Skip to main content

This rock has been waiting for me my entire life.


127 Hours
(2010)

As an exercise in making a compelling film from a subject no one really wants to see, there’s no doubting Danny Boyle’s bravura. But it always comes across as exactly that; an exercise. His familiar pop video aesthetic is employed to bring us to the point where a man hacks his arm off with a blunt penknife. The dazzling visual and aural choices distance the viewer from any kind of profundity the gruelling experience may hold, an aspect Boyle acknowledges in the most token of gestures.

Telling the true story of climber Aron Ralston who, trekking through the Utah desert, found himself resorting to desperate measures when his arm became trapped by a boulder. The film utilises every technical and narrative trick in the book to keep us on board. The structure takes in flashbacks, hallucinations and dream sequences, while visually the director throws everything into the mix; sped-up and slowed-down footage, pin-hole, video and still camera, distorted angles and split screen.

I’m prone to rag a bit on James Franco; he’s a ubiquitous, cheesily grinning presence whose multi-media assault on viewers everywhere is less endearing the more encompassing it becomes. But there’s no doubting his dedication here; he’s on screen in close-up for 90% of the time (okay, I’m guessing about that), acting his little socks off. Aside from hikers bookending the piece (Kate Mara and Amber Tamblyn the only ones with significant screen time), everyone springs from his addled mind (including Treat Williams as his dad).

If Franco does a good job of getting us into the head of this daredevil adrenaline junkie, it is only up to a point; because maybe there’s only so much insight he yields. Boyle briefly tackles Aron’s “heroic loner” fixation, but maybe it’s the same pragmatism the character shows (as a matter-of-fact engineer, he can see his way through the horror to the mechanics of what needs to be done) that puts a full stop before any deeper philosophical or metaphysical pondering.

Boyle still hasn’t hit a homerun for me since the back-to-back triumphs of Shallow Grave and Trainspotting. His blind spot seems to be fully-rounded scripts. Some have great premises (28 Days Later…, Sunshine) but flounder into predictability. Others dazzle the senses but feel ultimately rather hollow (Slumdog Millionaire, this). And now he has Olympic glory pronouncing him a national treasure… I’m sure great scripts lie ahead that will make full use of his (undoubted) talents.

I readily admit to watching the nastiness of Aron's amateur amputation through my fingers; if Boyle’s goal was to bring the viewer to the point where they will Aron to sever his limb, he is only partially successful. However you slice it, it is extremely unpleasant viewing. One might make a film about dying from exposure and have a similar sentiment as your goal (that the release is the thing!), but then he wouldn’t have been able to employ ecstatic dance anthems to express the triumphant moment. Come to think of it maybe he would, as the departee hurtles heavenwards.

***

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

He is a brigand and a lout. Pay him no serious mention.

The Wind and the Lion (1975) (SPOILERS) John Milius called his second feature a boy’s-own adventure, on the basis of the not-so-terrified responses of one of those kidnapped by Sean Connery’s Arab Raisuli. Really, he could have been referring to himself, in all his cigar-chomping, gun-toting reactionary glory, dreaming of the days of real heroes. The Wind and the Lion rather had its thunder stolen by Jaws on release, and it’s easy to see why. As polished as the picture is, and simultaneously broad-stroke and self-aware in its politics, it’s very definitely a throwback to the pictures of yesteryear. Only without the finger-on-the-pulse contemporaneity of execution that would make Spielberg and Lucas’ genre dives so memorable in a few short years’ time.

Another case of the screaming oopizootics.

Doctor Who Season 14 – Worst to Best The best Doctor Who season? In terms of general recognition and unadulterated celebration, there’s certainly a strong case to be made for Fourteen. The zenith of Robert Holmes and Philip Hinchcliffe’s plans for the series finds it relinquishing the cosy rapport of the Doctor and Sarah in favour of the less-trodden terrain of a solo adventure and underlying conflict with new companion Leela. More especially, it finds the production team finally stretching themselves conceptually after thoroughly exploring their “gothic horror” template over the course of the previous two seasons (well, mostly the previous one).

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

They literally call themselves “Decepticons”. That doesn’t set off any red flags?

Bumblebee  (2018) (SPOILERS) Bumblebee is by some distance the best Transformers movie, simply by dint of having a smattering of heart (one might argue the first Shia LaBeouf one also does, and it’s certainly significantly better than the others, but it’s still a soulless Michael Bay “machine”). Laika VP and director Travis Knight brings personality to a series that has traditionally consisted of shamelessly selling product, by way of a nostalgia piece that nods to the likes of Herbie (the original), The Iron Giant and even Robocop .

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.

That’s what people call necromancer’s weather.

The Changes (1975) This adaptation of Peter Dickinson’s novel trilogy carries a degree of cult nostalgia cachet due to it being one of those more “adult” 1970s children’s serials (see also The Children of the Stones , The Owl Service ). I was too young to see it on its initial screening – or at any rate, too young to remember it – but it’s easy to see why it lingered in the minds of those who did. Well, the first episode, anyway. Not for nothing is The Changes seen as a precursor to The Survivors in the rural apocalypse sub-genre – see also the decidedly nastier No Blade of Grass – as following a fairly gripping opener, it drifts off into the realm of plodding travelogue.