Hollywood can't make action movies: Discuss

Case closed.

The subtitling was even worse. The guy's pushing someone off a lorry and the subtitle goes "Is get on!! Is get on!!"

Case closed."

Err, the 6th word in your title is "Discuss".

I mean, c'mon - Lee Marvin or Jackie Chan?

I'm speaking about the action cinema of the blockbuster period. Seventies action cinema, in mainstream Hollywood, is difficult to spot. Eighties is when, populated by "First Blood" and then Schwarzenegger, the genre really took off. As it did in Hong Kong. Working alongside each other you have such possible match ups as:

"Rambo" Vs "Bullet in the Head"
"Raw Deal" Vs "City on Fire"
"Under Siege" Vs "Hard Boiled"
"Die Hard" Vs Full Contact"
"True Lies" Vs "The Killer"
"Red Heat" Vs "Police Story"

And that's before you take in the martial arts actioners (personal choices - "The Magnificent Buther", "Snakes in the Eagles Shadow", "Drunken Master", "The Big Boss", "Way of the Dragon", "Game of Death 2", "Young Master" etc etc) and the more contemporary likes of "Fulltime Killer" and the fantasy actioner "Stormriders".

P.S. Jackie Chan or Lee Marvin? Jackie Chan mate. Sorry.

I'm a BIG John Milius fan, anyway. So there.

But fair enough about clearing up your definition of Hollywood action films - I think First Blood is halfway decent, but beyond that, its really a lot of crap.

Yahooism rulz!

you can like a movie without thinking it's good, you know.

Die Hard, on the other hand, is an expertly written and directed action film. John McTiernan (d) did a lot of solid action work earlier in his career (Predator, Die Hard With A Vengeance.) James Cameron? Ridley Scott? there is (and i'll get shit for this) even a sort of hack artistry to Michael Bay's films.

the situation is that big-budget hollywood action spectacle films are just that: Big-Budget Hollywood movies. it's not feasible for most directors to make auteurish action films like the so-called greats of Hong Kong cinema, because they are spending tens (or hundreds) of millions of dollars of a studio's money. so to a certain extent they are dull, repetetive, and explosion-packed because that's what they KNOW audiences want to see, because that guarantees asses in the seats. so if you're looking for visceral, spectacle-based thrills in latter-day American cinema, you've got to tolerate the inane bullshit that comes with it.

but what do i know? i watched The Rundown last night and enjoyed the shit out of it.

With the emphasis on "hack". The only film of his i found even semi-tolerable was the Rock. But I see what you're getting at, though.

other goods: Running Man, Escape from New York, Scarface

and BIG TROUBLE IN LITTLE CHINA.

too many to mention. It's late.

I would argue that "Die Hard" is not especially well directed. It's a cynical, predicatable load of rubbish. Unlike with the Hong Kong action cinema of the time, you can tell excatly where "Die Hard" is going straight from the start and there is no moral tract hidden in amongst the carnage. The film does little more than glorify the slaughter carried out by Bruce Willis.

Michael Bay films are unwatchable. For recent examples of Hong Kong cinema that piss all over the likes of "The Rock" or "Bad Boys", check out "Fulltime Killer", "A Man Called Hero", "Stormriders", "Infernal Affairs". "Scarface" is not an action film, but all the same I'm not fond of it. DePalma's best film is "Carrie".

P.S. Your most likely director to compare Beat Takeshi to would surely be America's Abel Ferrara.

P.P.S. Everyone knows Woo has sucked since Hollywood, so pointing out that "Mission Impossible 2" is dire is hardly a revelation to anyone.

Is war not a genre?

Die Hard makes no bones about adhering to an accepted remit and trajectory and should not be criticised for it. We know Mclain is the hero from the start and there's no point putting him in situations where he has to question what he is doing when a) he's a cop and thinks like one, b) his wife - the cause and solution to all his problems - is among the hostages, c) Alan Rickman has a really annoying accent (tho he is excellent in this film for sure). What's great is watching him deal with each situation that is presented to him, coupled with the whole negotiating of a path vertically i.e. the ascension theme which always appeals to me greatly, aforementioned claustrophobia aspect (which is what was sorely lacking from the sequels) and a relatively healthy mix of punch dialogue and one-liners...perhaps it is handles too lightly at times (McTiernan favours this gung-ho comic book approach and tries to evoke some sort of romantic element at the end via use of music in Die Hard and at the end of Predator a 'reunion' of sorts with the characters many of who we saw blown apart by nasty spacemang...but Woo and Verhoeven are far more cynical and twisted with that shit)

also it never occurred to me once that Predator was racist and I'm still not convinced

