In his appreciative review of Ben Affleck's "The Town" this week, Roger Ebert perfectly describes the feeling of disengagement I often notice in modern action sequences: "... I persist in finding chases and gun battles curiously boring. I realize the characters have stopped making the decisions, and the stunt and effects artists have taken over."
That is precisely the way I feel about those sections of obligatory, unfocused movement in most movies. They're almost like little intermissions shot by the B-team to give you a snack and potty break ("Let's all go to th lobby..."). We know nothing consequence is going to happen. The movie has entered cruise control and for the next few minutes we'll be watching one near-miss/narrow escape after another.
But this wasn't (and isn't) always so. David Bordwell looks to Hong Kong, and compares James Bond and Jackie Chan (by way of Sly Stallone), to show us how it's done.
Stallone told American Cinematographer Magazine that he wanted to put his cameras into the middle of his action scenes so they would feel as chaotic as they would to the participants:
"I thought, 'This is not supposed to hang in the Louvre.' I wanted it to be disjointed and rough, not choreographed. If you really were filming a big battle with five cameras, [their footage] would not all flow together, so we set up the [cameras] to film the action we'd scripted and told the operators they were on their own. We said, 'Do the best you can, and we'll use the interesting shots from the characters' perspectives.'"
Of this "multi-camera craziness," operator Vern Nobles says: "Sly likes bumps on zooms and is stylized about camera movement. There really is no A or B or C camera in that sense. Everybody's running an A camera, for the most part."
Or everybody's running around with a C camera. Depends on how you look at it. DB points out that just about any any approach can be justified in the name of "realism" -- whether objective or subjective. Either you show what's happening, or you immerse your audience in the chaos of the moment. So, perhaps directors who invoke "realism" are not looking closely at the real challenge:
Forget the realist alibi. What do you want your sequence to do to the viewer? Do you want it to pass along an impression of bustle and flurry? Or do you want to make the viewer wince, recoil, even mildly reenact the movements of the players? Then follow the Hong Kong tradition. Yuen Woo-ping once told me that his goal was to make the viewer "feel the blow." To convey the effort and strain, the impact and pain: that's something worth doing.
It's something that the blur-o-vision tussles lack, but even fights that are more carefully filmed are strangely unmoving....
DB compares a catwalk fight from the Roger Spottiswoode-directed Bond film "Tomorrow Never Dies" (1997) with a shopping mall brawl from Jackie Chan's "Police Story" (1985) -- with lots of frame grabs (and even some frame counts) to illustrate both. And he offers four sensible Hong Kong rules for shooting action so that the audience can sense what's going on and feel physically and emotionally involved in the scene:
First, go for clarity in every way [compositions, lighting, colors, camera moves].... Put the camera on a tripod; pan if you must, but save your dolly moves for simple emphasis. No handheld.
Second, aim for precision. Stallone's comments imply that a cameraman captures a preexisting fight, snatching an "interesting" shot here or there. But that's not the case. Movie action is choreographed and the framing is calibrated to that. The gestures should be legible, favoring crisp and staccato movement, while the image's composition aims to convey the action cleanly....
Third, establish a rhythm. This involves not only building the fight. It also involves synchronizing the pace of characters' movements with that of the cutting. On the whole, the old rule applies: More distant shots should be held longer than closer ones. This doesn't mean you can't use fast cutting, only that your fast cutting can be more finely judged when you take shot scale, composition, and speed of movement into account. [...]
Fourth -- and here is where realism is most explicitly abandoned -- amplify the expressive qualities of the action. If movement is zigzag or springy or oscillating, stress that. Give emotional qualities not only to facial expressions but also to postures and combat moves. American heroes just grimace while their bodies remain inexpressive, lumpish.... Just concentrate energy and emotion in the action. If the hero attacks, let him become as focused as a javelin. If your heroine falls, don't let her just drop out of frame: Let her land with a thwack, preferably on the spine or neck, and let her body's recoil send a spasm through the spectator too.
You'll recall certain fight scenes or chases in which you found yourself involuntarily flinching, parrying, ducking, leaning with the momentum of the action, or gasping as if you'd just been smacked with a heavy object. Those are the good ones. When you see any or all of the four principles above at work, you'll recognize how the scene is working you over....
- - - -
David Bordwell: "Bond vs. Chan: Jackie shows how it's done"
Scanners: "Mad Men: How to direct an action sequence
58 Comments
Yes, yes, and yes. This is everything that's right with film criticism, and this is why Scanners remains the most revered stop in all of the interwebs. Thanks for pointing me towards Bordwell's piece. I think the thing that strikes me most about the Hong Kong "Action Dogma", if you will, is that clarity and precision are paramount. You know what, I don't even mind kinetic action film-making all that much, but just show me where the characters are -- the logistics of the scene -- and how they're going to navigate their surroundings while being chased by bad guys.
I'm glad you mentioned last week about the overhead shots from The American and how it looks like a maze (the perfect metaphor for the film's character and the narrative itself). And even though that film refrains from the kinetic aesthetic, I would at least would have been willing to accept it had it employed a little bit of the shaky-cam, because those overhead shots already foreshadow for us the confusion the character feels in the film. Of course you wonderfully pointed out that the filmmaker does it in a subtle, more Melvilleian, way, than say in the style of Greengrass, by using the edges of the frame.
I love the action film. But it's dying. And Bordwell gets to the heart of why that is.
Thanks for this, Jim.
For an action scene shot in a deliberately "disjointed and rough" style to accentuate chaotic realism that actually works as advertised, there's the Omaha beach landing in "Saving Private Ryan." A major difference, of course, is that even with a deliberately disjointed style, Spielberg was still showing the audience exactly what he intended to show them in every single shot.
I haven't seen "The Expendables," but I remember this being what turned me off so much about the last "Rambo" (a movie I disliked so much, it's why I never bothered with "The Expendables"): brutal, gory, choppy violence, but to the service of what? It was like Stallone loved what Spielberg did with the opening of "Saving Private Ryan," but missed the point of it entirely. The very idea of it all is incompatible -- when you make a movie about a team of impossibly tough super-soldiers (or with Rambo, one impossibly tough super-soldier), why the hell would you aspire for gritty "realism"?
As for the Bordwell piece, I loved it. I've been a huge Jackie Chan fan since I was a kid, so it's great to see such a methodical examination of what makes his action sequences (at least his earlier Hong Kong action sequences...) work as well as they do. The man was a virtuoso in his time.
I wonder, what in "Rambo" spoke "gritty realism" to you? The scene where he takes down a bunch of machine gun wielding bad guys with a bow and arrow? "Rambo" is a terrible example of the kind of "bad action movie" being described here, but a good example of a "good" action movie (one that more or less follows the above criteria) being grouped in with the "bad."
Well that's kind of my point, actually -- I'm making a distinction between the film's content and the film's style. The content, obviously, is anything but realistic -- it's a ridiculously over-the-top (I usually hate when people say "no pun intended" in writing, but really, no pun intended) story about a lone super-soldier almost single-handedly saving a horribly oppressed third-world nation.
