that was complete. Personally I was more taken with the performance than anything else.
But I don’t want to speak for him. And I’ll also note (as I did in my first reaction) that I want to give it a second look before fully committing myself to a viewpoint. I plan on doing just that at tomorrow night’s LA premiere.
Ryan I misspoke when I used the term “ban hammer”. What I really meant is that I feel there is more censorship at AD and Hollywood Elsewhere than there is here at IC. I read your response on this topic as well so no need to reiterate, just my personal opinion.
Also if readers are actually tweeting at Sasha about this then something is clearly wrong with them.
So, Ryan, you think Conservatives should just stay off line and not watch anything? I see what you’re trying to do, and I’m not going to cede my beloved interwebs to the Left.
I guess I’m just crazy that way. ;)
(Anyhow, I’m the one who doesn’t like mixing politics and Oscar blogs, so I’ll stop now.)
No offense meant but watching bloggers do battle is pretty exhausting but it is at least a fascinating and interesting read b/c they can write so well (even if they write way too much haha.) Even though things have smoothed out a lot between the two warring factions of IC vs AD (I kid!), I kinda hope Guy still comes back to respond to what Ryan said earlier about his explanation of the film having no second degree.
I think each person should be allowed to have their own distinct grading scale. There shouldn’t be a universal system used by all b/c that would be pretty boring imho. I appreciate that Guy is rather hard on films that many others may like, especially when he provides such well-written explanations as to why he arrived at his grade or review. I honestly wish this site had even more places for Kris, Guy, Chad, etc. to post their thoughts on films on a regular basis – I personally wouldn’t mind reading weekly reviews of all the noteworthy films being released, and not just the movies up for possible awards contention. But I understand that is not the focus of the site and that the amount of work involved would be exhausting, I just really enjoy reading the opinions from the writers here. Everyone has something different to offer here and I wouldn’t want any of them to change (or homogenize) the way they make their opinions known (and/or write reviews.)
And I do want to clarify that I think you guys provide excellent coverage of films in general (and especially festival coverage) but I am just greedy and want even more LOL
I guess this is what Mr. Adams sounds like when he’s trying to be kind. But why is it so hard for him to see that nothing he says about “filmmaking fluency” has any merit when he hasn’t even seen the movie?
If you don’t like Twitter reviews, don’t read them. Though I’ll tell you (are you ready? are you sitting down?) 140 characters based on actually seeing the movie outweighs 1,400 characters based on not seeing the movie, no matter how much you read on the page (“the naked page,” no less!). Yea, that’s Danny Boyle for you: the kind of filmmaker who restrains any sense of his own signature and just points a camera at a script.
At some point this mythic “life experience” over which everyone continues to swoon might teach Mr. Adams to pick his battles over movies he has actually seen. Much less should he imagine he is carrying the day when he follows a lengthy, detailed and basically well-reasoned review with the foolproof rebuttal, “But I cried!” I’m sure the court is very moved, Mr. Adams.
Michael: We appreciate your appreciation. I’d actually love to do weekly reviews, but because I’m in the UK and the site sticks to the US release schedule, I generally can’t get to the films in time.
I didn’t feel compelled to respond to Ryan’s comments since we covered many of those points back in the AD thread, but I’ll say that Kris’s interpretation of the “second degree” criticism is more or less on target — it’s a reference to more penetrating subtext and wit (as in perception, rather than humour), or lack thereof. (Interestingly, I was later reminded that the actress Kristin Scott Thomas used the same turn of phrase, in a slightly different but still applicable context, in our 2008 interview.)
It’s obviously a figure of speech, and I’m sorry if it flummoxed some, but given the limitations of Twitter, I’m fond of more intuitive phraseology. After all, my Twitter feed is, unlike the site, entirely my own domain, so I feel entitled to express myself in a more idiosyncratic style there.
As for the grades (which, just like star ratings, really shouldn’t be taken as seriously as the words accompanying them), as you correctly surmise, any film is evaluated on its own terms. I see no reason why a film that I think fails to convincingly convey its intended message should be exempt from a “D” rating simply because it has lofty intentions. But everyone has their own system.
