James Franco stars in 127 Hours.
127 Hours of Hellish Hope
Chatting Aron Ralston, Arm Amputation, James Franco, and More with Director Danny Boyle
Monday, November 15, 2010
Danny Boyle’s follow-up to his Academy Award-winning Slumdog Millionaire is the film 127 Hours, which depicts the true survival story of Aron Ralston, who was forced to amputate his own arm while pinned beneath a boulder in the mountains around Moab. The film is exhilarating, uplifting, and one of the best of the year. I was fortunate to recently sit down and speak with director Boyle.
When did you realize that this could be a movie? I read Aron’s book in 2006, and I approached him then about making it as this kind of film with an actor playing the part and it being first person. At that stage, he had just finished the book and didn’t want to give up that kind of control. He wanted to try and make it a documentary. … I didn’t think it would work like that. I said the only way you’ll ever be able to depict it properly and for the audience to tolerate what happens at the end of the movie is if you have that empathy with the lead actor that only great actors can give. … He is a kind of a superhero, but we always thought the story is not a superhero story—it’s actually the fact that he is pulled back down to Earth to all of us, to what we all share, and that allows him to get out of there. All his superhuman strength is redundant, which you can see at the beginning of the film when he tries to get out of there. He tries everything, and he can’t, because nature’s grain of sand has literally gone “No, wait,” and that’s what always struck us about the story.
127 Hours
Here’s a story about a trapped man, but he’s constantly moving. Can you talk about your approach? We had this mantra where every day we said to everyone in every way that this is an action movie where the hero is stuck and he can’t move, but he does move. … He’s on this journey about understanding himself. It’s classic drama really, except it’s real. … It was also the relationship James had with the camera which allowed us to give us the sense that this was constantly acted because the danger with a film like this is inertness. You can be still—and James is amazingly still when he leaves the video messages—but you can never be inert. There must always be some spark in there, which is sometimes physical, sometimes emotional. There is a journey going on the whole time before he achieves what I call the grace to get out of there, which is lineage really. In the film, there’s the hallucination of the child. Aron did see this child, but he was 27 and was not interested in being a parent. He was “playing the field” as we say in Britain, and he saw this child, and it wasn’t religious; it wasn’t like Jesus or anything like an epiphany in that sense. It was clearly his kid, and he had this incredible memory of his own father taking him to the Grand Canyon and this lineage idea that he did have a part to play and something important to do other than achieve climbing mountains or achieve records or fast times—he had something to contribute. And that’s how we’re all connected, isn’t it? You pass on life either directly or non-directly, and that gave him the clue to get out of there because, in seeing the kid, he literally worked out that the bone would bend, which he never would have thought of before that. And he did it just like that.
James Franco stars in 127 hours.
For showtimes, check the Independent's movie listings, here.
Comments
Aaron Ralston is a reckless fool who has put rescue teams in danger numerous times while saving his life and whose friend died in a avalanche while skiing out of bounds with Aaron. To glorify this ninny as some sort of adventure hero is irresponsible. Proceeds from this film should be donated to the search & rescue teams who inevitably have to deal with these clueless red bull swilling jerks!
reality_check (anonymous profile)
November 15, 2010 at 12:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well Mr. Reality-Check, from someone who has worked in the rescue business when I was younger, I have to respectfully disagree. Unless you are suggesting that we all sit at home during our leisure time and watch television, almost any outdoor recreational activity entails risks, some risks greater than others and some risks unforeseen. I rememeber getting myself into a very dangerous situation on what started out as an easy afternoon hike and, because of a single wrong turn in a trail, turned into a very harrowing 2 hour escape from river gorge. I could have easily died. Stuff happens out there if you go out there. Recreational surfers and skiers die in freak mishaps. The amazing thing about this story is that it poses a very serious question to each of us. What could I do if I had to? I much pain could I endure to survive? Or would I just give up? Ralston may have taken more risks than the rest of us normally do. But we all take them and risk facing those very definitive questions.
Eckermann (anonymous profile)
November 15, 2010 at 12:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Eckermann: I would say you should read his book but it's not worth it. AR has a long history of hiking alone, not informing anyone of where is he going and when he should return, pushing all safety limits and repeatedly needed rescue. He would still have both arms if he had taken a hiking buddy or told someone where he was going and how long he would be gone. His near death adventure wasn't a freak mishap - it was an inevitable result of his foolish risk taking.
How many young people will watch this movie and be inspired to take senseless risks in the wilderness?
reality_check (anonymous profile)
November 15, 2010 at 1:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"How many young people will watch this movie and be inspired to take senseless risks in the wilderness?"
After the arm amputation scene, not many?
Sure he screwed up, and he lost his arm for screwing up. Was that not enough for you? Does he need to die for you to be satisfied that he's paid a price for his recklessness?
Maybe people can come away from this realizing that there's every good reason to take precautions, but even if you do, you still may forced to face these kinds of ultimate questions. Let's not focus too much on how he got into that situation, but rather, what he did once he was in it. I am pretty sure that's the point of the story.
surfimp (anonymous profile)
November 17, 2010 at 7:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
WHat? A feelgood movie about HOPE & COURAGE & BRAVERY & SURVIVAL of the HUMAN SPIRIT & SALVATION & REDEMPTION?
Wait a minute----some rogue boyscout heads out into nature, gets stuck, and has to saw off his own arm to live? You mean watch THIS while I gag on my buttered popcorn.
TIGHT CAMERA SHOTS, NAUSEATING CU's, & A MEMORABLE SCORE to wrap it all up in a tight little bow---I'd last 12.7 seconds and I'm outta there.
What next? A movie about people in scuba gear left behind in the open ocean? Oh, no. (And why wasn't that flick nominated for best set design?)
Draxor (anonymous profile)
November 20, 2010 at 12:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)