The style, though, felt grimy, nasty, and brutal, and lacking any kind of joy -- like I said, more what I'd expect out of a war movie aspiring for a sort of "war is hell" realism than a ridiculous action movie. I guess you're right, though, that it's not the best example of the sort of "snatch and grab" style of action being described in the Bordwell piece (which apparently "The Expendables" was better example of, though again, I never watched it). I only watched "Rambo" the one time when it first came out, though, so I don't really recall how well it adhered to these four Hong Kong rules of shooting action scenes.
And again, it's been a while since I watched it so maybe I don't recall, but did Stallone wield a bow in the new "Rambo" also? Just to be sure, we're both talking about the latest one, from 2008, right? :P
I agree that the action in "Rambo," is grim, grimy and depressing, but not that it tries to be realistic. The amount of CGI blood Stallone uses makes it almost cartoony (had the same problem with "Kick-Ass," where the phoniness of the violence totally undermined any shock value). Yes, we're both talking about the 2008 version, in which he certainly uses a bow. Best part, as I recall.
Transporter 3 was an interesting experiment in seeing if you could give the same chaotic feeling as the Bourne films and so on without actually producing a terrible action film in the process. So while the film FEELS chaotic, and it does cut a little too fast, you can still make sense of it.
It's definitely not a classic even as just a pure action film, but it's an interesting experiment.
I think the disjointed feeling in most of these movies just shows a lack of interest on the director's part more than anything. When I see an action scene that won't hold together, it's clear that the director really doesn't appreciate what action films are all about. It's insane because we go to a movie like the Bourne Ultimatum for the action, so why assign a director who clearly doesn't have a taste for it?
"I realize the characters have stopped making the decisions, and the stunt and effects artists have taken over."
I haven't seen "The Town," but that sounds to me like a dismissal of any action scene, ever, from "Angels with Dirty Faces" on - an example I use because it looks like Affleck's movie is going for that old crime vibe. Yes, in action scenes, you generally need stunt and effects artists to, you know, make them possible, but in all good action movies - by which I mean an action movie that's good, not one that follows the above criteria - the action reveals character.
Here's an example of an action scene from a "bad" action movie (The Dark Knight):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jiz2tm2qiT4&p=2B493BE62031A7EC&playnext=1&index=18
Well, what do we see? We see The Joker in physical combat for the first time - throwing one of his own men into Batman, stabbing Batman with a knife previously hidden in his shoe. We see Batman plow through The Joker's men methodically and with relative ease, but he still takes a pretty hard blow to the face and actually falls down from it, emphasizing Batman's humanity and constant vulnerability.
Anyone who pays attention and doesn't immediately "shut off" when the action starts will know what's going on. The placement of The Joker's men around Batman is consistent, and if the camera doesn't go out of its way to show you where everyone is at every given moment (it's not a Bird's Eye View, you lazy asses), it doesn't matter, because if a movement starts in one shot and continues in another, even if the framing of the shot doesn't explicitly "state" the movement, if it's consistent enough in its blocking, which it is, you process it as one fluid motion without necessarily "understanding" it. Like you would a real kung-fu fight if it broke out right in front of you.
This style - the style Nolan uses and is constantly criticized for - is, I think, responsible for Ebert's sentence in his "Bourne Ultimatum" review: "The director, masterminding formidable effects and stunt teams...creates (or seems to create) amazingly long takes but does it without calling attention to them." I'm pretty sure the "(or seems to create)" was added after the review was published and readers expressed confusion about the existence of "long takes" in "Bourne Ultimatum." But the point is - that's how they felt.
On the other hand, there have been some deliberately incomprehensible action scenes that have really popped, not because of their clear and concise depiction of a complex "Indiana Jones" style stunt, but because of the brief "snatches" of movement that create iconic images that last long in your (my) mind. The tavern gunfight in "Inglourious Basterds" is a perfect example. The gunfights in Michael Mann's "Public Enemies" are like riffs on gunfights. When Stephen Lang does a pretty impressive roll, it's not the point why he's rolling or where he's going, the roll itself is the point (and establishes him, visually, as a tough-as-nails old man - important thematically).
I remember that roll vividly, as I remember "snatches" from Neveldine and Taylor's action films ("Crank," "Crank 2," "Gamer"). No one watching "Gamer" would be stupid enough to assume it's supposed to be "understood" in the sense that a Buster Keaton film is understood, but still few would see the action for it's value - a constant, visceral stimulation of the eyes, and the ears. Not a ballet - a clusterf*ck, but a beautiful one.
Anyway, this whole issue is bogus because there have been plenty of American action movies that have followed the classic, "good" style: "Casino Royale," "The Matrix," "Spider-Man," "Iron Man," "X-Men," "Hulk," "Hellboy," "Watchmen," "V for Vendetta," "Gladiator," "No Country for Old Men," "Kill Bill," "Up," "The Incredibles," "Live Free or Die Hard," the list goes on. Some of these movies use CGI (is that against the rules?), but sometimes - like in the case of the streamlined Iron Man or the tentacled Dr. Octopus - I think it really works.
A year and a half ago I examined the latter section of that sequence (the fall) to show why I think it's flabby and not very well-constructed. (Some shots are missing, some no longer have any reason to be there at all -- most are fine, but only convey one thing at a time; they may be serviceable but they aren't very densely or imaginatively conceived.) Yes, that's subjective -- and in that post I showed how and why I arrived at my conclusion, along with multiple examples of how other directors have shot perspectives, falls, and landings in anywhere from one to many shots.
The first part of the TDK scene you link to is disjointed and lazily composed, with little regard for the visual possibilities and spacial relationships within that otherwise spectacular penthouse room (though I like the angle when the Joker "lets her go."). How the hell does Batman get into the scene and where is he when he speaks his first line? Where does Rachel go during the fight and how does she suddenly reappear on the other side of the room, in the Joker's clutches, over by the window? It's mighty convenient, but why couldn't her trajectory have been figured into the fight, giving the sequence greater depth, cohesion, momentum? Maybe those things don't matter to some people, but this sloppy scene (with its god-awful overwritten score, on top of it all), which appears to have been shot the Stallone "Expendables" way, can hardly be held up as an example of exceptional accomplishment. Again, I refer to the principles used in the analysis of the "Mad Men" scene, and to the ones David Bordwell lists. As for the sex scene hypothetical, I'd think it could be more illuminating to think of it in terms of something else -- like, maybe, Kubrick's opening for "Dr. Strangelove" (an explicit sex scene with machines). Or maybe imagine shooting a sex scene like a horse race -- a visual version of the famous horse-racing sex dialog between Bogart and Bacall in "The Big Sleep"...
Well, about that fall, you write:
”…the effect was like following somebody plummeting from the sky, only to film their landing by shooting them jumping off a curb.”
Well then the sequence worked like it was supposed to, since it’s not filmed for maximum impact, BECAUSE THE CHARACTERS SURVIVE. Batman’s cape slowed their fall. It’s not realistic – I would never say that – but that sentence, which you wrote, actually describes the intended effect perfectly, and why the fact that the characters do survive doesn’t seem too ridiculous while you’re watching the film.
Batman gets into the scene because he’s a supernatural character who can appear and disappear at will. It’s already been developed in the movie at this point (not to mention in “Batman Begins”), so his appearing like that is no big deal in the context of the movie.
We don’t see how Rachel got to that side of the room, but since she’s there, and enough time has passed since the last time we saw her, it’s not unbelievable, and it doesn’t take you out of the movie. Things like this happen in movies (especially action movies) all the time.
