Red Bandana to Blue Collar: How Social Politics Transforms the Action Genre

Throughout the early part of the 1980s the action genre reigned supreme over the American box office. Actors like Sylvester Stallone and Arnold Schwarzenegger lead this testosterone fueled cinematic explosion with its aggressive right-wing stance. Then, towards the end of that decade the reels were changed. The action hero no longer resembled ‘He-Man’, and started to show a softer more human side. Towards the end of the eighties the action hero was allowed to cry.

There are a number of factors that propelled enthusiasm for these types of films. After the seventies drew to a close America was politically and socially reeling. It was feeling the wounds of a failed war in Indo-China, and many Vietnam veterans were still trying to reintegrate into normal life. In 1980 the nation’s military was further embarrassed by a failed hostage rescue attempt in Iran. To some countries this would not be an issue, but since the Second World War the United States has closely identified itself by its military prowess. The country’s psyche needed some comfort, and Hollywood was ready to provide the blanket.

In 1982 Sylvester Stallone hit the cinema screens as ‘John Rambo’ in the film First Blood. Carrying the emotional scars of Vietnam, this one man army faces a whole town’s prejudiced police force and National Guard, and emerges victorious. The country may have felt emotionally emasculated by recent events but onscreen one American with a red bandanna could still make a difference.

However, Stallone wasn’t the only one on a rampage. In Commando (1985) Arnold Schwarzenegger plays a retired marine who has to hunt down his daughter’s kidnappers. The film culminates in a violent bloody climax as he kills a mansion full of terrorists. However, it isn’t just violence that these two films have in common. Both Commando and First Blood have a strong theme of disrespect for the military chain of command. It is almost as if the lone soldier is victorious despite the officers, not because of them. While this attitude is certainly not new (it can be traced back to the First World War and probably further) it is certainly a reaction to decisions made during Vietnam, and the way that the returning heroes were treated.

The general outlook of the population during this period appears to have been selfish, materialistic and uncaring. Politicians no longer seemed to care about the causes of crime, just its elimination. This right-wing political viewpoint easily infused itself with the action genre. This is clearly demonstrated by the film Cobra (1986), directed by George P. Cosmotas and again starring Sylvester Stallone. Stallone plays a cop who is only used as a last resort, which naturally results with him killing the perpetrator. In one scene (that sums up the beliefs of the time) a man is threatening to kill everybody by blowing up a supermarket. Stallone replies;”Go ahead. I don’t shop here anyway”, and then kills him.

In the late eighties a transformation occurred. Bruce Willis appeared as John McClane in the film Die Hard (1988). His character was not a hero with a cartoon like physique, or a man that carried the emotional baggage of a previous war. He was a lowly New York detective, which in the words of its tagline, “was in the wrong place at the wrong time”. In the film McClane is visiting his estranged wife at her office Christmas party. While alone in the bathroom terrorists hijack the newly completed skyscraper and hold the occupants hostage. McClane then spends the rest of the film trying to thwart their plans and avoiding capture.

Unlike the previous action characters McClane appears human. He has a failing marriage, and while he is a Police Officer, there is more of a ‘blue collar’ realism about his character. His first concern is to get his wife out of the building, failing that he tries to call for help. Unlike previous action heroes McClane doesn’t believe he can handle the situation alone. Unfortunately for this protagonist the FBI team that eventually arrives is incompetent, but does highlight one important evolution of the genre. As the two agents swoop over the city streets in helicopters. One whoops with joy and yells; “Just like fucking Saigon hey slick?” His colleague retorts; “I was in Junior High dickhead” (Die Hard). In this action film there is no room for the ghost of Vietnam.

Halfway through the film a pivotal scene occurs. It is not just important for the plot progression of the story, but it is also an indicator that the action genre has matured. McClane is bloodied and sitting in a restroom talking on a radio to a street cop called ‘Al’. Al has become his guardian angel, his link to the outside world. While pulling shards of glass out of his bloodied feet he asks Al to tell his family that he loves them. As McClane speaks he begins to cry. These are not tears of pain, but tears of a man who realizes he might not be able to survive through this ordeal. This is a hero that is aware of his limitations and is not afraid to voice them. The previous superhuman, bulletproof, fighting machine of Stallone and his peers has now been replaced by a man that not only questions his actions, but doubts them too.

