The death of action cinema?

Sad Professor

http://blogs.indiewire.com/pressplay/archives/2011/08/22/video_essay_matthias_stork_calls_out_the_chaos_cinema/

I’ve posted about this before in some of the action scene threads and have been meaning to start a thread about it for a while, but this video essay articulates it far better than I ever could. It’s about 20 minutes long (in two parts) and is well worth watching.

As I think everyone is aware, there is a marked difference in how action sequences were shot years ago and how they are shot today. Classical action scenes emphasised visual geography by using wide camera angles and long takes. The directors of these type of action films were at pains to ensure that the audience could always make sense of the action. Contemporary examples of this style of action directing are few, but they include Steven Spielberg, James Cameron, John McTiernan, David Fincher and early Michael Mann.

In contrast, modern action sequences emphasise confusion by using shaky cam and raid-fire editing. The purpose of this style of action in most cases is to create a kind of kinetic energy. The problem is it doesn’t always work, and when it doesn’t, instead of kineticism you get incoherence. Examples (both good and bad) of this style of action directing is Paul Greengrass, Michael Bay, Tony Scott and Christopher Nolan.

It should also be noted that this style of filmmaking isn’t limited to action scenes. As the video essay points out, it’s very evident in dialogue scenes as well. Such scenes are shot much closer and faster than they used to be and focus on the actor’s face at the expense of body language.

Anyway, watch the video essay. It explains it pretty well. I wouldn’t entirely agree with its conclusions though. I think there are good and bad examples of both style of directing. Moulin Rouge is a good example IMO and comparing it to older films is silly. But classical angles and editing can seem bland when the content isn’t up to much, which is perhaps why this kinetic style has become so popular: it’s a way to mask poor execution and choreography.

So what do people think? Is this style of filmmaking contributing to a decline in action cinema?

On my phone at the minute so I'll keep this short. While most bug budget action films do indeed suffer from some very poor cinematography and hyper stylised shooting methods which have all but made action scenes a blur of arms and legs it's easy to see how people could think that action cinema is all but dead.

But there is a silver lining, direct to disc action cinema is delivering time after again. While Last years Ninja Assassin was a mediocre action rest which staged most it's action scenes bathe in shadow making it hard to tell just what was going on at times. The made for home markets Ninja was a stunning piece of low budget action spectacle, shot so that we could see every punch and kick it was 90 minutes of pure 80s action. the same goes for Universal Soldier Regeneration which was one of the high points of the past few years. A bone crunching, balls to the Walls action fest which managed invasion tiny budget to surpass every studio released action film of the past decade.

BostonB

I hate this blur shaky cam. it makes it unwatchable. They did that in one of the Bourne films. It just looks terrible. Gives me a headache.

mike65

The satisfaction I get from "action" scenes is in inverse proportion to the number of edits.
Which is why I'd sooner watch any Arnie/Bruce type shoot em up from the 80s than similar themed pop-corn munchers made in the last 10-15 years.

norrie rugger

Enough is being said here about terrible shakey cam.
What aboud the replacement of blood packs, with very obvious digital blood? For me this is worse than shakey cam, in part, because it completely pulls me out of the action

johnny_ultimate

Being perfectly honest, the only action scenes (bar maybe the Inception ones) that have really impressed me in recent years have been animated.

Kung Fu Panda films are the current kings of well choreographed, clever action sequences IMO! Then again, the ability to frame everything exactly how you want it is an unfair advantage :P

mike65

RopeDrink wrote: »

In the action scenes thread (Pretty sure I posted one recently ala few months back) someone recommended a scene (and provided a link) brandishing it as excellent - When I clicked to watch it, it was as if the director figured it'd be worthwhile mounting the camera on a thin piece of bendy wood and just flick it so it'd rock up/down/left/right of it's own accord for absolutely no reason during the action - It was so damn awful and this style is becoming more and more common.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056202909

I just watched said clip and its mainly edits. In that thread I noted how Taken was slightly damaged in my eyes by its frantic fights whereas boneyarsebogman and yourself praised the film for the same scenes. Its all opinion

Sad Professor

Did anyone watch the video? I thought he made a particularly strong point about how sound is needed to make sense of modern action sequences. In Bourne-style fight scenes, for example, the editing is so fast and the camera angles so tight that the only way you know somebody just got stabbed is because you hear a "slice" sound, and the only way you know somebody got punched is because you hear the "pow" sound. Sound design is one thing that has evolved enormously over the last few decades and it is often communicating more than the visuals. The early sound films were often called "talkies" because of the way they relied on dialogue; it seems that modern action films have developed a similar reliance on sound effects. Directors can get away with poor visual storytelling as long as the sound design and music is good.

