Features
Headlines
Search
Archives
It all started, as so many conflicts do these days, with a tweet. After spending a morning and afternoon musing on “127 Hours,” following a breakfast-time screening on the last day of the London Film Festival, I accepted the hard fact that I simply didn’t like it very much.
I wanted to feel differently. Danny Boyle, in addition to being one of my favorite ever interviewees, is a vital filmmaker whose previous misses I’ve even found more stimulating than most directors’ hits. James Franco is shaping up to be among the most pleasingly off-kilter leading men of his generation. The tech geek in me was excited to see the long-underused Enrique Chediak working on a large canvas, alongside the justly rated Anthony Dod Mantle.
I had, I admit, harbored doubts about how Team Boyle could cinematically enliven Aron Ralston’s simple-if-grisly survival tale, one that could promise no surprises after ample media coverage as recently as 2003. Some blinder of a structural or technical choice, I assumed, was being hidden up someone’s sleeve — and when I saw only a familiar collection of hopped-up editing tricks and multimedia interpolations that designerised the protagonist’s plight without deepening it, I wasn’t afraid to say I felt a little crushed.
Handing the film a D+ rating — letter grading being my habitual system for Twitter-haiku reviews — I offered a single curtailed sentence as explanation: “Boyle’s off-his-Ritalin visuals and Franco’s charisma can’t mask fact that this story has no second degree.”
It was intended, as always with such tweets, merely as a stopgap until I found time to write a longer piece, so I was somewhat blindsided by the attention my 140-character amuse-bouche received. A surprised Anne Thompson posted it on her blog, and brought it up again on Friday’s episode of Oscar Talk with Kris. Meanwhile, Sasha Stone used it as a trigger for an entire essay on her relationship to film critics, raising the issue of relative “life experience” that she’s used before to defend films she loves, and bluntly stating that, as much as “it is about subjectivity,” I am still “flat out wrong” for disliking the film.
The ensuing comment debate spiralled far away from “127 Hours” itself — though Stone’s aide Ryan Adams, who hasn’t seen the film, did offer a defense of Boyle’s vision — and more into the currently popular online meme of reviewing the reviewers. As game as I usually am for such debate, it seemed strange to be arguing over a reaction I hadn’t yet fully expressed.
So allow me to return to the movie for a minute. If you came within touching distance of a newspaper, or TV news broadcast, seven years ago, you probably know that Aron Ralston is the young American mountaineer who amputated his own right arm with a pocket-knife after getting it inextricably trapped under a boulder during a hiking mishap. The 127 hours of the title refer to the time Ralston spent in this captivity, and they’ve been fashioned by Boyle, co-writer Simon Beaufoy and editor Jon Harris into a conversely restless 90 minutes of film that darts between part, present and even future, but interrupts the protagonist’s emotional arc so frequently that the person never supersedes the plight.
The filmmakers can’t be held to blame for the audience’s certainty of the outcome — like many a horror film, it’s a narrative that hinges not on what, but on when — but Boyle’s attempts to implant urgency by way of split screens, rapid-fire cutting and timeframe hopscotch feel both dated in execution (those “glorified Gatorade ad” jibes you might have heard aren’t entirely out of place, not least when the film indulges in pointlessly self-aware product placement) and inorganic to the story at hand. There’s a presumably deliberate irony to this onscreen activity in the face of Ralston’s entrapment, but it’s a glib joke that comes at the expense of sequences that might build a more sustained sense of panic, despair and, yes, something approaching suspense.
The camera’s reluctance to stay on Ralston could be read as a nod to the faint hollowness of the character — and it’s to the credit of Franco’s bright, alert lead turn that he undersells neither the man’s smarminess nor his selfishness — but Boyle and Beaufoy attempt to have things both ways by pitching his eventual escape as a broadly relatable feat of spiritual triumph.
Egged on by the cod-inspirational, Dido-voiced strains of A.R. Rahman’s score (the repeated lyrical motif of “rise” pushing the Jesus-isms a little too hard, if I may), the overblown finale skips straight past Ralston’s personal victory to universal moral riffing on that old “no man is an island” chestnut, and I’m not convinced he’s a sufficiently compelling individual vessel to take us there. As moved as some viewers have been by the depiction of his ordeal, I felt little emotional connection to the story beyond lurid “what would you do?” finger-pointing; it remains something interesting that happened to someone else, but my understanding of his courageous act is no richer or more conflicted than it was the afternoon I first heard the news in my car.