You call the scene “disjointed” and “unimaginative.” I disagree. Like I said, it’s the first time we see The Joker in hand to hand combat and his dirty fighting counts as character development (and is developed further in the climactic fight scene). Batman getting knocked down from a punch to the face by a nameless henchmen is imaginative. You don’t see that in a super hero movie.
And anyway, like I said, and like anyone can see if they click my clip, the blocking makes sense. Watch the scene a couple times, watch The Joker’s henchmen. No matter where the camera is, they’re generally in the right places, shot-for-shot (although I didn’t take out my ruler).
I wasn’t pointing out the scene as an “example of exceptional accomplishment,” I was pointing it out because A) the action comments on The Joker and Batman’s characters, in contradiction to Ebert’s complaint; and B) the action, the blocking, makes sense, despite being shot “the Expendables way” (neither of us have seen that movie). The effect is that you know what happened, without being able to describe it. Like if you were at a party and a fight broke out between Batman and the Joker.
As for the sex scene hypothetical, I'd think it could be more illuminating to think of it in terms of something else -- like, maybe, Kubrick's opening for "Dr. Strangelove" (an explicit sex scene with machines). Or maybe imagine shooting a sex scene like a horse race -- a visual version of the famous horse-racing sex dialog between Bogart and Bacall in "The Big Sleep"...
My point was obviously that if I was serious about getting into what makes an “action scene” work, I would use one as an example, since “action scene” carries a connotation among film buffs.
But you don’t really like action movies. I know you said you don’t like kung fu movies (I can find which post it was in if I have to) and, oh, well, here’s a rule: if you don’t like kung fu movies, you don’t like action movies.
Batman gets into the scene because he’s a supernatural character who can appear and disappear at will.
OK, I've learned my lesson. It takes me so long sometimes to realize when I'm just wasting my time feeding a troll...
Yeah, but like I said, it's been developed throughout the movie (Batman appears and disappears in the middle of a crime scene in the first twenty minutes or so), and not only that, but dealt with explicitly in "Batman Begins," where Liam Neeson teaches Bruce Wayne how to become "invisible." I use the word "supernatural" as a shortcut to explain the impossible made possible by the larger than life characters in "TDK" (Batman, Joker and Two-Face).
Hey, check out these excerpts from Ebert's Great Movies essay on "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly":
The rule is that the ability to see is limited by the sides of the frame. At important moments in the film, what the camera cannot see, the characters cannot see, and that gives Leone the freedom to surprise us with entrances that cannot be explained by the practical geography of his shots.
And a moment in a cemetery when a man materializes out of thin air even though he should have been visible for a mile.
I don't care if you call me a troll, I know your opinion is unshakeable, I'm writing for people reading your blog who aren't sure what they think. If I can explain myself clearly enough - famous last words, I know - maybe they can get a little more balance.
He said one silly thing in an otherwise reasonable post. That doesn't mean he's operating in bad faith, Jim. Why the personal attack?
It's the number of comments and the number of silly things in them (including reckless distortions of what's right there in the posts above) that demonstrates what I consider bad faith. Nevertheless, I've continued to approve his comments so far.
But it's not a silly thing, because anyone who's familiar with the movie - which is part two in a canonical series - knows that ability of Batman's (to appear or disappear suddenly) has been developed already, and is part of the 'reality' the movie has created for you. When he disappears out of the crime scene at the bank, we "know" it's impossible - but we saw him do it.
In my first comment on this my words were: "Batman gets into the scene because he’s a supernatural character who can appear and disappear at will. It’s already been developed in the movie at this point (not to mention in “Batman Begins”), so his appearing like that is no big deal in the context of the movie." I didn't think I had to elaborate, because we've both seen the movie. But you stopped quoting me after my first sentence, which does make it sound like I was grasping at straws, which - in this case, at least - I am not.
"The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" is another movie about superhuman characters who strike a delicate balance between the possible and the impossible.
Would like to add one thing, since I just watched "Batman Begins" for the first time in a couple years:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QydeJbXOqyI
The clip shows more than I need, but if you skip to 2:20, you'll see the thug searching through those massive containers for Batman, who's making his first appearance in the series at this point.
At 2:29 you see, in an isolated shot, the Batman leap between two containers somewhere ahead of the thug. It's not explicitly detailed but I get the feeling he's some twenty yards away from the thug at this point.
Starting at 2:30 there's a shot of the thug shouting "Where are you?" and backing up a couple feet - and the Batman is right there, hanging upside down behind him. This means Batman covered a lot of ground in about five seconds.
What I wanna point out is how the impossibility of the situation is accentuated rather than ignored or downplayed. That this is Batman's first full appearance is especially significant. Nolan understands the superhero very well.
PS:'As for the sex scene hypothetical, I'd think it could be more illuminating to think of it in terms of something else -- like, maybe, Kubrick's opening for "Dr. Strangelove" (an explicit sex scene with machines). Or maybe imagine shooting a sex scene like a horse race -- a visual version of the famous horse-racing sex dialog between Bogart and Bacall in "The Big Sleep"...'
So it has to be a literal or symbolic depiction of *intercourse* for it to be considered a sex scene?
In that case, I'll set up some rules for what makes an action scene an action scene:
-Must involve the momentum of an object moving through space, usually at an accelerated speed.
-Must revolve around an immediate goal that can only be achieved physically
-Must depict contact between at least two objects (if only footsteps on the ground)
-Must have an element of danger, if only the danger of what could go wrong
Magnificent article, Jim, and thanks for the link to Bordwell's piece. I enjoyed Inception far more than you did, but when it came to the action sequences, I wanted to scream at the screen, "WTF is going ON?!" All this choppy editing, quick cuts and handheld camera work do not make action scenes more exciting. They just confuse me and/or make me nauseous.
Seven Samurai...now THERE was some great action.
Right, 'cause you can always make out exactly where everyone is and what's happening in "The Seven Samurai"...
Please be more vague. No more wasting our time here.
I seem to remember multiple battle scenes in "The Seven Samurai" that involve tons of extras on horses and on foot caught in chaotic movement together, across fields, in the mud, and it being hard to pick out the major characters (seven samurai) from the rest (I admit this might be a race thing).
But I'm not saying "The Seven Samurai" is a bad movie, I'm saying it's an action movie, and it's an action movie with scenes that sometimes aren't totally clear. Which was Lynn's complaint about the action in "Inception," which she compared negatively to "The Seven Samurai."
Again, this complaint about Nolan mystifies me, since there are about three action scenes in "Inception" (car chase, hallway fight, snow fortress) and the hallway fight and snow fortress scenes, at least, are totally understandable.
As it happens I just re-watched Yojimbo last night, and I specifically rewound one of the action sequences to show my husband why I was (again) breathless, and why I missed this craftsmanship so much in contemporary action films: it was done with a single shot, clearly choreographed and presented, and no less exciting because of it. Yojimbo has only three (short) on-screen action sequences, and all three are done in a single shot. That's economy.
I don't fetishize long takes per se, but there's certainly something more fulfilling in, say, the hallway sequence of Oldboy than in any of Nolan's fight sequences.
That doesn't mean Bordwell's prescriptions are the only way to approach action, but I think he's onto something in terms of how a scene affects the viewer, and why certain techniques are more effective than others.