"Hard Boiled" does not glorify slaughter. The slaughter is carried out like a ballet, very artistic, but still appalingly bloody. Even among the killers there is a sense of good (note how Chow Yun Fat and his nemesis agree to a pause in the action in order to free the hospital patients) and Tony Leung never sees the end credits! Who the fuck would have expected that? Bruce Willis hardly has a graze by the end of "Die Hard", but God forbid we should shock or challenge the audience's ideals of a genre instead of just playing the generic/ predictable card as happens in every McTiernan picture.

I thought you were gonna say Predator was racist cos he was rockin' the dreads. Ha, the sequel is pushing it a lot worse - but the sweetener is Danny Glover - a clapped out 40something cop managing to punch a Pred in the face whereas Arnie couldn't even get half as close

But Under Seige is great!

Having said that, I heart The Tai Chi Master.

Err, making violence seem "artistic" and "like a ballet" doesn't exactly work *against* glorifying it (in fact, it could be argued that it works in favour of it.) Likewise a movie can have moral values and still glorify violence to some extent.

-- stevem (bluesk...), May 31st, 2004.

Call it what you want, it's a fact.

well done for stating a 'fact' as opposed to just your opinion then

It's not quite as simple as that! It's not about the effects on *individual people* (watching a violent movie won't make an individual want to kill someone any more than watching a sexist movie will make an individual want to behave in a sexist manner), but more about what kind of society you want to live in. Fiction has ALWAYS been a mirror of people's fears and desires, and there's a circular movement here (fears and desires lead to creative expression, which in turn expresses these fears and desires in a new way that will itself have an effect on its public) that affects us all to some extent. Ideas expressed through fiction of what is worthwhile, what is acceptable, what is undesirable, etc. are both molded by society and an influence on it (tho to what extent is, of course, difficult to tell, but that shouldn't let anyone off the hook.)

Other ppl on ILX might be better at explaining this than I am.

Also, you still haven't answered how Tarantino or "Hard Boiled" do not glorify violence; you've merely launched into speeches about how great they are instead, which might be true an' all, but is kind of besides the point.

Sexism works both ways in contemporary society, and certainly in the movie industry (where if you're a young, good looking female your chance of getting a foot in the door is high).

Really, if you have any interest at all in actually making this thread worthwhile, you should probably not comment on gender issues, since (as you might have noticed by now) your takes on the issue are so widely apart from those of pretty much EVERYONE ELSE on ILX that discussing it will result in nothing but frustration. Or maybe you can go back to "pushing our buttons" and whatever else it is you think you're doing. Yeah yeah I brought it up, but a) I wasn't talking to you in that section of the post and b) I specifically started the post with "if...", thus removing the need to comment on it if you *don't* believe this (except you apparently kinda do, you just think it "works both ways". Which of course has absolutely nothing whatsoever do with what we're discussing, but it's a chip on your shoulder, I guess.)

I told you why I don't think Woo glamourises violence. I don't want to repeat myself. Tarantino? I'd say that the only work of his which might glamourise violent people (rather than violence itself) is "Pulp Fiction" and "Kill Bill". However, these violent people invariably commit violent acts against their own. In this sense, the violence on screen becomes comic book in its nature and more likely to elicit a laugh (i.e. the casual shooting of Marvin's head in "Pulp Fiction" by Travolta, the excessive swordplay of "Kill Bill Vol. 1").

To glamourise violence is, I think, to make violence arousing, perhaps even sexy. Kubrick managed it in "A Clockwork Orange". Peckinpah crosses it in his films, and it leaves me cold.

But I don't think violent films contribute to society in sort of negative way. Rather I think they are cathartic. A release for people, and far more healthy than sitting down in a pub watching football where the chants and screams and drinking, quite honestly, make me feel very uncomfortable indeed. Or would you like a society where freedom of expression in the arts is curtailed by laws made up and defined by you?