BostonB

I guess the sound is to help when you can't watch because the video is so bad..

Most of these shaky blurry fight scenes seem to be means of avoiding all the work that goes into the old scripted routines.

Shreddingblood

I'm prayin' for an Under Siege 3.

Otis Driftwood

When I think of action flicks I think of pure on screen carnage and I couldnt agree more with Norrie Rugger re the prevalence of cgi blood.

The 2 flicks I enjoyed most in the last 5 or so years were Rambo and The Punisher II.

Forget the crappy acting,forget the non existent plots,the 2 movies are just a riot from start to finish with little or no cgi.

They are action movies or as close to anything that modern day cinema has come to hitting the cheese topped peaks the genre enjoyed in the 80s and early 90s.

Sad Professor

Anyone willing to defend this style of action?

I mean, what if I were to say that Christopher Nolan was a sloppy visualist who uses music and sound effects to mask the fact that he can’t shoot, choreograph or edit action scenes? Many people defend Batman Begins on the basis that Batman is supposed to be wraith-like and Nolan is showing you how Batman appears to his foes. But that how does that explain Inception? Look at the snow chase at the end. I’ve seen the film several times and I still have difficulty knowing who is who, where they are and what they are doing. It’s an incoherent mess.

S.M.B.

Sad Professor wrote: »

It explains it pretty well. I wouldn’t entirely agree with its conclusions though. I think there are good and bad examples of both style of directing.

Agreed.

I find it very hard to be in anyway dismissive of this "chaos cinema" technique given how effective I thought it was when used in the recent Bourne films.

Moulin Rouge also resulted in a very similar visceral reaction when I first saw it in the cinema all those years ago.

Like all techniques, there will be plenty of examples of where it has been well executed and many more where it has not.

johnny_ultimate

The scene that always bothers me in the Dark Knight (apart from the continuity question of what happens to the party guests and the Joker after Wayne saves Rachael) is the car chase. The big action setpiece soured by weird editing and the cops making "oh hell no!" interjections. It has some great moments - the reveal of the bike and it's wall reverse - but the sequence overall is so so. Same with the final building assault. And the race to save Rachael :pac:

That said, Nolan is also a director who tends to limit the amount of action setpieces. Batman Begins has quite a few, and yeah the Inception snow scene is a bit all over the place, but they rarely distract me from the story at hand. Maybe it's just because the music he does use is awesome. But for the most part I think he knows his strengths and doesn't overload his movies with extravagant, confusing setpieces. It's the exposition and atmospheric scenes he excels at. And for every snow chase in Inception there's a handful of brief but inventive setpieces. I think he's far, far from the worst offender in this regard. The payoffs are elsewhere. Unlike a Bay film where the only reward is a shaky explosion.

krudler

CGI blood wrecks my head as well, it was horrible looking in Rambo and went completely against the style of the movie,gritty, realistic gunshots then with cgi blood that stands out a mile simply doesnt mix.

I'm a big fan of long takes in action, or at least longer than split second Michael Bay style stuff, who can still do some stunning looking action shots when he wants and just leaves the camera alone for a few seconds.

Cameron still does great work but cgi just cant compare to stuff like this:

skip to about 6.50 in that clip, one of my favourite action scenes ever, because its real, I just love the shot tracking the chopper from the air right down to road level, because its a real helicopter being flown down to the street, under a bridge, over a bridge and barelymaking it (8mins 18, watch it, skins the bridge by a couple of feet) and then crashing, fantastic stuff that cgi just can't replicate.

or this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wYCh5nxyCI

John Woo at his finest, fluid, and as cliched as it is to say, balletic camera and actor movement, kinetic without ever being confusing, no shaky cam but the camera is rarely ever still, superb stuff.

krudler

Sad Professor wrote: »

Anyone willing to defend this style of action?