In the final scene McClane is battered and bruised, but alive. He hugs his wife and it seems that their marriage has been repaired by surviving their ordeal. Yet, the film doesn’t finish here as a sub plot needs to be resolved. One of the ‘dead’ terrorists resurrected by anger and revenge tries to gun McClane down. The terrorist is in turn killed, not by McClane, but by Al. This fulfills two purposes. It allows Al to become a ‘man’ again, but also underscores the new role for the hero. Willis’s character does not attempt to stop the angry gunman, but instinctively shields his wife from any harm. The family comes first, not the individual’s need for revenge.

As time moved further from Vietnam and politics shifted further to the left this ‘humanizing’ of the action hero continued with films headlined by actors like Will Smith and Keanu Reeves. However, more recently the USA has found itself floundering in wars, financial depression, and a rising popularity of right wing attitudes. Thus, once more we see the action genre embracing the hard edged values of the eighties. Already, Stallone has returned with a further installment of the Rambo series, and this summer sees the resurgence of 80s favorite Conan the Barbarian. It seems that the USA has needs of that emotional blanket once more.

A New Sheriff in Town

How The Good, the Bad and the Ugly Plays with the Western Style

By 1966 Sergio Leone had already blown away the tumbleweeds of the Western genre with the films A Fistful of Dollars (1964), and For a Few Dollars More (1965). So when the third installment of what was later termed the ‘The Man with No Name Trilogy’ hit cinema screens expectations were extremely high. Luckily audiences were not disappointed. In this installment Clint Eastwood’s iconic character finds himself joining forces with two untrustworthy outlaws played by Lee Van Cleef and Eli Wallach. Their uneasy alliance is forged in order to locate a cache of stolen gold. However, as any devotee of the western knows, when you corral gold and cowboys together, you only find a rodeo of trouble.

From the very opening scene one realizes that Leone is taking the traditions of the genre and subverting them for his own enjoyment. The first shot seems to commence in a way one would expect of a John Ford film. It is an extreme long shot of the landscape, but almost instantly a disheveled and battered face steps into the frame changing it into an extreme close up. The man stares straight towards the camera surprising the audience and skewing any expectations of what may follow.

The following shot is of what appears to be an abandoned town and thanks to the Kuleshov effect the audience interprets this as being the man’s point of view. In the distance appear two men on horses; they are merely black shapes against the shimmering background. The two strangers dismount and the camera switches between them and the opposing third man as they approach each other. When they pass some small buildings the camera no longer gives us a point of view but has switched to profile medium shots instead. The two men move from the left of the frame to the right, the third walks from right to the left of the frame bringing all three closer together. For the audience there can only be one conclusion to this scene, and it must be a Mexican stand-off. The two men are going to shoot the third.

Yet, something odd happens here. The director suddenly changes the profile shot to the other side breaking the 180 degree rule. This reverses the men’s position in the frame, and disorientates the audience. The three men pull out their guns, but instead of killing each other they join forces and burst into the adjacent building with their weapons roaring. Thus, Leone fools the audience by using their knowledge of the tropes of the genre and deftly changing it at the last minute. This unusual editing breaks the established rules of classical cinema and is a visual clue that not everything is to be taken at face value.

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly is filmed in a ratio of 2.35:1. This wide view allows Leone to show the landscape in all its glory. Even if it's the Spanish deserts filling in for the Wild West. Leone also makes full use of the frame by utilizing extreme close ups of faces and objects. Every twitch of an eye, fly on a bleeding scab, and sweat on the brow is clearly visible. He also plays spatially with some scenes by positing his actors at either sides of the frame. The director is clearly an artist not afraid to make full use of the canvas. This mixture of wide landscapes and extreme close ups creates an uneven feeling in the film. In one outside scene the audience feels the vastness of the landscape making the characters seem insignificant. In the contrasting extreme close ups one feels claustrophobic, dirty and as dry as the sands that surround the actors.