Intuitive phraseology! Idiosyncratic style! You sir are a wordsmith of the second degree.
Guy, you should feel chuffed. You’ve shaken Ryan Adams to the very core. He has had to re-evaluate his faith!
This whole thing about “life experience” reminds me of when people say a woman can’t be President/Prime Minister unless she has children because “how can she know what it’s like to be a family” etc.
It’s funny, while I agree with Ryan Adams on the grade scale: to me, garbage movies deserve D or F (i.e., Jaws 4, Ninja Assassin, The Stepfather), whereas a huge, subjective disappointment of a movie (this case, 127 Hours) couldn’t possibly get lower than a C in my book because of the quality of acting, technical achievement, etc..
To me, a heavily, heavily flawed film with a decent foundation and good intentions always wins out against garbage.
That said, I’m on Guy’s side, here. He’s explained himself thoroughly. His grade scale may be different, but it is different for everybody (as mentioned). I love IC, I still enjoy AD. And I hope all this craziness dies down.
A D+? Heck, that’s straight out wussy. If Gleiberman didn’t like this movie, he would’ve given it an F and called it the worst movie of the year! Really, we’re not allowed to hate Best Picture contenders?
I thought I came to IC to avoid this “let’s bash each other” tone. Can’t we just have different opinions without having to declare a winner? This isn’t Debate Club, it’s a discussion forum. Although to be fair to Ryan Adams, it’s kind of hard to read his actual tone at times because he writes with such exuberance and over-the-top hyperbole.
>> “If you don’t like Twitter reviews, don’t read them.”
I don’t, so save your genius advice. (Advice that, in this case, amounts to saying, “Hey dude, if you don’t like the sound of your car alarm blaring, don’t check to see who’s keying your fenders.”)
A concerned friend sent me an email to let me know what catalyst had instigated the attacks I heard were happening. I read Guy’s sentence from my inbox before I ever knew it was a tweet. (I thought at first it was a fractured excerpted blurb of some sort, seriously.)
=====
No secret that I haven’t seen the movie yet, and it’ll soon be no secret that Simon Beaufoy’s screenplay is one of the most vividly descriptive of the year.
It’s more like a verbal storyboard than a traditional script. The pages are structured in split-screen parallel columns, accomplishing an adept projection onto my mind’s eye. (See, that’s what I like to do with with my eyes while you roll yours.)
This isn’t a screenplay of flat dialogue and basic scene headings. It’s a screenplay like a blueprint that unfolds in your head like a pop-up book, a schematic visual layout. It’s almost like an experimental poem.
It’s not hard for me to imagine how a script like this gives Danny Boyle 1000 opportunities for the sort of exuberant flourishes he’s famous for. And it’s easy to see how those flourishes would support the thrust of the story. (ok, yeah, now you can crucify me for reading the book too.)
To recap: I’ve seen Danny Boyle films. I know how to read. Trust me or not, this screenplay has a good shot at scoring awards for the best adaptation of the year.
I’m able to combine those elements in my head to imagine what this movie could be. Reports from people I trust already confirm my imaginings.
Sorry none of that adds up to the value of “off his Ritalin” for you, Adam Feaster.
oh wait, no I’m not sorry; what I mean is, I don’t need you to tell me how I need to feel about my feelings, ok? And I don’t need your verdict on any tears I might shed, because my emotional reaction is not on fucking trial, alright?
Obviously we’re not going to be good buddies, so what say let’s step back out of each other’s faces? I’ll rely on my own rickety methods of script and text assessment, because they rarely let me down.
And you’re free to you rely on whatever you rely on — you’re free to rely on Guy’s tweets, ok?
Joe:
Thanks (?)
Cheers.
Lovely, Mr. Adams. Do stick with your rickety methods of script and text assessment, imagining what a film could be. If only the movie actually existed, so that you could review it! Cruel world. If you get to feeling hungry while waiting, or while doing “what you like to do with your eyes,” perhaps read some excellent recipe books and imagine how the meal might taste. I trust this will be very satiating. Truly, you will find it staggering just how evocative some of the best cookbooks are at evoking smell and taste. Some even have pictures, though few, sadly, are actual pop-up books.