I recently caught "Yojimbo" at Bloor cinema in Toronto and...well, there's nothing I can say, other than "you're right."
But there's no way to film what happens in the skyscraper at the end of "TDK," or during the car chase (with the train) in "Inception," in one take, or without rapid cutting. Maybe kids who were raised on modern commercials, saturday morning cartoons and video games are more adept at follow a rapidly-cut action scene, I don't know, but I know that I understand what happens in most of Nolan's action sequences, and was genuinely thrilled by them. I could describe multiple shots from different scenes that have stuck in my head and that I found quite powerful.
PS. I love the scene in "Oldboy," but in certain spots I felt like I could "see" the choreography, the actors running through something they'd rehearsed the hell out of, which is a feeling I have with a lot of one-take fight scenes ("Eastern Promises" and one of the fights in "Sanjuro" come to mind).
My all-time greatest find at Saint Vinnies (a Goodwill type second-hand store) was the fifth edition of “Film Art: An Introduction” with a $1 price tag. Maybe when I’m finally done reading it I’ll be able to let go of my regret for not attending a film class while I was a UW undergrad.
Bordwell’s piece helps me understand why I find the fight sequences in Spider-Man 2 have such a visceral effect on me. There is a wonderful shot in the first fight between Spider-Man and Dr. Octopus where the two lose their grip on a building and fall several stories. We see them from above with a camera that is ostensibly falling down the side of the building with them, but at a much slower pace, so it still serves as a semi-anchored point of reference. The two combatants fall for a couple seconds fighting each other while getting smaller and smaller in the center of the frame. Then suddenly one of Doc Ock’s tentacles grab the building and the two lurch violently at the chasing camera, which does not change its falling speed. I physically felt that lurch in my stomach when I saw those few seconds in the theater for the first time.
Shoot, now I have to go watch that movie again. I wonder what else I’ll notice.
I love a good action scene. I mean, REALLY love them: I think a great action scene can be a powerful study of motion and space, and warrants serious critical analysis. It is a shame that too many action movies and crime movies and thrillers, etc etc, these days opt for ugly, poorly lit, close-cropped action scenes edited in a chaotic fashion.
I do think that the fast-cut, handheld style can be done right. If I recall you'll disagree with me, but I thought the Bourne Ultimatum did a fantastic job of using that style to create a sense of urgency and information overload, while still respecting spacial relations and making the action clear and legible. It's fast and shaky, but it looks to me like they put a lot of effort into establishing geography, selecting shots with clear subjects, and editing the shots together in a logical order.
Sadly, most movies seem to try and fail at this (Quantum of Solace was particularly visually nonsensical), and its kept me from going out to see a lot of recent action movies, which sucks, because I love what the genre is capable of. I'm just hoping that there's an inevitable backlash and we start seeing more filmmakers aiming for a longer average shot length and whatnot. Children of Men obviously had those great (if show-offy) long-take action scenes that everyone remembers, and I appreciate that the Terminator Salvation people tried to rip those scenes off, even if it wasn't a very good movie.
While I can appreciate the choppy, quick-cut style occasionally (as an innovation in Saving Private Ryan that quickly became a war film cliche, as used skillfully by Paul Greengrass in the latter two Bourne movies), I think it has been taken well past its intent, partly because it seems easier to do and serves as a handy cover for a lack of skill in choreography and editing (I think David Bordwell has made this point in the past). It's most striking to me in dance sequences in recent musicals, in which the choppiness makes it impossible to appreciate the skill and artistry of the series of movements. The action sequences (especially fight scenes) I have found the most thrilling are filmed as dance sequences should be: with incredibly careful camera placement and movement and with takes long enough for us to see an entire sequence of motions. Neo's fight with the Merovingian's henchmen in the second Matrix film is an excellent example (regardless of what you think of the film's plot, it is difficult not to admire the balletic motion, captured in longish takes, of that fight scene, which has far less CGI intrusion than others in the series) and the swordfight in the first Zorro film that begins in a hallway and continues with Zorro flipping onto a giant table, from which (in a breathtaking series of dance-like moves) he dispatches multiple guards, much of which takes place in a long take.
The title of this post should be "How to Pretend You Like Action Movies in Order to Set Yourself Up As an Authority on How to Direct Them, and Then Use That Authority to Dismiss All Modern American Action Movies in Favour of Dialogue Scenes in Movies (The Kids Are All Right) and TV Shows (Mad Men) That Nobody - Nobody - Considers "Action" in Any Sense of the Word When it is Applied to Sequences in Movies, Part 2."
Seriously Jim, if you really wanted to get down and dirty about what makes a good "Action Scene," why wouldn't you pick an example from a superior film (Yojimbo?), rather than praise a more ironic choice (Mad Men) and set up (or reaffirm) some - apparently - universal "rules" on the subject?
It's like saying "How to Direct a Sex Scene" and then pointing to the Dorothy Malone scene in "The Big Sleep." Fair enough, but it's not really a sex scene in the sense that people mean when they put those two words together, is it?
Something is happening here but you don't know what it is, do you Mr. Andrew? What more is there to explain that isn't already obvious? Yes, these are different kinds of scenes, different kinds of movies. And yet the principles on which they are constructed -- the grammar, if you will -- are quite similar. I find it more interesting to find common elements in things that aren't already conspicuously alike on the surface.
Right, like, the extended close-ups on Homayoun Ershadi in "Taste of Cherry," well, we're watching a man driving, and when you're driving you're moving your arms, and your eyes, so the camera is recording a man in motion, and above all that, there is emotion playing out on his face, which we can tell because the movement of his facial muscles, so what we have here are shots and scenes that depict a man driving while moving his facial muscles in ways that reveal complicated emotions at a suspenseful pace. I think I'll write a blog about it and call it "How to Direct an Action Sequence."
Heck, they even say "Action" when they start filming a scene, apparently!
Your search for common elements in blah blah blah involves the constant blanket dismissal of movies you haven't seen, have only seen once, or don't care about, as well as whole styles you've only considered superficially and don't quite understand.
While you're going on about the rules - and they're good rules, I won't say they're not - the people breaking the rules are creating whole new subgenres by accident, and those subgenres have appeal.
So, you think there's only one way to shoot something? I don't. And, yes, there's no reason why a single close-up cannot be used as an "action sequence." So, please, go write your blog post and stop attributing your own ideas to me because you haven't read what I've said.
But it's not an "action sequence" in the same sense that the scene between Bogart and Malone in "The Big Sleep" is not a "sex scene." Any shot that's not a still is technically an "action" sequence, so using that specific term, with its specific meaning, where it does not apply, and then to use the same term where it does apply in order to dismiss most of what it properly applies to, to me, is bogus.
And I did read what you said, and responded to it, perhaps a little sarcastically. I wouldn't talk about me ignoring what you write when, a few comments above, you respond to a fairly comprehensive analysis of an action scene in "TDK," how it works in the movie, and how it relates to this blog as well as Ebert's (blanket) complaint about modern action scenes, by calling me a troll.
How to Direct an Action Sequence: watch "The Town."
"I do think that the fast-cut, handheld style can be done right...Sadly, most movies seem to try and fail at this (Quantum of Solace was particularly visually nonsensical),"
Most of the action scenes In Quantum of Solace were awful.Casino Royale, on the other hand, had excellent action scenes.I really wish the director of Quantum of Solace had stuck closer to that style.
