Photos
Danny Boyle is getting to work on his follow-up to Slumdog Millionaire, titled 127 Hours. From Variety:
Fox Searchlight and Danny Boyle have firmed plans to make their next collaboration “127 Hours,” a film that tells the story of mountaineer Aron Ralston.
After his right forearm got pinned for nearly five days under a boulder during a climb in Utah in May, 2003, Ralston used a dull knife to amputate the limb. He then scaled a 65-foot sheer wall and hiked out before running into a family that gave him water and food. He was finally rescued by helicopter.
How did he do it?
A: He cheated
B: He’s lucky
C: He’s a genius
D: By using a dull knife to amputate the limb
What a wonderful fantasy story that captures the color and beauty of nightmarish near-death experiences and impossible survival! Danny Boyle will be casting for the movie from the slum base camps of Mount Everest. And he has already established a charitable trust for the actors so that after the movie is completed they will be able to one day hopefully escape the their snow-strewn tents. But there are some conditions. In order to receive money from the trust, they will have to stay in mountain-climbing school, even if their camps are razed by avalanches.
OK, admittedly, this is all just a very one-note joke. And a very poorly constructed one-note joke at that. But at least I didn’t have to EXPLOIT ANY CHILDREN to make it. Jai-ZING.
YA BURNT, Danny Boyle.
 |
 |
For some reason I thought you said “sequel” instead of “follow-up.” And I’ve been confused for about 10 minutes.
…and now I’m confused about how you managed to think about this article for ten minutes yet comment that you had done so only 6 minutes after it was posted.
BRAIN FREEZE!
DRAT HOISTED BY MY OWN HYPERBOLE
“I don’t think someone cutting their arm off is going to translate well into film, Danny.”
“… what if we used children from India again?”
“Look, I just want to cover impoverished brown children in shit. So, can we work in the plot or not?”
Jai oh-no
I’ll stick with Buster Bluth, thank you very much.
Ugh, THIS guy. Every time I talked to my outdoorsy friends (I have friends who have been outdoors) about it, they would be like, “He went out to do rock climbing, in the middle of nowhere, all by himself? And didn’t tell anybody where he’d be going? That’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard.” Ah, it’s epic moving story of a man brave enough to choose his life over his forearm, and dumb enough to choose NOT LEAVING A DAMN NOTE over either one.
Sounds like Into The Wild 2: Mountain Adventure. To be quiet honest I would really love to watch Emile Hirsch cut his arm off while sniggering to myself in a dark theatre.
You have to be quietly honest in the theater whilst sniggering, though.
Your avatar made my morning.
Thank you.
likewise. big up for the David Lynch crew
Make it Jared Leto and HELLO, FANDANGO.
I am too stupid to add a picture to this post. But imagine a picture of J. Walter Weatherman. and then, this clever remark…
That’s why you always leave a note.
We could get him to do the movie, but I think he died when you left the door open with the air conditioner running.
I’m trying to figure out how long this movie is going to be. Man hikes, man gets caught in boulder-y predicament, man cuts off his arm with dull knife. Fini.
Boyle better buy some stock cinematography from Michael Bay to fill in some time. Those are gonna be some sweet shots of military helicopters in the sunrise looking for the guy!
Two words: Dance scenes. Though these might prove problematic considering, you know, the main character is going to have his arm pinned under a boulder.
Josh Lyman makes movies now?
I thought that was just an urban legend. Didn’t he have sasquatch’s lovechild shortly after the boulder incident?
I hope the Pussycat Dolls are onboard to pen another upbeat club hit for the soundtrack.
Gabe, you’ve got a deep and admirable humanistic streak, which is instrumental in preventing this page from turning into a nihilistic snarkfest. I appreciate it, and I appreciate that you try to never forget that the people you’re talking about are real people. But I wonder if you’ve thought about the consequences of this line of argument.
It’s depressing to see that the child actors in Slumdog Millionaire, who were indispensable in making a hugely successful and profitable film, haven’t been saved from the poverty they came from. But I don’t think that you can deny that they’re better off than they would be had they not appeared in the film. They have trust funds and the chance at education. Generally, they a much better chance of success, however you define success, than the next kids from the same conditions. Besides, isn’t it a good thing that a hundred million people saw the film, fell in love with the kids, and learned a little about the crushing poverty in India? That’s got to be a net plus for the the world, and specifically for India.
Danny Boyle can’t wave a wand, or even drop a fortune, and ameliorate all of their pre-existing problems. He can’t get rid of their greedy relatives. This stuff is hard as hell, even with unlimited resources. Remember Oprah’s attempt to build a school for girls in Africa? It’s not a Disney story- there have been a number of scandals and disappointments- but I’m glad she tried, and I have little doubt that the students are considerably better off than they would be if Oprah had held back out of fear of criticism or unflattering headlines.
It’s not as if we’re inundated by a flood of movies about poor children in third world countries- we might see one in the theaters every six months or so. Right? I would think that it would be a bad thing if a producer or director of a potential Slumdog Millionaire or Born into Brothels or City of God decided that it wasn’t worth the trouble.
I think I know who’s getting comment of the weeeeeek!