If you want to talk about glamourising violence in Hong Kong cinema then I'd point you towards the Category 3 horror stuff, but if you don't go further into the country's cinema than "Hard Boiled" I fear I'm onto a loser here. Let me know.

I for one think this is a good idea. Liberal Hollywoods has gone too far!

Did you read my post???

1- I didn't deny your "point", I just said it was irrelevant

2- I didn't say you were sexist.

(I do think you're sexist, but have no intentions of discussing this.)

Now, as for the valid points that you've made...

I told you why I don't think Woo glamourises violence. I don't want to repeat myself.

Yeah, but your reasons didn't make sense to me. You told me that the viewer being aware of the inherent talent of the filmmaker negates the glorification of violence. You failed to explain how this happens.

I don't think glamorising violence boils down to making it "arousing" specifically - making it funny (in a manner where the victim is the butt of the joke), or just plain cool in an asexual manner, works just as well sometimes. I'll readily admit to thinking that The Bride and Samuel L Jackson's character in "Pulp Fiction" (and Vito Corleone, and Tony Soprano, etc etc etc) were damn cool while watching the movies they appeared in, as they were doing throughoutly awful things, and in part because they were doing them (i.e. it is a glorification of *violence* as well as violent people.) You didn't?

But I don't think violent films contribute to society in sort of negative way. Rather I think they are cathartic.

I think this is a blanket statement - some are bad, some are catharic, some are both. I mean, if you're gonna argue that they cannot have a bad effect on ppl, you'd also have to say that they can't have a positive one, either. Which I'd say is kind of a sad way to look at art.

Or would you like a society where freedom of expression in the arts is curtailed by laws made up and defined by you?

Don't fall into the trap of thinking that every single discussion on morality within art has to end up at censorship. I never suggested anything of the like.

Not gonna comment on your take on football - you're overgeneralising and oversimplifying to absurd extremes, and you know that.

If you want to talk about glamourising violence in Hong Kong cinema then I'd point you towards the Category 3 horror stuff, but if you don't go further into the country's cinema than "Hard Boiled" I fear I'm onto a loser here. Let me know.

I haven't seen "Hard Boiled", and know zilch about Hong-Kong cinema. My argument isn't that it glorifies violence, but rather that your reasoning in regards to why it supposedly does *not* is faulty.

Tarantino's handling of violence in Kill Bill I'm assuming is drawn more from Hong Kong cinema than anything else - it is perhaps the most gratuitious glamourised cynical visceral violence depicted in Western cinema - make of that what you will.

Yeah, but those are fringe cases - very young children and ppl who obviously were a bit nuts to begin with. I don't think they should figure in much.

There's certainly no pattern to draw from.

I said that film:

A) First and foremost by being a film paints a line between subject and object (I can quote from numerous books on the subject of violent cinema here, but I would instead aim you towards the works of Tom Dewe Matthews/ Julien Petley/ Martin Barker et al). I would say that good art takes this a step further and AMAZES us with what it shows us, rather than simply "documenting" it, which would make the actual acts inherent in a film artless. I'll give you an example. "Cannibal Holocaust" documents rape/ real live vivisection/ dismemberment etc etc It's a very violent and gruesome film and it GLAMOURISES violence through it's use of point of view. For instance, in the rapes the viewer becomes either the aggressor or voyuer instead of the appalled onlooker or the victim. In this sense, I would say you have a film that treats violence wrongly. It embraces it, and - judging from its point of view and use of subject/ object - asks the viewer to become involved, even aroused. On the other hand - a film like "Hard Boiled"/ "Full Contact"/ "The Killer" (which you admit you have not seen and, thus, renders this debate redundant anyway) treats violence as a dance. The showdowns and the bullet ballets become something to watch in amazement at the filmmakers craft. When people are shot, it is either over the top or ridiculous. But never sadistic in the manner that something as violent as "Cannibal Holocaust" undoubtedly is. I'd draw you to Ki m Newman's eloquent defence of "Andy Warhol's Dracula" in the book "Screen Violence" as well.

"I don't think glamorising violence boils down to making it "arousing" specifically - making it funny (in a manner where the victim is the butt of the joke), or just plain cool in an asexual manner, works just as well sometimes".