I mean, what if I were to say that Christopher Nolan was a sloppy visualist who uses music and sound effects to mask the fact that he can’t shoot, choreograph or edit action scenes? Many people defend Batman Begins on the basis that Batman is supposed to be wraith-like and Nolan is showing you how Batman appears to his foes. But that how does that explain Inception? Look at the snow chase at the end. I’ve seen the film several times and I still have difficulty knowing who is who, where they are and what they are doing. It’s an incoherent mess.

I think Nolan can do action very well tbh, the underground chase in TDK is fantastic, because the camera is right down at street level, lots of tracking shots, barely and shaky cam and edited so you can see whats going on. Or the zero g hallway fight, its one shot, it could have easily been done with shaky close ups and grimacing actors punching ala Bourne but he just lets the action speak for itself without resorting to frantic camera work.

Otis Driftwood

Pre Hollywood John Woo was simply breathtaking.Any of his movies - Hard Boiled,Bullet In The Head,The Killer,A Better Tomorrow et al contain some of the finest action sequences ever committed to celluloid.Hell,even Face-Off has some wonderful set pieces in it.

The problem is that with the cheapness and easiness of using cgi to create more and more elaborate scenes that action scenes in their purest form have pretty much become redundant.

Sad Professor

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

The scene that always bothers me in the Dark Knight (apart from the continuity question of what happens to the party guests and the Joker after Wayne saves Rachael) is the car chase. The big action setpiece soured by weird editing and the cops making "oh hell no!" interjections. It has some great moments - the reveal of the bike and it's wall reverse - but the sequence overall is so so. Same with the final building assault. And the race to save Rachael :pac:

The building assault in TDK is a bit messy, but I actually think the armoured car chase is okay for the most part. There's some visual geography problems, but the IMAX cameras forced Nolan to shoot wider and edit slower which makes things much more intelligible.

The tumbler chase sequence in Begins is far, far worse. Half the sequence consists of close-ups of the cops giving comedic reactions to the tumbler. And there's almost no continuity in the action itself. Nearly every cut is a jump cut. It's like a music video montage.

krudler

Otis Driftwood wrote: »

Pre Hollywood John Woo was simply breathtaking.Any of his movies - Hard Boiled,Bullet In The Head,The Killer,A Better Tomorrow et al contain some of the finest action sequences ever committed to celluloid.Hell,even Face-Off has some wonderful set pieces in it.

The problem is that with the cheapness and easiness of using cgi to create more and more elaborate scenes that action scenes in their purest form have pretty much become redundant.

the first Woo movie I saw was Hard Boiled, the video cover of Yun Fat holding a baby in one arm and a shotgun in the other just jumped out at me, I think I was about 14, anyway I was awestruck by it. I still watch it every few months and the editing, choreography and style of action just pisses all over the majority of action films since.

Action movies these days are too...clinical? I guess, too much digital sheen, back in the 80's and 90s stuff looked more raw. cgi blood, cgi stuntmen, cgi sets, zzzzz. Theres no oomph to action stunts anymore, when the building blows up at the beginning of Lethal Weapon 3, thats a real building they blew up, these days its shoot a template and add in the rest later. dull and lazy action.

Sad Professor

Sad Professor wrote: »

Anyone willing to defend this style of action?

I mean, what if I were to say that Christopher Nolan was a sloppy visualist who uses music and sound effects to mask the fact that he can’t shoot, choreograph or edit action scenes? Many people defend Batman Begins on the basis that Batman is supposed to be wraith-like and Nolan is showing you how Batman appears to his foes. But that how does that explain Inception? Look at the snow chase at the end. I’ve seen the film several times and I still have difficulty knowing who is who, where they are and what they are doing. It’s an incoherent mess.

Nolan makes entertaining films but he is far from the savoir of cinema as many have dubbed him. Some of the action scenes he's shot are very, very poorly edited. The bat pod chase scene in TDK has some truly horrific edits. The scene where Batman is taking a short cut through the mall is one of the worst edit sequences in cinema history. Inception also suffered from some less than impressive editing. The snow scene as mentioned is very poorly done and it's hard to know it's down to poor editing or a case of the shots just weren't there.