I’d be happy to accept the film as less a heart-and-soul movie than a cool exercise in narrative limitation — extending this year’s odd streak of confined-space thrillers, including “Buried” and the decidedly underrated “Frozen” — if its technical properties weren’t also so hit-and-miss: major credit must go to the wincingly vivid sound design, but the teaming of Mantle and Chediak doesn’t entirely satisfy, as their jittery camera swoops and jazz-hands angles read occasionally as an imposition on the majestic locale they’re shooting. Boyle has never done austere, and we wouldn’t want him to start now, but as he and his crew aim to repeat the pop dynamism of “Slumdog Millionaire” — to an extent that feels surplus to the demands of this one man show — his sense of intimacy has gone astray.
That is my opinion, and it’s a sincere one — despite the insinuations of some (including even Kris) that my stated dislike of the film is rooted in contrarian reaction against its success thus far. The film will surely find an appreciative public audience, and may even be the Oscar contender that many are predicting, though I can just as easily imagine a sizable contingent of voters not taking to its bare-bones, youth-oriented story — not to mention its grisly money shots.
Either way, as fun as such speculation is, it’s not a consideration that has a place in my critical response to this or any other film, and I’m disappointed that Sasha Stone — or anyone else — might interpret an off-consensus opinion as “a need to cause a mini-controversy.” When the dust of the season settles four months from now, all we’ll have are the movies: we may as well get our relationship with them off on an honest footing. I may have criticised (in a figure of speech that irritated some) “127 Hours” for having no second degree of subtext, but in this case, I haven’t one either.
[Photo: Fox Searchlight Pictures]
109 responses so far
1 11-01-2010 at 2:24 pm
Nigel Bridgeman said...
I hope you’ve learned your lesson here, Guy.
2 11-01-2010 at 2:24 pm
Maxim said...
Thanks for the review, Guy.
3 11-01-2010 at 2:27 pm
Sarah El said...
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.
4 11-01-2010 at 2:30 pm
Matthew Starr said...
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?
5 11-01-2010 at 2:30 pm
Al said...
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.
6 11-01-2010 at 2:49 pm
Dean said...
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.
7 11-01-2010 at 2:49 pm
Guy Lodge said...
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.
8 11-01-2010 at 2:53 pm
Ali E. said...
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.
9 11-01-2010 at 2:55 pm
/3rtfu11 said...
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.
10 11-01-2010 at 3:03 pm
Graysmith said...
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.
11 11-01-2010 at 3:07 pm
Matthew Starr said...
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.
12 11-01-2010 at 3:08 pm
Jeremy said...
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.
13 11-01-2010 at 3:12 pm
Nick Davis said...
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.
14 11-01-2010 at 3:15 pm
tony rock said...
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.
15 11-01-2010 at 3:19 pm
qwiggles said...
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.
16 11-01-2010 at 3:25 pm
Guy Lodge said...
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.
17 11-01-2010 at 3:25 pm
Silencio said...
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.
18 11-01-2010 at 3:27 pm
Angry Shark said...
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.
19 11-01-2010 at 3:30 pm
Jim T said...
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 ;)
20 11-01-2010 at 3:35 pm
Jeremy said...
“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.
21 11-01-2010 at 3:38 pm
Guy Lodge said...
I can’t disagree with that.
22 11-01-2010 at 3:40 pm
Patriotsfan said...
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!
23 11-01-2010 at 4:06 pm
Matt King said...
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.
24 11-01-2010 at 4:07 pm
Matt King said...
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.
25 11-01-2010 at 4:08 pm
Matt King said...
(Though fanboy opinion is not a bad thing, per se, as mentioned above. I’ll stop now.)
26 11-01-2010 at 4:22 pm
Loyal said...
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+.
27 11-01-2010 at 4:22 pm
Andrew Rech said...
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.
28 11-01-2010 at 4:23 pm
Kristopher Tapley said...
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.
29 11-01-2010 at 4:26 pm
Kevin K. said...
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?
30 11-01-2010 at 4:46 pm
MovieMan said...
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.)