For a piece of cinema that is famous for its music by Ennio Morricone it actually has vast stretches of silence. After the excitingly lurid credits have finished the opening theme fades into the diagetic effects of wind, banging doors and dogs barking. This bleak audio matches the desolation of the visuals. It also approximately ten minutes before any dialogue is first heard. This may be due to the fact that the film is dubbed (although it is originally in English) and the less spoken words you have the easier it is to replace the dialogue. However, it is obvious that Leone’s Western world is one of mostly silence and it is a place where the guns speak louder than the men. This lack of exposition forces the film to rely on the actors face to convey the meaning of a scene, and thus makes the emotion subtle and easy to miss. It is there, but unlike previous Westerns, it is emotions that match the trapped and restrained nature of many of the characters.

It is fair to suggest that the style of the western had already changed when Sergio Leone released A Fistful of Dollars. However with The Good, the Bad and the Ugly comes a sense of confidence that allows the director not only to twist the conventions of the genre but of cinema itself. The first two films in the series are merely the foals and this final installment is the full grown stallion. There are so many flourishes in this film that it is no wonder that film makers like Quentin Tarantino have paid homage to him by aping his style.

The Rise and Fall of a Couple of Rats

In 1967 the film ‘Bonnie and Clyde’ was released. It was a movie that would go on to polarize public opinion and those of eminent film critics. It was also most probably the spark that lit the career of Pauline Kael, and simultaneously managed to extinguish the career of critic Bosley Crowther. Part of the reason the film garnered such a reaction was due to the political and social turmoil of the time, but also due to the film’s ability to confuse our senses whilst drawing the audience in to a mental place they would rather not reside.

One of the ways this was achieved was through the inclusion of C.W. Moss played by Michael J. Pollard. We first meet this character when Bonnie and Clyde pull into a desolate gas station. He’s impressed by the nice car, the clothes, and their general attitude which is far removed from his own life of pumping gas. When he finds out that he’s talking to the infamous Bonnie and Clyde he is immediately in awe of their status. He seems to be a simple character, but it’s as if his personality has yet to be shaped by the events that will later occur. This is like an audience settling down to their first viewing of the film. We also have certain expectations because of our sometimes vague knowledge of Bonnie and Clyde, but our reactions will change as we learn more about the two heroes. Just like C.W. appears to ponder his role, the audience is also impressed by the bank robbing duo. There is a whiff of danger in their rebellious natures, and when that's mixed with the fancy clothes and the exotic looking cars it's easy to be intoxicated by this perfume of glamor. Due to the style of the film we feel it is going to be a light, easy, comedy and we don’t consider the consequences of Bonnie and Clyde’s actions. Just like C.W who seems to not pause for even a second to consider what life would be like on the run with the these two wanted felons.

This drastically alters when the first major shooting takes place. The innocent banker clinging onto Bonnie and Clyde’s getaway car driven by C.W. is brutally shot in the face. At this point the laughter dies with the banker. This is C.W.’s and our initial glimpse of the consequences of their actions. It’s shot as a close up and it suddenly tarnishes our amused expressions at the bungled escape. This is the first occurrence of when we see a negative reaction from C.W. He made a mistake in parking the car too far from the bank and in a way he is responsible for the man’s death. C.W. sits in the cinema with tears running down his face as he tries to understand this. Because of our involvement in the movie so far and our eagerness to see Bonnie and Clyde rob more banks we also feel complicit in the man’s death. Perhaps like C.W., who is now sitting in the picture house, we start to wonder that perhaps we would rather be watching a much lighter story. A film that doesn't cause us to question our own fascination for darker characters, or a film that doesn't lead us down one path and then trip us up.

Towards the end of the film when Bonnie and Clyde are hiding out at the home of C.W. Moss we see conflict between C.W. and his father. The father represents authority whilst C.W. represents the audience. C.W., and of course the audience, want to believe that Bonnie and Clyde can escape from anything and that the police will never be able to contain them. Even though history has provided us with the conclusion of the story, we, like C.W., are still urging them on. In the final ten minutes of the film C.W. is no longer with Bonnie and Clyde as he is inside a hardware store. He views them getting in a car through the window and the blinds of the store. He has now become the audience himself and is viewing his friends in the same way we are. That is with a sense of distance because we know we can never live a life like them, yet there is still a sense of yearning. When they pull away from the small town C.W. thinks they have yet again escaped the police. A grin spreads across his face and while we are also relieved for a second, it is not long before we are abruptly reminded of their fateful end.