Faster is a recent action film which managed to impress, the action is well framed and the fluid editing makes it one of the few action films in recent memory where the audience is never lost. Fast Five was equally well done, every action scene was well framed and shot in such a manner that the audience saw each punch land, every collision, etc.

krudler

Deleted User wrote: »

Nolan makes entertaining films but he is far from the savoir of cinema as many have dubbed him. Some of the action scenes he's shot are very, very poorly edited. The bat pod chase scene in TDK has some truly horrific edits. The scene where Batman is taking a short cut through the mall is one of the worst edit sequences in cinema history. Inception also suffered from some less than impressive editing. The snow scene as mentioned is very poorly done and it's hard to know it's down to poor editing or a case of the shots just weren't there.

Faster is a recent action film which managed to impress, the action is well framed and the fluid editing makes it one of the few action films in recent memory where the audience is never lost. Fast Five was equally well done, every action scene was well framed and shot in such a manner that the audience saw each punch land, every collision, etc.

That does look awful, it looks like it belongs in another scene and was just put in there, like they had a ton of footage of the pod flying around and just jammed it in there, it looks more like it should have been used in the rush to get to Rachel later on and he needed a quick way through the building.

Duggy747

Deleted User wrote: »

The scene where Batman is taking a short cut through the mall is one of the worst edit sequences in cinema history. Inception also suffered from some less than impressive editing. The snow scene as mentioned is very poorly done and it's hard to know it's down to poor editing or a case of the shots just weren't there.

Agreed, when I saw armoured car chase scene I honestly thought a piece was missing and that the projector screwed up :pac: What I love about Nolan is his preference to real set-pieces, the use of models and the minimal use of CGI (for the action scenes, at least). Editing, though, is his big problem which leaves his action scenes much to be desired alot of times.

Batman Begins really irked me with it's frantic editing and inconsistent action scenes. The Tumbler chase being the main one as, it was already pointed out, consisted of people giving funny looks when they saw the vehicle. That whole film was uneven on what it wanted to be with being "gritty and realistic" while having silly cliched comedy moments sprinkled all over it.

I enjoyed Fast Five's action scenes as they were coherent to watch and nicely staged. It all could've been ruined had the camera been bolted to a piece of wobbly wood to give it that oh-so familiar shaky cam feel.

I find the problem with action scenes nowadays is that they're too stylised, concentrating more on how people look when shooting with CGI blood and pretty explosions occuring all around them than what's actually happening..........plus it must be in slow-mo to give it 5 points extra on coolness.

80's and early to mid-90's action films nailed the mix of OTT, explosions, comedy, and the sense of danger. Most modern big-budget films I see now have their action setpieces sitting too comfortably in the safe zone to the point where I feel like I've been taken out of the film and I that I'm comparing this certain action scene to an action scene from another modern film.

Oh, and CGI does not belong in a gun fight. I could understand with Rambo given the budget they had (though CGI blood is still stupid and is a terrible replacement for squibs) but Eric Robert's death in The Expendables was so poorly done that anybody could've done better with some basic 3D and a few minutes on After Effects.

Oh, and skip to 5:00 to how you blow up a building with real explosives (topped off with obligatory Stallone running from flames in slow-mo :P)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KU9NeJaFRwY

Duggy747

Duggy747 wrote: »

Batman Begins really irked me with it's frantic editing and inconsistent action scenes. The Tumbler chase being the main one as, it was already pointed out, consisted of people giving funny looks when they saw the vehicle. That whole film was uneven on what it wanted to be with being "gritty and realistic" while having silly cliched comedy moments sprinkled all over it.

I know someone who worked on Batman Begins, he was one of the first people brought in and he told me that Nolan was constantly stating that they were not making a comic book film but a gritty realistic drama. He also told me that Nolan repeatedly stated his dislike of comics, saying once that they were for children, which didn't go down well considering that most in the room began their careers in the comic book industry.

SVG

I've been thinking a lot about this "chaotic" style recently. It's kind of like the cinematic equivalent of Impressionism- more focussed on the feel of things rather than the details.

I think it worked well in The Hurt Locker where you really got inside the mindset of the soldiers and I loved that big, energetic, messy Moscow car chase in The Bourne Supremacy. More often than not though, watching this type of action scene, either I have no idea what's happening onscreen (Pathfinder is the worst I can think of) or I have to endure being told what's going on through clunky explanatory dialogue (Inception). Sometimes I just want some nice visual storytelling!