31 11-01-2010 at 4:49 pm
JJ1 said...
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.
32 11-01-2010 at 5:09 pm
Everett said...
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.
33 11-01-2010 at 5:31 pm
JJ1 said...
This. ^
34 11-01-2010 at 6:00 pm
Graysmith said...
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.
35 11-01-2010 at 6:04 pm
Dean said...
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
36 11-01-2010 at 8:14 pm
Danny King said...
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.
37 11-01-2010 at 8:48 pm
Glenn said...
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?
38 11-01-2010 at 9:18 pm
daveylow said...
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.
39 11-01-2010 at 9:23 pm
Michael said...
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.
40 11-01-2010 at 9:48 pm
Nick Davis said...
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.)
41 11-01-2010 at 9:50 pm
Nick Davis said...
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.
42 11-01-2010 at 10:04 pm
Ada said...
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.
43 11-01-2010 at 10:27 pm
Rob said...
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: Sasha Stone is an extremely articulate RETARD.
44 11-01-2010 at 10:42 pm
Matt King said...
Well said, Nick Davis.
45 11-01-2010 at 11:29 pm
Glenn said...
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.
46 11-02-2010 at 3:49 am
Dominik said...
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.
47 11-02-2010 at 4:36 am
Hero said...
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?
48 11-02-2010 at 6:50 am
Princess of Peace said...
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.
49 11-02-2010 at 7:45 am
Aleksis said...
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.)
50 11-02-2010 at 8:40 am
Jim T said...
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.
51 11-02-2010 at 9:55 am
Hunter Tremayne said...
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.
52 11-02-2010 at 10:06 am
Rob said...
“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.
53 11-02-2010 at 10:16 am
Derek said...
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.
54 11-02-2010 at 10:27 am
Kristopher Tapley said...
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.
55 11-02-2010 at 10:55 am
Matthew Starr said...
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.
56 11-02-2010 at 11:10 am
James D. said...
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?
57 11-02-2010 at 11:14 am
Melissa said...
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
58 11-02-2010 at 11:44 am
Hunter Tremayne said...
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.
59 11-02-2010 at 11:44 am
Jim T said...
Perfectly said, Kris.
60 11-02-2010 at 12:31 pm
Guy Lodge said...
“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.
61 11-02-2010 at 12:53 pm
Hunter Tremayne said...
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.
62 11-02-2010 at 1:03 pm
Maxim said...
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.
63 11-02-2010 at 1:11 pm
Maxim said...
“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.
64 11-02-2010 at 1:14 pm
Hunter Tremayne said...
Man, no offence taken, for you have been a terrible judge.
65 11-02-2010 at 1:20 pm
Angry Shark said...
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.
66 11-02-2010 at 1:22 pm
Maxim said...
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?
67 11-02-2010 at 1:27 pm
Hunter Tremayne said...
I would be delighted to, Maxim, but I live in Spain, and am off out for the evening. Check back later for a reply.
68 11-02-2010 at 1:31 pm
Maxim said...
Alright. Have a pleasant evening :) .
69 11-02-2010 at 2:01 pm
Ryan Adams said...
“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.
70 11-02-2010 at 3:09 pm
Hero said...
“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.
71 11-02-2010 at 3:17 pm
Nick Davis said...
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.”
72 11-02-2010 at 3:43 pm
Ryan Adams said...
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.
73 11-02-2010 at 4:00 pm
Patriotsfan said...
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).
74 11-02-2010 at 4:03 pm
Kristopher Tapley said...
“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.”)
75 11-02-2010 at 4:07 pm
Ryan Adams said...
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.
76 11-02-2010 at 4:14 pm
Ryan Adams said...
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?
77 11-02-2010 at 4:19 pm
Ryan Adams said...
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.
78 11-02-2010 at 4:23 pm
Jim T said...
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?
79 11-02-2010 at 4:25 pm
Jim T said...
Oh, I posted before reading tese two last comments. I’m covered.
80 11-02-2010 at 4:50 pm
Ryan Adams said...
(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.”
81 11-02-2010 at 5:10 pm
Kristopher Tapley said...
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.
82 11-02-2010 at 5:22 pm
Matthew Starr said...
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.
83 11-02-2010 at 6:04 pm
Hero said...
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.)
84 11-02-2010 at 6:27 pm
Michael said...