When head of Warner Brothers studio, Jack Warner, was handed the screenplay he said, “Who wants to see the rise and fall of a couple of rats” (Biskind 30). Time clearly proved him wrong and the clue was already in the script. C.W. wanted to watch because he needed to be a part of the Burrow gang, and that’s what an audience also wants, whether they like that fact or not. C.W. is a representation of the public because there’s a bit of C.W. in all of us.

Something Old, Something New, Something Borrowed, Something Blu

Can Old Movies & TV Benefit From HD?

While it’s easy to expect new films to look great on Blu-ray what does surprise people is how old films, even those in black and white, can really shine in high definition. Admittedly this is affected by the quality of the original print, the time and expense spent on remastering, and the skill of the technicians involved. But with a bit of elbow grease, money, and a lot of love the stars of yesterday can sparkle just as brightly as those of tomorrow.

Warning: The following contains numbers and is just a tad bit geeky.

Like Standard Definition TV and DVD, High Definition is measured in lines. Films on Blu-ray have a resolution of 1920x1080. That is to say there are 1920 horizontal lines and 1080 vertical lines. Blu-ray is therefore capable of a resolution of just under 2K. Those good old DVDs only had a resolution of 480 lines. Film on the other hand isn’t measured in lines and technically doesn’t have resolution in the same way. However, to keep life simple you can say that 35mm film is roughly equivalent to anywhere between 4k and 6k. Right there you can see that film is capable of producing an image with a greater resolution than is available on the latest home technology.

In real simple terms this means that film is theoretically able to produce a better picture than that found on Blu-ray. But…

Before releasing an old film on Blu-ray a studio ‘should’ prepare a new version. This ideally involves having the original negative scanned in at 4K, or even at 6K. The highest number is desired to ensure the master can be used in the future when resolutions in home cinemas increase. However, as with anything, this can be expensive so studios sometimes don’t bother and only do a 2K version. The film then has to be examined frame by frame and any damage or dirt is removed. To some extent this can be done by computer (but can cause problems with over excessive DNR). The film may also need to be color corrected, as it could have faded or age may have played havoc with the original color balance. When this is completed a copy is then made at a lower resolution that is suitable for Blu-ray. As you can imagine all of this is time consuming and costly. So while films like Gone with the Wind are given the full treatment because the studio knows there will be a return on their investment, it’s unlikely that something like Arthur Askey’s Bees in Paradise would ever get the full VIP, 4K treatment.

Bear in mind the above has been simplified. There are many other complications that can be caused by the original negative being Technicolor, cinemascope, vistavision etc. It’s also hard to determine the correct color balance of a really old film when nobody is alive to remember what it originally looked like.

So what about TV? Well, I’m glad you asked.

In the world of TV there are even more complications. In the USA during the sixties a lot of TV enjoyed the luxury of being shot on 35mm film. That’s why the original series of Star Trek looks fantastic on Blu-ray. It has lush colors, it’s clear, sharp, and almost looks like it was shot yesterday. In the UK things were not as great. Classic shows from that period like Callan, The Sandbaggers and Dr. Who were made on the smallest budget possible. For Dr. Who this meant that the interiors were filmed using videotape and the exteriors were shot on 16mm film. They did this because videotape was cheap to record with (and reusable), but the cameras were too big and bulky to use on location so they would then switch to film. When watching an episode you can easily tell the difference between the two formats. Unfortunately neither videotape or 16mm film have a resolution that can provide the clarity that is required for Blu-ray.

So there you have it. Old films are capable of producing stunning images on modern projectors and TVs… Sometimes.

What's That Coming Over the Hill...