I haven't seen a lot of the movies mentioned here on Jim's blog, and I'm no authority. But I do write screenplays. Somewhat badly, but that's beside the point.
"Any shot that's not a still is technically an "action" sequence...."
While no single shot is a 'sequence' -- every scene, even those with little or no motion, is action. There are two basic elements to every screenplay; Action, and Dialog. Both are further divided into two sub-elements: Dialog Tags (or Character Names), followed by each character's Dialog; and Scene Headings (or Slug Lines), followed by Descriptive Lines (or Action Lines, or just Action).
This also applies to television (teleplays).
While this may seem a technicality, and even trivial to some who merely watch movies, it's a specific term, and basic to everyone -- Everyone -- who’s either in, or trying to get into the business of making movies, and to those who are in the business (presumably also those trying to get into the business) of seriously considering movies that have been made. By the way, those in the upper echelons of that latter group, are an immense and underappreciated resource to those of us in the former. I’ve learned more about what to aim for in writing (and what to avoid), from the two gentlemen you mentioned (along with Mr. Scott in NY... occasionally even Mr. Travers, formerly of Frisco but apparently now also in NY, and Ms. Gun down in the eternal Sunset of LA), than any other source. On the other hand, that’s five sources... but my point seems to be fading.
The point is, ‘Action Sequence’ is a specific term that applies precisely to Mr. Emerson’s posts (parts one and two). ‘Action Movie’ is also a specific term, but it applies only to a genre of films. You appear to be lost in the semantic battle, taking place somewhere between the two.
If anyone cares to notice, I didn’t comment on “Mad Men: How to Direct an Action Sequence.” I haven’t seen the show, but I read the blog, appreciating Jim’s breakdown of the scene. I didn’t take offence to his ironic comparison of the sequence to modern action movies because I believed it made sense. It was only when I read “Part 2,” and, specifically, this paragraph, when I got upset:
“That is precisely the way I feel about those sections of obligatory, unfocused movement in most movies. They're almost like little intermissions shot by the B-team to give you a snack and potty break ("Let's all go to the lobby..."). We know nothing consequence is going to happen. The movie has entered cruise control and for the next few minutes we'll be watching one near-miss/narrow escape after another.”
Upset because I know some of the specific movies he’s thinking of (Nolan’s, for instance). Upset because I know I have more experience with the modern American action movie than Jim does. And upset because I’m pretty sure I can say at this point in reading his blog that Jim is not a fan of action movies, in that he probably doesn’t ever go to movies just for the visceral enjoyment of watching people shoot guns at each other (or what have you).* When I read Jim break down a dialogue scene from a television show, I listen, but I don’t find him quite as credible when he’s discussing certain other movies, action movies in particular (not to mention the superhero subgenre). So, when he jumps from one to the other so quickly, in the same “series” if you will, groups them together under the same heading - and, yes, I think he would say he wants the title to make you think of “action” in the something-fast-and-probably-violent-happening sense of the word – I call his authority into question.
Firstly, the quick-cut “snatch and grab” (I’m putting it under his label) sequences don’t always feel to me like they’re shot by the B-Team, especially when they contain beautiful and kinetic shots (The Dark Knight, Inception, Crank movies, Gamer, Public Enemies). Secondly, I disagree nothing of consequence ever happens in a modern action scene, and I used the scene from “TDK” as an example of a fight scene that builds character**. Thirdly, I think near-misses and narrow-escapes have been a staple of all kinds of action movies for the last century, and if you’re invested in the characters (if the movie’s good enough) I think you generally care what happens to them. The machine-gun showdowns in “The Town,” have been around since “Little Caesar” and “Scarface;” they were just as unrealistic or “obligatory” (common of the genre, for sure) then as they are now. The scenes survive, in my opinion.
The paragraph, and also Ebert’s complaint about “The Town,” suggest to me that the second Ebert sees shooting, or Emerson sees a sequence of brief, jarring shots depicting a movement, they “turn off” and dismiss it***. I’m saying this from the perspective of someone who actually felt anxious because of what was happening to the characters near the end of “The Town,” and who understood – and was thrilled by – action sequences in “Batman Begins,” “TDK,” and “Inception.” And I have a lot of love for Buster Keaton, Fred Astaire and Akira Kurosawa, too. My anger, which I’m sure is obvious, is coming from a deep love of movies, and the movies I love aren’t contained by Emerson’s bias.
I’ll end (although I’m far from done!) with a quote from “Mad Men: How to Direct an Action Sequence”: ”Most of today's action filmmakers could learn a thing or two from how the action is framed and directed so that the viewer is given subtle spatial cues (sometimes nearly subliminal ones, though they register in your brain) in almost every shot.”
Now watch that fight scene from “TDK” again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jiz2tm2qiT4&p=2B493BE62031A7EC&playnext=1&index=18
Notice how at 21-23 sec we’re facing Batman, handling the First Thug, while we see another thug – in a red outfit – running from Left to Right behind him, and then in the next shot, still at 23 sec, focused on Batman from about a quarter-circle to the right from where the last shot saw him, we see the Red Thug on the right edge of the screen, for the briefest moment, establishing where he is (offscreen at this point) so Batman can smash the First Thug against him. The Joker’s presence around Batman is established at 26 sec when he passes from Left to Right through the foreground, we only see the back of his head, but it’s clear from this and other shots where Joker is in the background that he’s circling the fight, waiting for the right moment.
I won’t go through the rest of the scene, because no one wants to read it, but it’s there for anyone to see, and it’s clear, and Emerson’s sentence that I quoted could be used verbatim to describe it.
For anyone who’s still with me: thanks. I hope it was worth it.
*He did like “Salt,” though, so maybe I’m wrong. But that surprised me, because apart from a couple unique sequences most of the action is pretty standard stuff, boring choreography, a lot of shaky or jiggle cam, CGI, etc.
**Although, the best example would’ve been the game of chicken played between Batman and the Joker in the center of the movie. The Joker is proven wrong at this point, rendering every word he says afterward total BS. The action climax involving the boats is in some ways a thematic expansion on this sequence, but the Joker’s scheme is completely insane, because he already knows he’s wrong – that’s the nature of his insanity, that he knows he’s wrong. It’s important to the movie.
***Consider this line from Ebert’s review of “30 Days of Night”: “I have pretty much reached my quota for vampire movies, but I shouldn't hold that against this one.” I completely understand – but he even admits his disposition toward the genre has nothing to do with the quality of the movie! (Not that I like that one)
Upset because I know some of the specific movies he’s thinking of (Nolan’s, for instance). Upset because I know I have more experience with the modern American action movie than Jim does. And upset because I’m pretty sure I can say at this point in reading his blog that Jim is not a fan of action movies, in that he probably doesn’t ever go to movies just for the visceral enjoyment of watching people shoot guns at each other (or what have you).