At the very least, all of this reading ought to sustain you while you hustle off to pick fights with the people who have actually tasted the food of which you read. “I know how to read!” you will quail. “I have eaten food before!” Assure yourself that your ill-reasoned vitriol does anything but bemuse your detractors with your absolute, dyed-in-the-wool, very young (one point for Ms. Stone), and may I say rather American refusal to acknowledge the full-length review that, for more than 24 hours, has superseded that aging yet mighty tweet at which you rail and froth. The tweet that roared! The one you adorably persist in describing as “not your problem.” (Indeed, Mr. Adams!) It’s all most amusing, even for those of us just passing through.
Meanwhile, I will do “what I like to do with my eyes” (oh, silver tongue!). I do relish a good roll, but when opportunity permits, I prefer the occult act of watching finished films, especially those upon which I find myself taking very aggressive stands. I will even enjoy the future film in which 140 characters – a quite unholy 140, I should think – fills a young man’s mind with car alarms, prowling vandals, pop-up books, crucifixes, e-mail alerts of shadowy attacks …even my own face! My heavens, a cameo for me! One laments that Mr. Lang is no longer here to realise for us this plunge into nightmare. Perhaps Mr. Friedkin might prove available. Nasty tweet, belching pestilence! Wrenching its head in every direction, scratching D+ D+ D+ across a young writer’s abdomen, from the inside!
Though with sensational content like this, who knows but that Mr. Boyle may throw his hat into the ring, followed shortly by his pogo-stick. I too hope no one will tell me how to feel about this delirious entertainment when it arrives. Though I wish as well that someone would take me aside to explain if it weren’t my emotion anyone was reviewing, simply my utter mistaking of emotion for gold-leafed argument. If I still can’t understand the point, hopefully they will extend into my hand a pop-up book, to persuade, at the very least, my mind’s eye.
… and to think I’d been exhorted by my intimates to stay away from sites like these. Is it always like this? Editors, have you concocted Mr. Adams as a kind of dancing bear for our amusement? He appears to disapprove of his chain, even though I myself observe none on his person. I concede, though, that others on this page have more sensibly followed the old, sage advice not to feed the animals, singing their message of peace and tolerance, and so I leave you.
Jesus people. This is NOT what I come to this site for. I can get this kind of childish behavior on IMDB any day. What the hell is going on with the review wars this year? Can we all just tak a second to breathe and chill the hell out? I can only speak for myself here, but I doubt Guy ever intended for THIS to erupt from what he posted. Maybe naming names on blogs is no longer a good idea?
can we let Adam Fester be the dancing Fozzie Bear? he’s got a grizzlier routine & a fustier thesaurus.
his intimates? …..I fear for his intimates.
unhinged dancing bears, peculiar but unpredictable.
Hear, hear, Kevin K. I tried agreeing with you earlier, and look where we wound up! Only slightly less head-spinning than all of the other news I’ve been reading all night, about pitched battles that might actually matter. Thanks to Ryan for at least being nice about what I wrote and taking it in the spirit in which I meant it, and to Adam whose Exorcism cracks at least got me laughing, but I’m ducking out till we’re back to talking about those nice ladies who make whatever it is they made up in Dagenham. What do they make in Dagenham?
Iced tea and dramamine for everybody. We’ll be calm in no time. (Jim T., you are more right than ever, in what you said 600 comments ago! I’m thrilled that I’m not that popular yet!)
is this the greatest thread in In Contention History?
omg is there no end to this? it has been entertaining but honestly I feel like Ryan Adams should possibly stop commenting. No offense meant but I think he has said enough and the whole thing will just die down if everyone leaves it alone. With that said, remind me to never get on Adam Feaster’s bad side.
“What do they make in Dagenham?”
Cars. Failed reality-TV contestants. And despair.
(Someone had to visit Dagenham recently, you might have gathered.)