Monsters (2010)

One of the most talked about films of 2010 was Monsters directed by documentary film-maker Gareth Edwards. His debut feature is set six months after a NASA probe carrying samples of extraterrestrial life has crash-landed in Central America. These alien samples then mutated into giant ‘creatures’ causing half of Mexico to be quarantined for fear of the ‘infection’ spreading. The story itself focuses on two characters, Andrew Calder, a young photographer trying to capture images of the destruction the creatures have caused, and Samantha Wyler, the daughter of Calder’s boss. In a frantic telephone call Andrew is instructed to help get Samantha through the infected zone and to the USA. While at the beginning they’re strangers to each other, along their torturous journey a relationship starts to form.

It’s worth pointing out that in every review of Monsters there’s at least one mention of the film’s budget (and this review is no different). Apparently, the film cost half a million dollars and its effects were completed by Edwards on his home computer. To be fair this is an astonishing achievement and the film certainly has the scale of a Hollywood production with a much larger accounting sheet. Yet I feel the (well-deserved) praise for this has also being used to hide any faults the film may have. Personally I can’t see what the cost of the film has to do with how much an audience can enjoy it. If Michael Bay turned out a film that did cost less than Wesley Snipes tax bill to make, I still probably wouldn’t enjoy it any more than I did Transformers 2 (for the record, I would rather flay my skin off with the rough edge of a coconut than sit through that again).

However, it’s clear that those budgetary restrictions have pushed the film in a certain direction. The Monsters of the title are conspicuous by their absence. This subtle trick that worked so well for Jaws (1975) when they couldn’t get the shark to float, doesn’t feel as successful for Monsters. It’s possible this is due to the film being centered on the relationship between Andrew and Samantha, and can only work if the audience feels for their plight. This is an interesting premise, but it’s hampered by Edwards demonstrating his documentary roots and deciding against scripting the dialogue. This free-form jazz approach to words may be suitable for the council estate setting of a Mike Leigh film, but here it feels out of place. Occasionally it even creates odd moments. For example in one scene the travelling duo have left a boat and are meeting some people in a forest clearing. There’s a loud unearthly noise from the undergrowth and Andrew surprisingly responds with, ‘What the hell was that?’ Well, I’m no boffin but perhaps it might be one of those aliens that have been all over the news, all the time, constantly.

I can see what Edwards was trying to achieve. In a recent radio interview he claimed that the dialogue is naturalistic because people don’t speak in most films the way they do in real life, and he wanted to change that. He’s right, genre movie speak isn’t natural, it’s often succinct, witty, interesting, quotable, and pushes the film in a certain direction. What it doesn’t do is meander along with no direction, or yank a scene to a crashing halt, which is what often happens in Monsters. Without that verbal spark you’re left watching two dull people on a trekking holiday.

Finally, in a film that seems determined to deny that it is a ‘genre’ movie, the concluding scenes feel like the director couldn’t resist aping those Hollywood epics he had previously sought to dismiss. It feels more like a loss of conviction from the director. Perhaps this is why the film seems to struggle for me as it seems schizophrenic in deciding what kind of film it wants to be. Is it a monster movie or a love story? Audiences seeking either may be ultimately disappointed as it falls somewhere between the two.

This is not to say that Monsters doesn’t have its good points. The creatures themselves (when seen) are fantastic, and it’s obvious that Edwards is a director to look out for in the future. With a script that contained tighter dialogue and a clear idea of what type of film it was supposed to be it may have been more enjoyable. At the end of the day though, in cinema terms it cost next to nothing to make, so that makes it good.

Monsters is released on Blu-ray / DVD in the USA on 1st February, and in the UK on 18th April

Going with the Grain

When DVDs started to became mainstream there were many arguments about whether the films should be in fullscreen or in their original aspect ratio. Many consumers had to be educated on why they were seeing black bars on square TV sets and why this was correct, and not due to a broken copy. It seems that while this discussion has now been muted by the introduction of widescreen TVs, a new problem has appeared with the appearance of Blu-ray. This HD format had created a debate regarding the importance of film grain.

Grain naturally occurs in film. It is caused by microscopic particles of silver halide that when exposed to light turn silver and create the image. Now the grains are tiny, but they cling together in different quantities, and it’s this density of groups that causes grain to be visible. There are a number of factors that determine how grainy a film can be. It can be affected by the type of film that is being used and the shooting conditions (amount of light etc), and these are combined with the artistic decision of the director and the director of photography. It’s this last point that’s the most important.