I think the style can be used well but it's overdone at the moment and this is especially unfortunate at a time when studios are trying to push 3D- I can't see how the two are compatible.


If anyone is interested David Bordwell has a good essay comparing old-style action to the newer style here.

BostonB

Deleted User wrote: »

I know someone who worked on Batman Begins, he was one of the first people brought in and he told me that Nolan was constantly stating that they were not making a comic book film but a gritty realistic drama. He also told me that Nolan repeatedly stated his dislike of comics, saying once that they were for children, which didn't go down well considering that most in the room began their careers in the comic book industry.

That doesn't surprises me in the least. Seems to me many of these directors, take a non adult project, and try to turn it into a mature movie, simply because they want to make "serious" films. It all ends up being conflicted, they franchise toys to kids who are too young to watch the movie, then they can't make it too stark and real as it doesn't fit with the style of the characters. Ends up being fundamentally compromised. I wonder is that the cause of these action scenes that are blurred so you can't really see anything.

BostonB

SVG wrote: »

I've been thinking a lot about this "chaotic" style recently. It's kind of like the cinematic equivalent of Impressionism- more focussed on the feel of things rather than the details.

I think it worked well in The Hurt Locker where you really got inside the mindset of the soldiers and I loved that big, energetic, messy Moscow car chase in The Bourne Supremacy. More often than not though, watching this type of action scene, either I have no idea what's happening onscreen (Pathfinder is the worst I can think of) or I have to endure being told what's going on through clunky explanatory dialogue (Inception). Sometimes I just want some nice visual storytelling!

I think the style can be used well but it's overdone at the moment and this is especially unfortunate at a time when studios are trying to push 3D- I can't see how the two are compatible.


If anyone is interested David Bordwell has a good essay comparing old-style action to the newer style here.

Have to say I didn't notice the action scenes in the Hurt Locker I was too distracted by the A-Team script. I just couldn't take it seriously. Bourne Supremacy for me is a perfect example of how bad this style is.

I think its illustrated well by this comment,

...Bay never respects the rhythmic integrity of any image, rarely holding a shot, any shot, no matter how lovely or functional or potentially powerful, for longer than three seconds, dicing hundreds of thousands of feet of 35mm film into celluloid shrapnel and firing it at the audience's face....

http://www.salon.com/entertainment/movies/film_salon/2009/12/15/seitz_bay

I get what your saying about the overall impression. But for me many of these scenes are important to the story line, and you just can't follow whats going on.

I didn't mind the Bourne sequels use of shaky cam, granted in the cinema the Bourne Supremecy at times was a complete mess but on DVD and Blu Ray it looked rather good. Much shaky cam plays better on a smaller screen but at the same tome it dies more often than not have the polar opposite to it's intended effect. Rather than bring the viewer in it actually takes us out of the cinematic experience as the sudden and violent camera work makes us acutly aware that we ate watching a film.

Watching Commando last night I never once took my eyes of the screen and was lost in the film. While the high def source made everything look crystal clear, including the obvious stunt doubles and dummy's on sticks it never took away from the film and actually made it somewhat charming. Something cgi rarely does.

S.M.B.

Deleted User wrote: »

I didn't mind the Bourne sequels use of shaky cam, granted in the cinema the Bourne Supremecy at times was a complete mess but on DVD and Blu Ray it looked rather good. Much shaky cam plays better on a smaller screen but at the same tome it dies more often than not have the polar opposite to it's intended effect. Rather than bring the viewer in it actually takes us out of the cinematic experience as the sudden and violent camera work makes us acutly aware that we ate watching a film.

Watching Commando last night I never once took my eyes of the screen and was lost in the film. While the high def source made everything look crystal clear, including the obvious stunt doubles and dummy's on sticks it never took away from the film and actually made it somewhat charming. Something cgi rarely does.

The "gearing up" scene in Commando is a great example of where quick cuts add a kinetic energy to the scene which wouldn't be anywhere near as effective had it been done with one continuous wide angle shot.

Why is there a continuous need for a sense of spatial awareness within a scene?

BostonB

Is that an action scene?

mike65

SVG wrote: »

If anyone is interested David Bordwell has a good essay comparing old-style action to the newer style here.