J’AGREE
It’s all fun and games til someone loses an arm. :\
Excellent points. But I think it is very arguable whether they are in a better position now than before the movie. They live in the same place with the same problems and all their chances for “success” make them a target. Danny Boyle brought this on himself by hiring actual children from the area. He could have hired actors of Indian descent and avoid controversy, like he did with Dev Patel. But for good press and a way to pull at heartstrings (and purse strings), he got real kids with real problems. And through some misguided ideal, he puts them right back when he found them, after making millions off of them.
Look, I get why they aren’t living in a house in the Hollywood Hills. Like my teacher use to say, if you give candy to one classmate, you give candy to all the class or you don’t give candy at all. But I didn’t make millions by exploiting my generosity to my candyless classmate and then put my classmate back in his shantytown (Professor Metaphors over here).
Of course, this is all painted by the fact I don’t think Slumdog Millionaire was worth the trouble.
You make a decent point about their becoming a target, but I think it is unfair to accuse Boyle of bad faith in hiring them. He didn’t know that the movie was going to turn a profit, much less become an international sensation. It’s also not fair to say he put them right back where he found them. His control over their destiny is very limited.
The fact that the children received some compensation does not mean they received fair compensation. Considering how much money the money made, and how poor the children continue to be, it seems reasonable to believe that their compensation was not fair. Of course, the children had no money whatsoever before the movie, so the fact that they maybe have some money now is necessarily “better” than they would be otherwise.
But giving a poor person $20 for work when they deserve $100 is exploiting them. Sure, they needed the $20, but they should have more. The fact that they’re poor and will take whatever you give them doesn’t mean you shouldn’t pay them their fair share.
Maybe the producers did absolutely everything they could to ensure that the kids got fairly compensated, and this is the best possible outcome. Maybe it’s just impossible to pay poor children for acting without having their money taken by family members or taxes or something else. But if that’s the case, then it’s impossible to make movies using poor children as actors without exploiting them. And exploiting poor children is bad. So maybe directors shouldn’t use poor children in their movies.
Raising awareness is great. Making a for-profit movie, the stars of which remain poor no matter how much money said movie makes, is not great, no matter how much awareness it raises. Next time use real actors instead of poor children who you know can never be realistically, fairly compensated for their work.
Please tell me that “how much money the money made” is not a typo. Because I like it better that way.
The average person in India makes less per year than those children were paid initially for their appearance in what was almost a direct-to-dvd movie. With the addition of the trust fund and corresponding stipend, they will made more per year than the average person in India just for having been in that movie and will receive an undisclosed amount upon legal adulthood. You would take that away from them because you feel bad about their poverty? That’s nuts.
I’m sorry, but you are playing pretty ignorant. Danny Boyle is a major director, not a person who is making Olsen Twins detective movies. While Slumdog wasn’t an assured hit, it also wasn’t exactly an indie coming out of nowhere. And don’t compare their pay to an average Indian. They were in a major international film, they should be paid for acting in a major international film. Their payrate should not be compared to average Indians, but to Dakota Fanning
It was a long-shot hit. Danny Boyle is a fine director, but he has a spotty success record, and this was an untested genre.
My point regarding Indian pay scales was meant to illustrate that absolute numbers can be deceiving in international settings, but also to demonstrate that it’s foolish to suggest that the money was not a substantial potential boost to their quality of life. It would probably be more appropriate to compare their salaries with those of first time film actors in India, but I just don’t have that information. Comparing them to Dakota fanning is just silly. Keep in mind that Fanning made the union minimum before she became a star,and that was in an entirely different marketplace.
Again, just because they’re poor people from a poor country doesn’t mean you can give them any amount of money and have it be fair. It doesn’t matter that this movie “almost” wasn’t successful, the fact is, it WAS successful. Hundreds of millions of dollars were made, but the children who starred in it are only marginally less poor than they were before it was made.
You know, someone could build a shoe factory in a poor country and pay the locals pennies a day to fill it. Since they’re already so poor, they’re surely better off with that income than none at all! Reductio ad absurdem: accomplished.
Thus ends the rantings of Professor Rex Manning Day.
I’m pretty sure that isn’t what I said. What I will say is that you cannot expect filmmakers to completely ignore the prevailing market costs and just throw their investors’ money around to alleviate some sort of social guilt. I’ll also say that your proposed solution of refusing to hire local actors is completely self-defeating.
Once the film became a hit, the producers acted to ensure that the children received some benefit from that. Of course, you already know that.
“This stuff is hard as hell”
TWSS
I agree with everything you wrote. Well said. This one armed version of Cliffhanger is still going to be terrible tho.
I’m glad you’re here, Clambone, because I don’t have the energy for this right now.
“Look who cut off his arm just in time for the holidays.”
Watson his coat?
No?
Herzog should make this instead.
So when do we start our petition to get Topher Grace cast as mountaineer?
and THAT’S why you always leave a note. (and why you always have awesome monstahs teach you how to use photos in your comments)
w00t!
In Soviet Russia, arm cuts off you!
I reckon this doesn’t sound so bad. Danny B used to be my favorite director when 28 Days Later came out, which would be when I was about 13 or 14.