Thank you for clarifying that. I am now Marshall McLuhan in "Annie Hall": You know nothing of my work. How you ever got to venture an opinion on this matter at all is a mystery to me. You're not just trolling; the larger problem, once again, is that you're claiming to read minds -- to pretend as if I'm responsible for what you think. Which is metaphysically absurd, man. I've been writing (and publishing) criticisms of these badly staged and cut action sequences in hundreds of reviews and essays I've written since I saw "Top Gun" (the first trendy choppy-chop actioner that comes to mind) in 1986. Nolan, who's only made a few features, does not figure prominently in my thinking about the genre, but, I suppose because he put out a movie recently, he does for you. But I can't debate with you about whether you can read my mind. All I can say is that your guesses are as immaterial as they are incorrect. Go away, learn something about how to think critically, learn how to build coherent arguments, and then maybe you'll have something to contribute.
Well then it would've helped if you'd included specific examples. Since you didn't, I only had what I'd read on your blog (relatively) recently to go by (including discussions about the "Bourne," movies and complaints that the action in "Inception" is shot like "the usual Nolan action sequence in which the audience can't tell where anything is in relation to anything else, although the characters in the scene can"). Am I supposed to be aware of reviews you wrote about "Top Gun" before you started writing this blog, on this site?
Some of what I said is stupid and emotion-based and doesn't make sense, sure, it's written in anger, and I'm not a critic or a journalist (I am a movie lover, though, and no one can argue with me on that). Certainly the character "Jim Emerson" that exists in my mind has nothing to do with the real person. But you should understand that, just reading these two blogs (pts 1 & 2), it doesn't look like Jim Emerson has much interest in the "action movie."
Anyway, about my arguments, I think I explained clearly enough what I find valuable about some incomprehensible action scenes like the ones in "Public Enemies;" and anyone who doesn't agree that your sentence that I quoted from "part 1" applies to the "TDK" clip (which you find "disjointed" and "unimaginatively composed") either isn't paying attention, or...didn't read what I wrote.
"But I do admit I'm not a fan of martial arts movies..." - Jim Emerson (http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2009/08/the_tarantino_talkies.html)
Guys,
I fully understand Ebert's issue with the modern action sequence. The way I see it, there are just so few modern directors who have a command of the action vocabulary necessary to make me care at all about what's going on in front of me. And I think Jim is right to treat scenes like the one in Mad Men as action sequences, because the principles that govern an action sequence really should be the same as the ones that govern a scene at Sterling Cooper. The thing about Ebert's piece that I disagree with is simply that the action sequences in the town I felt were expertly directed and edited, with a sense of space and coherence that is generally lacking. In particular the car chase through the North End really felt like a classic action scene. Affleck seems like he knows what he's doing.
Katherine Bigelow, Edgar Wright, Tom Tykwer, Tarantino, and now Affleck seem to me like some of the few guys who can pick up the mantle of Friedkin and Donner and McTiernan. People who make careful, thoughtful, coherent action sequences that are relevant to their movies and didn't feel obligatory.
Andrew, please stop trolling. Some of us here are trying to learn from useful comments, not an impertinent freshman who signed up for Film Studies class because he thinks watching films and voicing an opinion is cool.
And while I might agree with you there is a disconnect between what a typical viewer (incl. me) and what Jim perceives to be an "action" scene, by understanding what he's trying to get at there's a fair bit to learn, especially from that Mad Men example. There's certainly more action, flair, and suspense in that one sequence than what many modern wham-bam action movies can muster.
I believe the fundamental disagreement here lies with what you perceive to be Jim's definition of "Action". Well, it's his blog, he's clearly defined his take on the term, and now it's your job to understand that definition and argue with that as the premise or to disassemble it and point out it's flaws if it's an inherently contradictory definition (or tautological, but that's another concept for another day).
You think ANDREW is trolling? Andrew??? Oh, sweetie, if you think Andrew is a troll, you've lived a very sheltered online life. (Damn, where's the Goatse guy when you need him?)
What I'm doing is in a way trolling. I think the perspective voiced at the beginning of this blog is biased and unbalanced, so I want to colour the url with my opinion for anyone visiting it. This'll probably be my last comment, though, unless there's something I feel I have to respond to. I agree that it's getting ridiculous.
CH: I've never attended film school and the idea terrifies me. I've been renting movies from my local library, sometimes two or three a week, for the last seven years, since I was 14. I started with Oscar winners, movies by directors I'd heard of but hadn't seen, and I followed directors, actors, genres and styles into the past. Eventually I started renting the foreign names (Fellini, Herzog, Bergman, etc) that Ebert mentioned often that intimidated me before, and I've since been discovering...well, too much to describe here. I'm not an intellectual, but I am sincere.
Much as I admire David Bordwell, I must take issue with his shallow and simplistic critique of Michael Bay. Bay is one of the great auteurs of our day. His iconocastic deconstruction of the action scene has been hugely influential on his fellow directors. His refusal to accept the normative and evaluative demands of the haute bourgeois for mere clarity is an example to us all.
Sixty years ago Hitchcock and Hawkes were dismissed as mere hacks. It took French critics to recognize the personal stamp they put on their movies and label them the geniuses that they are. Can anyone deny that Bay puts a personal stamp on his films. So pronounced is this that one might even call it a personal stomp. Bay merely awaits his Truffaut or his Godard to anoint him in his rightful position at the head of the critical canon.
But we should give Bordwell credit for pointing out that 'realism, as usual, is simply a fig leaf for doing what you want.' So true. Art, on the other hand, is never used as a fig leaf for simply 'doing what you want.'
Although I don't look into the exact camera positions as Jim and many on here seem to do, I do appreciate a well shot scene/sequence, especially during times of chaotic action. Throwing these films out there may just fuel backlash from others but I have to say if you want comprehensible, cohesive action scenes look no farther than James Cameron's work. Terminator 2, Aliens, and Titanic contain some of the most memorable and intense action set pieces I have ever seen. I've seen my fair share of films but I have yet to find another director who seems to take action to a near poetic level as Cameron does on a consistent basis. Say what you will about his oft-cliched or stilted dialogue or cutout characters (oddly enough for every cardboard character he has in his films, there seem to usually be a few that appear somewhat fleshed out and usually overlooked) Cameron always has brilliant action sequences. I'm sure on slow mo or shot by shot you can nitpick, but for "in the moment action" while watching, nobody beats JC. On top of his ability to calmly portary chaos, Cameron also depicts incredibly ambitious style action. Some may say over the top, I say daring.
I'm amazed no one came to this thread after having seen The Town. It seems that Armond White has taken over around here.
Jim, you should do a top ten list of action sequences. What would be #1? "The French Connection"?
I do not challenge Bordwell's advocation for action coherence, nor do I necessarily oppose Jim's support of Bordwell's argument, but there is a highmindedness at play here that rubs this reader the wrong way.
As Jim correctly informs us, there are multiple ways to shoot a sequence. And action films, the ugly duckling of film genres, are often frowned upon in elitist media circles. Thus, Bordwell presents a case for the Jackie Chan, Hong Kong style of action which owes more to Fred Astaire than Fred Williamson. These are musical numbers at heart and, though certainly laudable, they are not the only game in town.
I think much should be said for the pragmatic, stripped down aesthetic in something like Walter Hill's Hard Times (1975) or the blunt force catharsis in the final installment of Rambo (2008). Those films lack the grace of Hong Kong Cinema but work just as well on different terms. But this set-up discussion seems poised to apply an arthouse critique to a genre that offers mostly primal pleasures. i am reminded of a review of the film Any Given Sunday (1999) by former Boston Globe film critic Jay Carr. Having acknowledged his dislike for football at the outset of his review, and literally finding only the shape of the ball fascinating, he proceeds to tell readers why the film fails and what would make it successful. But, not being a student of the game, he argues from a limited position. So, it's critical analysis by way of prejudice, which renders it worthless.