If violence becomes funny at the hands of a filmmaker then it offloads the natural end result of the real life act (that is, horror) and, in turn, I would say the act ceases to become horrible on screen. There may be exceptions, but violence has been used for comic relief since the days of silent cinema.

"I'll readily admit to thinking that The Bride and Samuel L Jackson's character in "Pulp Fiction" (and Vito Corleone, and Tony Soprano, etc etc etc) were damn cool while watching the movies they appeared in, as they were doing throughoutly awful things, and in part because they were doing them (i.e. it is a glorification of *violence* as well as violent people.) You didn't?"

Not Vito Corleone. He is a character to be feared. Never did I think he was "cool". We think The Bride is cool because "Kill Bill" is - again - comic book (right down to the use of Manga) and she is avenging against the baddies. A simple cinematic/ literary tract. Sam Jackson is "cool", because he is funny and we never see him inflict PAIN on another human being. We see him shoot people, sure, but Tarantino never shows us the REAL life results of violence, and thus we never have to feel too guilty about laughing along with Jackson. Is this a wrong way to treat violent behaviour? Not in the tone and the basis of the "Pulp Fiction" script.

"I think this is a blanket statement - some are bad, some are catharic, some are both. I mean, if you're gonna argue that they cannot have a bad effect on ppl, you'd also have to say that they can't have a positive one, either. Which I'd say is kind of a sad way to look at art".

But I'm not saying they can't have a negative effect. You can certainly feel depressed/ ill/ upset at scenes of violence, just as violence can be cathartic. What I'm arguing is copycat behaviour, which I do not believe in at all.

"Not gonna comment on your take on football - you're overgeneralising and oversimplifying to absurd extremes, and you know that".

I wouldn't say so. I gave an opinion from personal experience. When in a movie does an audience seem to literally crave blood as a group?

"I haven't seen "Hard Boiled", and know zilch about Hong-Kong cinema. My argument isn't that it glorifies violence, but rather that your reasoning in regards to why it supposedly does *not* is faulty."

See the films before starting an arguement. Otherwise I'm wasting my time. I have a lot of writing to get on with.

Oh really Steven? Want to give me a researched example, other than "This guy I heard about saw A Clockwork Orange and kicked this other guy in the gonads". Because unless you're very well read on this topic, you're skating on thin ice.

P.S. I take any accusation of sexism with the highest offence.

Something being "over the top" doesn't necesairly make it *unglamorous*. It makes less real, sure - dehumanising, if you will. But glamour is often UNreal, our dreams and aspirations often are Over-The-Top. Just because it's cartoonish doesn't mean it's not tilitating us.

If violence becomes funny at the hands of a filmmaker then it offloads the natural end result of the real life act (that is, horror) and, in turn, I would say the act ceases to become horrible on screen. There may be exceptions, but violence has been used for comic relief since the days of silent cinema.

I am not arguing against the use of violence in humor, merely stating that it can be vicarious. It destroys the *effect* of horror, but not the horridness of the action itself - it makes us less sensible to it.

We think The Bride is cool because "Kill Bill" is - again - comic book (right down to the use of Manga) and she is avenging against the baddies.

So now comic books can't glorify violence? I've read tons that do.

Is this a wrong way to treat violent behaviour? Not in the tone and the basis of the "Pulp Fiction" script

Fiction is based on reality, interacts with reality, has effects on reality. The rules of the game are different in fiction, sure, but that doesn't negate their effect on reality.

See the films before starting an arguement.

Calum: "this man cannot be italian, as he has blue eyes."

Me: "that's no reason!"

Calum: "Do you KNOW HIM?"

Me: "No."

Calum: "then don't start an argument!"

Otherwise I'm wasting my time. I have a lot of writing to get on with.

Oh, I am quite enthusiastic about wasting your time. I see myself as ILX's resident samurai, avenging the countless hours of honourable people's time that you've brutally slaughtered by doing the same to you.

Oh really Steven? Want to give me a researched example, other than "This guy I heard about saw A Clockwork Orange and kicked this other guy in the gonads". Because unless you're very well read on this topic, you're skating on thin ice.