Studios have been recently trying to remove grain under the misapprehension that this makes a film look better. It has led to some recent Blu-ray releases being ruined by the excessive use of what is called Digital Noise Reduction (DNR). The first Blu-ray release of Gladiator (2000) is a perfect example of this. In order to achieve the smooth clean look that digital film has, the noise reduction was turned up to eleven. This not only removed the offending grain, but also the texture in an actor’s hair, the pores on their faces, and in some instances the process even deleted flaming arrows. Luckily the film has been re-mastered with a more forgiving DNR applied. This isn’t the first time this has occurred Patton (1970) and the second release of Predator (1987) also suffered at the hands of an over enthusiastic engineer. One easy way to tell if there has been some DNR performed is to look at the actors faces. This visual scrubbing often leaves them looking smooth and plastic like a Gerry Anderson puppet.

It’s obvious that some balance needs to be achieved between making the print look pristine and retain the original look of the film. A Blu-ray release that has received some unfair criticism is Bullitt (1968). It lacks the clearness of other releases (of films produced around the same date) and has quite a fair amount of grain. Unfortunately this has lead people to dismiss the transfer as being below par. However, this look is intentional, and is probably close to how it would have been seen on its initial cinema release. The director, Peter Yates, intended this Steve McQueen film to have a documentary appearance. Right down to using non-actors in some of the scenes, and having McQueen do most of the driving sequences. The grain is then not a mistake but a creative decision.

The problem is the consumer doesn’t understand this and when they see a grainy film on Blu-ray they believe that there is something wrong. However, this isn’t so. What consumers need to realize is that Blu-ray is not about making every film look like it was shot with a digital camera, but is in fact supposed to present the film in the way it would have been seen on its first theatrical performance.

The Quiet Star

Having just watched the BBC’s excellent Hatti, a docu-drama about Hatti Jacques, I was left feeling sorry for her husband John Le Mesurier. It’s an emotion that he probably wouldn’t have appreciated as apparently he always felt that his life had been lovely. This British actor had also featured in another of the BBC’s life stories that dealt with Hancock’s affair with Mesurier’s third wife. In both of those recreations he is relegated to the sidelines, and unfortunately this seems to be a place he occupied in many of his films, and in British film history. Perhaps it’s time that Le Mesurier was given a documentary that focused on him and his work rather than his convoluted love life.

Le Mesurier appeared in approximately 125 films, not including his pivotal role in the acclaimed TV series ‘Dad’s Army’ . He was never really the headliner of any of these films, but every one of them benefits from his presence. In quite a few of them it’s his understated performance that is the only redeeming feature. He effortlessly moved back and forth from the comedy of the Boulting Brothers, like Private’s Progress (1956) and Brothers in law (1957), in which he appeared alongside Boulting regular, Ian Carmichael, to working with Jack Hawkins in serious fare like Gideon’s Day (1958). An odd film in that it’s a claustrophobic British police procedural directed by John Ford, a filmmaker more associated with the wide vista of the western. Le Mesurier has in fact made a least one appearance in pretty much every memorable British film series, whether it be alongside the fearful terrors of St. Trinians in Pure Hell at St. Trinians (1960), chasing the pink cat in The Pink Panther (1963), dealing with the bumbling medical staff in Doctor in Love (1960) and Doctor in Trouble (1970) or raising an eyebrow at the clowning antics of Norman Wisdom in The Bulldog Breed (1960) and The Early Bird (1965).

Le Mesurier would often play the reserved, silent member of the establishment. Be it a bank manager, a civil servant or a clerk, and according to Hatti this typecasting was one that did eat away at him. However, his portrayal of the repressed older generation came into the fore during the late 60s when the younger generation appeared to be rebelling against the attitudes of the war years. Le Mesurier’s characters would observe the chaos from the distance and deliver their lines with a wry smile. It’s easy to dismiss this laid back attitude as limitations of his acting, but to do so would be to misunderstand the craft and art that is involved. Often the best acting is not the loudest or the most visible, but is really the depth that can be found in the quiet moments, and the reactions to what is happening around them. It is often said that the majority of acting is about reacting, and nobody was more a master of that than John Le Mesurier.