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.)
85 11-02-2010 at 6:31 pm
Michael said...
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
86 11-02-2010 at 7:00 pm
Adam Feaster said...
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.
87 11-02-2010 at 7:11 pm
Guy Lodge said...
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.
88 11-02-2010 at 7:14 pm
Loyal said...
Intuitive phraseology! Idiosyncratic style! You sir are a wordsmith of the second degree.
89 11-02-2010 at 8:01 pm
Glenn said...
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.
90 11-02-2010 at 8:12 pm
JJ1 said...
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.
91 11-02-2010 at 8:24 pm
Joe said...
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.
92 11-02-2010 at 8:31 pm
Ryan Adams said...
>> “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?
93 11-02-2010 at 8:43 pm
Ryan Adams said...
Joe:
Thanks (?)
Cheers.
94 11-02-2010 at 10:29 pm
Adam Feaster said...
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.
95 11-02-2010 at 11:00 pm
Kevin K. said...
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?
96 11-02-2010 at 11:15 pm
Friedl said...
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.
97 11-03-2010 at 12:18 am
Nick Davis said...
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!)
98 11-03-2010 at 2:34 am
the other mike said...
is this the greatest thread in In Contention History?
99 11-03-2010 at 4:14 am
Michael said...
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.
100 11-03-2010 at 4:17 am
Guy Lodge said...
“What do they make in Dagenham?”
Cars. Failed reality-TV contestants. And despair.
(Someone had to visit Dagenham recently, you might have gathered.)
101 11-03-2010 at 4:30 am
Michael said...
oh and thanks for clarifying what you meant by second degree Guy. I didn’t read the thread at AD (and after reading the thread here I shudder to think what that thread is like) but after reading your review again it seems you made that point clear already and I was just missing the connection.
If I may offer a suggestion – once the film is released wide, I really think y’all should post one of those “What Did You Think Of” threads for 127 Hours. I for one can’t wait to read what the readership of IC has to say about the film after they have SEEN it. I think the mix of responses from more than just the few who have seen it so far will be very intriguing, and it wouldn’t surprise me if more people start appearing that share similar reactions to Guy’s. Just a suggestion.
102 11-03-2010 at 4:58 am
timr said...
I’m not even ON this thread, and I keep nervously clicking refresh. What’s wrong with me?
103 11-03-2010 at 7:05 am
Hunter Tremayne said...
I promised a poster here that I would reply to a few questions he asked me last night, but I won’t bother as everyone is hooked on the Guy and Ryan Show!
104 11-03-2010 at 8:55 am
Michael said...
@timr – umm, I don’t think you are alone. I have been reading IC for over 2 years and I can’t recall too many moments where things got as heated as this (maybe a few times with things that Chad said) and I find it fascinating. I kinda think (hope) that the the worst is behind us though, but that hasn’t stopped me from popping my head in every couple of hours as well LOL.
@Hunter – maybe save your response for the next 127 Hours thread where it will be fresher and won’t have to compete per se with an ongoing epic blog battle (j/k)
105 11-05-2010 at 4:01 pm
Jasmine said...
This is the first review I have read of yours and I was very impressed. I have not seen 127 Hours yet, and I am still very much looking forward to it. I feel like you eloquently expressed your opinions, backed them up with strong evidence, and challenged those who challenged you without becoming immature or going off track. Well done, you have a new fan!
106 11-07-2010 at 11:30 am
Rashad said...
I didnt like 127 Hours at all either.
What I don’t get is how people can criticize Tony Scott for his hyperactive editing, yet Boyle does it on steroids and it’s praised as “vibrant” and “full of enthusiasm.”
107 11-21-2010 at 10:53 pm
Paolo said...
Because I’ve been living under a rock (sorry), I haven’t seen this piece until now. Read Sasha’s schizophrenic piece when it came out. My opinion was in the past sentence.
Anyway, I just saw the film two hours ago and I’d say it’s distracting but confident. I don’t know what letter grade that is. I do agree with you on what sections of the movie I didn’t like. Your piece was very rational, and I’m looking forward to reading your reviews on films to come.
108 11-21-2010 at 11:52 pm
Robert Hamer said...
So, is this still a Best Picture lock? Because it seems like the enthusiasm for this one has died off somewhat.