Feb 11, 2011 09:25
It’s not easy to make a genuinely compelling movie when the focus is solely on one actor, especially when that actor is in the middle of nowhere. However, the job is certainly facilitated when that actor happens to be the likeable and energetic James Franco, paired with experienced and ever-versatile director Danny Boyle. Franco plays Aron Ralston, a 28- year old daredevil whose adventure in the desert canyons of Utah goes terribly wrong. There aren’t too many worse situations you can get yourself into than having your right arm trapped beneath a boulder in the bottom of a canyon in no-mans land. To make matters worse, Ralston left without a word to anyone, even his family, as to where he was going. The film explores Ralston’s thought processes and emotions, from guilt to anger at his own stupidity to his final realization for what he must do in order to survive. The climax hinges upon this realization, that Ralston must dismember his own arm if he is to escape, using nothing but a dull pocketknife.
This moment is the one everyone in the theater is waiting for; the gruesome scene is no secret. Boyle’s challenge is to make the movie interesting up until this point. The desert is unarguably beautiful, but it is essentially the same landscape stretched out for miles. The cinematography is responsible for keeping this setting intriguing throughout the duration of Ralston’s journey, Boyle cleverly even adding in humorous hallucinations and dreams as Ralston becomes more and more desperate. Panoramic camera-work highlights the bright pink and blue hues of the sky against the vibrant orange and yellow shades of the desert, at least until Ralston becomes trapped in the canyon. From here Boyle employs a variety of shots, which can at times seem over-excessive and unnecessary for the sake of bringing life to a static setting, like when the camera closely follows Ralston’s urine down his water bottle. A memorable moment is when we see where he is trapped from above, just one crevice out of many, further revealing how alone and insignificant he is.
Franco does an admirable job convincing the audience of Ralston’s five day torture of isolation and immobility, if only for his sheer magnetic ability of getting you to root for him. When he accomplishes the smallest of victories, like retrieving a dropped pocketknife, his excitement is shared among the audience. The actual scene involving Ralston’s arm is so shockingly realistic that it is understandable why those with weaker stomachs have not been able to watch. When all you have is a small, dull pocketknife, it can take awhile to saw through bone…
Yet, despite these accomplishments, 127 Hours left me emotionally ambivalent. Perhaps this is because the movie sets out to give an honest, factual recount of the hours up until Ralston escapes his fate; there is no bigger picture, he goes home and the movie ends about five minutes later. Critic Peter Bradshaw of “The Guardian” agrees that there is not too much subtext to the plot, but unlike me, he does not mind this drawback.
But I think the compelling thing about 127 Hours is that it has no message, it has no metaphorical meaning. Aron Ralston one day cut his own arm off. And that's it.
If you are looking for a film to simply provide entertainment and take you on a thrilling ride, then 127 Hours is the perfect choice. If you are looking for an adventure movie that resonates on a deeper level then one might opt with Into the Wild. Overall, however, Boyle did an excellent job crafting a film that would engage and surprise an audience who already knew its climax, and that alone is a feat to be proud of.