In this case, we have a general disdain for action films (Bordwell, possibly Jim) and an anatomy of a scene played out to demonstrate how one should work properly. But, the arthouse sensibility that is inherent in this breakdown suggests that when an action film adheres to the tenets of another genre (the musical), it succeeds. Coherent, perhaps, but it's a hopelessly shortsighted approach.
More importantly, I find that the modern action sequence stems mostly from an emphasis on cover boys over marlboro men. The new action hero lacks physicality and grit and Hollywood must employ quick cutting and CGI to distract us from the shortcomings of these polished lightweights. The willing suspension of disbelief is impossible with the likes of Shia LeBouf and Matt Damon standing in for warhorses like Charles Bronson and Sylvester Stallone. Consequently, I would take a poorly crafted Stallone action sequence over a tightly wound Damon action sequence any day of the week. Because, there's nothing onacreen anchoring the film to the ground in the latter example. And some rough poetry may be found in the muddled assembly of the former. Not a ringing endorsement, but an important distinction.
It's funny because I remember how often, Jim, you talked about argument and scope and straw man arguments etc. Because for the life of me I find it hard to believe that so many of the comments above me break every one of those rules. So many of these comments seem only tangentially related that if I was looking at them solely and not your post I would have no real idea what you wrote about.
I can agree with some that my standards might not be as stringent as yours. I can also agree that I, like many others, rarely watch movies as carefully as you and Bordwell do. However, the fact remains that you are right about the idea of basic film grammar being to some extent inarguable.
No matter the genre or category of scene, the same principles apply to all of them. And the fact is that the majority of modern action films( I've seen) break those rules. Whether that's a good or bad thing can be argued but let's not pretend like you're just biased against action films. Even if you are (which I find hard to believe) one has to find the flaw in the arugment not the human being.
What I find truly hilarious though is that people are finding you alone accountable when it is Bordwell's analysis that not only inspired you but is quoted as a significant part of this piece. If I were you I would scold Bordwell for not coming to your aid.
Why coherence is suddenly a preference is laughable to me. If you can't understand what your seeing, what exactly is the point.
P.S.
Tony B's argument is pretty weak to be honest. Using Jay Carr as an example undercuts his own argument because a film should be able to potentially entertain any audience member regardless of source material. Being a student of the game shouldn't be anymore of a requirement then being or knowing a ganster so I can watch Goodfella's.
Aside from that, attributing a disdain for modern action films on both you and Bordwell is bull on all accounts. Has he seen Bordwell's appreciation of Mission Impossible 3?
Alandre, surely you have more of a voice than this. Put down the virtual pom poms and tell us what you think instead of merely echoing.
For the sake of clarity, I'm not arguing against a fundamental coherence in any genre. What I challenge is Bordwell's approach in reaching this conclusion, and to a lesser extent, Jim, for agreeing with it. However, I hold no grudge for these gentlemen so no need to polish the apple here.
Bordwell's emphasis is squarely on Asian cinema and serves as his frame of reference to what constitutes clear, coherent action sequences. He didn't choose Jackie Chan by accident as his love for Asian cinema is quite transparent in the article.
And what he is responding to is mostly musical in nature, a cross reference of choreography and genres. Surely, it's impressive and worthy of mention. No one disputes that. But, only by way of highmindedness does it seem to be laudable in this article. Action movies for people who don't generally like action movies is the subtext here, or that's how it appears to some of us.
I also sharply disagree with this statement of yours: a film should be able to potentially entertain any audience member regardless of source material.
If a film can be enjoyed by anyone and everyone, something must be wrong with it. Its content invariably watered down or its execution dumbed down for mass consumption. Not that a movie need be polarizing, but it must be true to its subject matter. To please everyone, compromise must creep into the process. To state that I'm suggesting that one needs to be a gangster to enjoy Goodfellas is missing my point entirely. And tossing out an MI3 reference in service of Bordwell's article registers as insubstantial at best. His analysis warranted a greater reach in my opinion.
Well, Tony B, looks like you got the information you needed. I agree with you that their is more than one approach to coherence, cinematically or otherwise and I apologize if you though I was talking about you in particular on that point. That was more of a blanket statement to most of the comments I had seen on this post.
However I still disagree with you on two fundamental points. First that the subtext is action movies for those that don't like action movies. I agree Bordwell does have an affection for Asian cinema in general and Jackie Chan in particular but Jackie Chan films are inarguably pure action cinema. It would be difficult to characterize them any other way.
Second that there are not films that can entertain "everyone". Now I do not mean everyone in the literal sense and I hope you understand that. I mean everyone in the vast majority of people, however you determine that sort of thing. I wouldn't call Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark watered down nor would I say The Godfather films (excluding 3) are dumbed down. Even a idiosyncratic film like Anchorman has seemed to gain a mass audience.
My point being that I believe a critic like Jay Carr can look beyond it's subject and review a film on its own merits and not simply as a football film. I admit the Goodfellas point was not as appropriate as I would have liked.
Anyway nice talking/debating with you.
In reference to much of what I consider to be off-topic, invalid reasoning in this comments thread: It never occurred to me that showing in detail how certain techniques have been used by directors to maintain spatial relationships between shots, or to convey movement -- whether in a dialog scene or an action scene -- would be considered objectionable by anyone seriously interested in the study of movies.
Saying, as I did (without mentioning names, because there have been too many of them since 1985) that directors of action sequences today could learn a few things from a scene in "Mad Men" -- or, as David Bordwell details, rules of the internationally successful Hong Kong action film -- seems to me a worthwhile subject for film criticism. The childish, ignorant and unsupported accusation "you don't like action movies" is so far from any kind of coherent argument it can't even be considered in a discussion. There's no evidence cited, nothing of substance being stated, just a little solipsistic tantrum that unfairly and unjustifiably puts the speaker's words in someone else's mouth. If you have something to say about other ways of shooting, provide your own examples. You're not contributing anything by standing on the sidelines and calling people names because you can't articulate solid reasons to justify your feelings.
Also, Serling giving his monologues is jam-packed with action. His way with words combined with his deadpan delivery is eerie.
Example being the final monlogue of "He's Alive." Can we all agree Serling is one of the few people to pack action in oral storytelling as well as Homer back in the day?
Jim, you seem upset. Honestly, I am having some difficulty reconciling your reaction to some of these fairly benign comments. I think the debate has been respectful and articulate, for the most part. It hasn't devolved into name-calling (though your characterization of childish and ignorant might qualify), or deeming certain opinions "worthless" because you find them to be unsupported to your satisfaction.
Look, my contention is that film critics are predisposed to liking or disliking certain subject matter. I provided Jay Carr as an example. He does not like football. He acknowledges this outright in his Any Given Sunday review. He states that the only thing that remotely interests him is the shape of the ball. Consequently, is he the best person to be reviewing that film? When it receives the inevitable panning, what are we to make of it?
One could argue that, had that film transcended its subject matter, and pined for universal approval, it would not have mattered. But, that sounds like compromised art for the sake of mass entertainment. No, thanks.