P.S. I take any accusation of sexism with the highest offence.

i'm not convinced a researched example is required. it is merely common sense. are you denying that people are never inspired or influenced by something they saw in a movie or other piece of art in ways that can sometimes have negative consequences? that is all i am saying, i find it hard to see how that could be argued against. of course this does not mean i think art should be censored more - quite the opposite in fact. it also does not mean the art is solely to blame but it can be the trigger for a deconstructive action (perhaps the reactions and behaviour that has occurred as a result of The Passion Of The Christ is an example even). i use myself as an example if nothing else. growing up desensitised to violence from very early on (toys played with, the games you play with friends, being allowed to watch violent movies before i was 12 etc.) and being fascinated by it in a profound way because i couldn't really articulate that at the time or realise the possibility it is 'wrong' or culturally unsound somehow. fortunately i didn't experience much violence inflicted on myself or carried out by myself, regardless of what i or others saw on a screen. anyway it sounds like you're saying (and even if you are not there are plenty out there who are and i've encountered some of them) that football encourages aggressive behaviour that is damaging to society which is basically the same argument no? i would say that it does but only in some people who have other problems that football or rather some elements that surround it provide a platform for.

Well, I'd better or else I'd be unemployable.

"i'm not convinced a researched example is required. it is merely common sense. are you denying that people are never inspired or influenced by something they saw in a movie or other piece of art in ways that can sometimes have negative consequences"

I'm saying that I don't believe a perfectly balanced human being can come away from a film or television programme and behave in a violent manner as a direct result of what has happened on screen. As far as football goes, the mixture of booze and patriotism does seem to bring out the worse in A LOT of people. At best, so called "copycat" movie murders come along once a decade.

making that sort of judgement about football + booze + patriotism strikes me as thin ice too but whatever

Quite.

anyway can i talk about killing of a chinese bookie? it isn't really an action movie, uh AT ALL, but it's got some action scenes in it, and i really dig em, they're brutal and confusing, sort of like how actually being caught up in a fight can be. it's like anti-HK to the max. it's tempting to say "anti-action" but to me all an "action movie" requires is that 1) violence is happening between people and 2) it gets played out in space and captured on film. it's hard for me to think of movies that play action in cassavetes's jarring way for some reason (maybe dead man to a degree?) but no doubt there are. i'd like to seek em out in any case!

i'm sort of queasy to be honest about the idea of an "action" film. i wonder when that idea came into being....

i thought the violence thing was one thing "dead man" did very well. with the exception of the last shootout, which was done beautifully (deep-focus shot, with balletic simultaneous murders taking place in far background), there is definitely an aggressive deëmphasis of the poetic or cathartic power of fatal violence.

there is a poeticizing of death, no doubt, in certain scenes, even leaving the finale aside. i guess the film exhibits both jarmusch's distaste for a certain tendency and his (perhaps unconscious?) attraction to certain ideas underlying that tendency.

mebbe i'm opening up a whole can of worms hers (hello Kill Bill) but I've never understood the position of Tarantino's films never showing the results of violence. His films which are usually not as gory as people depict them (sometimes when i read reviews of the Reservoir Dogs torure scene I wonder if people saw the same film) usually depict violence in a pretty horrific manner. The effect of it after the humor in his films shows (me at least) of how shocking it can ne - most action films do make it cartoonish and somehow get away with it.

To return to the initial post, CRW, I wonder how you can enjoy Bond but dismiss True Lies. I really enjoyed True Lies coz it was such an obvious spoof of the Bond flicks, the (long) a la Bond opening sequence with Schwarzeneggar escaping from the villa and skiing/skating down the hill on his back while shooting up at the villians is sucha take off on the Bond invulenerability, his posing as an art expert which is something that you might buy from Moore or Connery but not Arnie is aprt of the film's charm and an example of what Hollywood can do in terms of spoofing its successes on a huge scale. I love Bond films but they are cartoonish, not that well written and when revisited can be pretty clunky. thots?

therefore a spoof of "austin powers" would be a spoof of a spoof of a spoof.

Last Action Hero also got much more flack than it deserved.

*his own waste mainly

they don't make action movies as in the 80's anymore, neither the score, neither the atmosphere, the direction, i miss the 80's action movies, why do u think we went to mainstream and not anymore R rated movies done...

they don't make action movies as in the 80's anymore, neither the score, neither the atmosphere, the direction, i miss the 80's action movies, why do u think we went to mainstream and not anymore R rated movies done...

There are connoisseurs for everything, including paintings on velvet.