The ratings angle is interesting, hadn't thought of that. In the 80s action pics often got an R rating in the states with 15 or 18 here depending on "intensity". As budgets have spiralled the studios want PG12/PG13 for just about everything (Die Hard R, Die Hard 4 PG13) so something like Rambo or Expendables with an R/18 nearly comes as a surprise.

BostonB

This is why I think its conflicted. Director want to make a "more real" movie, the studio and perhaps the original concept and perhaps script is a more general rated action movie. End result is these gatling gun action scenes. Where action is blurred and chopped up, so you really don't see anything.

Skerries

Deleted User wrote: »

the same goes for Universal Soldier Regeneration which was one of the high points of the past few years. A bone crunching, balls to the Walls action fest which managed invasion tiny budget to surpass every studio released action film of the past decade.

I was coming on here to post about this film, the action sequences and fights were just brilliant and should be how they start doing things again.
It didn't have shaky cam, wire work or cgi to enhance it and was just a breath of fresh air for action films.
if you love your action films then this is heartily recommended and a true successor to the original film

Sad Professor

Thinking about it now, I wonder, is the famous car chase in The French Connection really all that more coherent than some of the modern ones? The editing is a lot slower certainly, but it’s still pretty chaotic, especially compared to Bullit which came out a few years earlier and seems far more classical in comparison. The French Connection was also shot almost entirely using handheld cameras, a far cry from the excessive shaky-cam of Paul Greengrass, but nevertheless, you can still trace the lineage of films like The Bourne Supremacy back to The French Connection.

Perhaps there's also an argument to be made that audiences have seen so many car chases, so many fight scenes, that don't need the scenes to be coherent because they already have a pretty good idea how they are going to play out. Hence the director can get away with shooting them in a confusing manner because the audience is able to fill in the blanks. Cinemagoers have been doing this for decades anyway. I mean, where is the visual clarity in the shower scene is Psycho? The scene is complete chaos. You never see the knife stab Janet Leigh. You see the stabbing gestures, you hear the sound and the music, you see her screaming and you fill in the blanks.

Skerries

same with the ear scene in Resi Dogs

mike65

Sad Professor wrote: »

Thinking about it now, I wonder, is the famous car chase in The French Connection really all that more coherent than some of the modern ones? The editing is a lot slower certainly, but it’s still pretty chaotic, especially compared to Bullit which came out a few years earlier and seems far more classical in comparison. The French Connection was also shot almost entirely using handheld cameras, a far cry from the excessive shaky-cam of Paul Greengrass, but nevertheless, you can still trace the lineage of films like The Bourne Supremacy back to The French Connection.

Bullitt was between two cars on wide-ish streets and then open road whereas FC1 was chaotic as it was in the tighter confines of downtown New York under the elevated railway so the difference is understandable. To continue this theme, the major chase in the third film of the trilogy "The Seven Ups" is more like Bullitt in style as there is again more space for the chase and no sign of shakes despite the camera being right in the mix at times.

I think a lot of this fast editing and general rushed blur technique can also be used to avoid having to map out complex sequences, the kind of work that second unit directors and stunt crews would spend weeks honing and shooting. If there are 30-40 edits a minute and shaky cam you don't need to show with any clarity the progress of events between point a and point b.

the_syco

Otis Driftwood wrote: »

The 2 flicks I enjoyed most in the last 5 or so years were Rambo and The Punisher II.

Aye. Both had over the top shooting scenes

Maybe look at some of the WWE films (such as The Marine). A few half-decent fight scenes when there are any.

norrie rugger

the_syco wrote: »

Aye. Both had over the top shooting scenes

Maybe look at some of the WWE films (such as The Marine). A few half-decent fight scenes when there are any.

Except the silly looking blood in Rambo (and in The Expendables). Totally detracting from the action

the_syco

norrie rugger wrote: »

Except the silly looking blood in Rambo (and in The Expendables). Totally detracting from the action

How do you rate the "green blood" in LOTR?

CerebralCortex

Shreddingblood wrote: »

I'm prayin' for an Under Siege 3.

I hate Steven Seagal. +1 for Under Siege -1. Yes destroy all Under Siege movies.

norrie rugger

the_syco wrote: »

How do you rate the "green blood" in LOTR?

Fantasy trilogy, more about the story than the action, so the orc "blood" and the lack of human gushers not bother me