Gene Siskel was partial to love and the afterlife films of varying quality; Roger Ebert acknowledges a dislike for sword and sandal epics. And yet, the duties are not passed along to a junior critic that might give each respective genre a fair shake. Instead, the readers are subjected to an analysis borne out of foregone conclusion.
With respect to Bordwell's piece, it needs what you are asking from some of us: more examples. I could deconstruct a swashbuckling Errol Flynn movie from the 30's. a Peckinpah gunfight from the 70's or even some of the invisible technique from unheralded directors like Don Siegel and John Frankenheimer. However, these are some of the examples that I would have expected in a piece on the coherence of an action sequence. With Bordwell limiting himself to Hong Kong cinema, and citing only those examples in his analysis, he builds a tangential argument.
It may be polarizing to suggest that Bordwell does not like action films in this forum, but he is the one who opted to focus on the segment of a "disreputable" genre that critics seem to make an exception for in their collective hearts. Crouching Tiger, its copycats and the apologists who love them. I like some of them myself, but give it up for the less formal, workmanlike efforts. Small pleasures abound if you know where to look.
It wasn't anything personal with you. The comments by Andrew, however, make me wonder why I bother trying to communicate with other people at all, since they don't even read what I write before responding -- and claiming to read my mind about what I DIDN'T write. The whole concept of this blog is to encourage critical thinking based on empirical evidence. But when somebody keeps coming back at you with comments that are so off-topic (and doesn't even understand why they are), it drives me to despair. Not that this is an unusual form of discourse these days...
Tony,
It seems like Bordwell's article was occasioned by a few things. One was Stallone's comment on the shooting style used for The Expendables. Another other was Bordwell himself revising his book on Hong Kong, leading him to rewatch a lot of Hong Kong action scenes. (He mentions this in the article.)
Linking the two is the fact that Jet Li's big fight scene in The Expendables (with Dolph Lundgren) was choreographed by Cory Yuen Kwai, but was shot in a style that has become widespread in American action films in the past decade or two. (Again, he mentions this in the article.) Basically, if one is going to think about the style of The Expendables, there's already kind of a collision between Hollywood and Hong Kong approaches to action scenes going on here.
But The Expendables isn't out on DVD yet (and is thus unavailable for close analysis). So Bordwell takes one film which he sees as representative of the same trend in Hollywood action films (Tomorrow Never Dies), and one film representative of a different approach to action (but surely not the only approach to action) seen in Hong Kong films (Police Story).
I guess you could argue that, in terms of the total picture of worldwide action cinema, Bordwell didn't cover all the bases in the article. (I'm guessing that's what you meant by "greater reach.") But that didn't really seem to be the point of the article. From the article: "Now I have a chance to put some thoughts about these movies online, in this blog and in the upcoming digital update of the book. As a start, here’s a recipe drawn from the best of Hong Kong fury."
He has written elsewhere on action films, both online and off. Here's two pieces, including the MI3 article mentioned above:
http://www.davidbordwell.net/essays/anatomy.php
http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/?p=2743
The second article is not exclusively about action films, but has a good analysis of the final chase scene from The Road Warrior (or as I like to think of it, the greatest chase scene ever put on film) and its use of reaction shots.
The first article is about how MI3 is a classically constructed film. (Classical here has a specific meaning in relation to film. It's a concept that's been debated within film studies for a long while now.) I know you brushed it off before, but it's worth a look.
I mention both of these partlyy because they might give you a better sense of how the Bond/Chan article fits into a larger examination of cinema that Bordwell has been engaged in for a long while now. (Think of the blog entry as one of a series, which also extends to his published work), I also mention them because it seems like you're trying to undercut or reject both Bordwell and Jim's critiques of a certain action style on the basis of an anti-action picture bias (or predisposition, to use your term).
If you read the articles, I think you'll see that, with Bordwell at least, that's not the case. From the MI3 article: "When I saw it last summer, it struck me as a fairly tight action picture." Keep in mind that this is a JJ Abrams picture he's talking about. Abrams is pretty mainstream. I also know he thinks highly of McTiernan's Die Hard, and incorporated it into some of his classes when he was still teaching. Again, that's not an example of some rarified art house sensibility, but a solid, well-made mainstream Hollywood action film. (Here's another article of his about the use of axial cuts, which includes Die Hard and McTiernan's The Hunt for Red October as examples: http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/?p=6136)
From reading Jim's blog over the, I guess it's years now, I don't get the impression that Jim inherently dislikes action films either (though I don't always agree with his take on them).
I do think biases and predispositions can, if one isn't aware of them, affect how one analyzes a film, so I don't think what you're saying is inherently without merit, but I don't think that's going on here.
Remember, Jim loved Terminator 2, showing Jim is open to different types of action as long as they are done well.
SF -
Thank you for such a well reasoned and supported rebuttal. Your familiarity with Bordwell's work and the examples provided suggest that I may have succumbed to oversimplification in observing this piece as a stand alone. I may have been wrong here. Bordwell seems less an elitist and more a deconstructor of process.
I didn't particularly care for the articles, but you made a good case.
The steps within action scenes must be done artfully but also be important to what was on-screen before, and what occurs after. A car chase scene always tells you something about characters. It often tells you about their morality. What they are willing to do to escape or to accomplish their objective. But, often this morality is not defined earlier, or built upon. The consequences are neglected.
I used to love action scenes. Now, I'm largely bored by them. As much as some people dislike Ridley Scott and his action scenes, with Kingdom of Heaven, every detail of every action scene was important to the movie and had consequences on what people did. That's how you do it.
Heat is another movie where the how and the what of the action scenes is important.
Kill Bill is an example of the action not only being revealing of character, but like The Matrix, it is about the dance. It is about the beauty of the choreography. Thus, the dance must be seen. Can you imagine ballroom dancing filmed with a hand held camera with the scene constantly cutting? I can't.
I get the emotion of the action scene when I can see it, when I understand the consequences, when I know that it matters. I get less involved when it's just a filler from the major plot. When I know the main characters will get through the scene unscathed, unaffected, it becomes filler. Sure, it might happen, it might be realistic, but its as much as filler as if the camera spent 3 minutes while he ate, or filming him while he slept. It's just unimportant.
Very nicely said. Anybody can create chaos on the screen just by chopping together disconnected bits and pieces of film. But if the goal is to create an action sequence, the challenge, as you say, is in how to create the impression of velocity while giving the sequence shape, momentum and purpose -- to reveal character and/or the architecture of "the dance"...
Okay: a lot of what I said was fevered and ridiculous, I shouldn't have focused so much on Jim, I only brought up "The Taste of Cherry" to try to convince people I'm not unsophisticated, and most of all, I shouldn't smoke weed and yell at people on the internet.
But everything I said about "TDK," "Inception," "Gamer," "Crank," and "Public Enemies" is accurate in that it describes more or less how I perceived those films (I think my first comment was my best one). And I do think modern American action movies get a bad rap and incoherence is not always a bad thing. Since they use a lot of CGI, the superhero movie doesn't seem to count, but a lot of the big mainstream ones have given us some pretty cool scenes. I think any action movie fan can appreciate the opener to "X2," for instance.
I think somebody smarter than me will give the movies I like a better defense...or I'll just have to brush up and stop being so lazy.
PS. If you want to see action done right by anybody's standards, watch "The Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole."
Leave a comment