Scribd
Upload
16 views2 pages

Journey 3

The document critiques the superficial analysis of action films, highlighting the need for a more nuanced understanding of their distinct editing styles and techniques. It emphasizes that each film employs unique configurations that warrant individualized study, rather than relying on broad clichés. An example is provided through a detailed examination of a specific scene in a film, illustrating the complexity of visual storytelling and character perspective.

Uploaded by

Debanjan Bandyopadhyay
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
16 views2 pages

Journey 3

The document critiques the superficial analysis of action films, highlighting the need for a more nuanced understanding of their distinct editing styles and techniques. It emphasizes that each film employs unique configurations that warrant individualized study, rather than relying on broad clichés. An example is provided through a detailed examination of a specific scene in a film, illustrating the complexity of visual storytelling and character perspective.

Uploaded by

Debanjan Bandyopadhyay
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Deconstructing the clichés

In general, action films have been subject to a laxer


criticism that has taken little time to analyse the set
piece as a basic structure of the grammar of a film. This
has something to do with the categorisation of minor
genre assumed almost unconsciously and automatically
(which of course doesn’t silence interesting voices
in the field, such is Diego Salado’s), which results not
only in the practical exclusion of this analytical corpus
from publications with a cinephile target readership,
but also in the propagation of the clichés used to dismiss
the question as swiftly as possible.1 For example,
the expression video clip montage is often used in reference
to many titles and directors, but obviously this
can’t -or shouldn’t beused
without distinction
to refer to the flashy,
epileptic edition of Man
on Fire (Tony Scott,
2004) and the thunderous
hyper-visibility of
Transformers: Revenge
of the Fallen (Michael
Bay, 2009). Nor could it
be used to equate the immersive
experience offered
by Paul Greengrass’
jittery, rapid-fire montage
in The Bourne Supremacy
(2004), with that
provided by M. Night
Shyamalan’s unstable
sequence shot in The
Last Airbender (2009).
Each of these techniques
each has a distinct configuration and materiality, was
devised within a different set of parameters and requires
a differentiated study adapted to its own particular
characteristics. To this end, in the following sections I
posit two contrapositions, with the intention of offering
examples of the idiosyncrasies of the action piece
and exploring its functionality in view of the aforementioned
factors.

VANISHING POINTS
114 L’ ATALANTE JULY-DECEMBER 2011 (2013 reedition)
many big cities. It’s fascinating architecture: it seems
driven by a desire to exude clarity with its lines, yet at
the same time it difficulties hard to read” (WIGLEY,
2009: 47). It would be quite reasonable to attribute this
idea to the aforementioned sequence in the famous
New York museum, which is a highly complex exercise
in planning, visual structuring and editing which
results in a set piece that is shrewd in its execution,
and violent and dirty in its mood. The passage starts
with a demarcation, in a single crane-shot, of the space
and boundaries within which the action will take place,
upon the entrance of the main character, Lou Salinger
(Clive Owen). He is accompanied by other agents who,
together with Salinger, are searching for a possible keywitness
to uncover a plot involving corruption on a global
scale. Salinger enters the lobby and keeps walking
while raising his gaze to examine the interior of the
building, a movement that is followed by the camera
and that establishes the context with visual economy.
A few shots later, and before the shoot-out starts, we
witness an example of a skilful use of space and of the
possibilities of the setting. In the scene, Salinger and
one of his companions are hiding behind one of the
walls spying at their target, who is sitting on a bench
next to the consultant from the international bank that
they are investigating. When the latter leaves, the potential
witness, played by Bryan F. O’Byrne, stands up,
redirects his gaze as he walks and stops to stare thoughtfully
at the enormous hanging crystals in the centre of
the building. It is a shot that adopts his point of view
and allows us to see Salinger’s and his companion’s reflections,
and in the reverse shots we can see that they
realise they have been discovered. This set of shots
maximises the perspective of each character
and establishes a sense of ubiquity
for the spectator that is maintained
throughout this sequence: the audience
may be disturbed by the fast pace and
the sordid nature of the events, but it
will always be from inside the images of
the scene, immersed in a geographical
logic that will prevent them from losing
track of what is happening. The same
occurs once the spectators are plunged
into the heat of the action, where the
keys of visual perspective prove to be
vital. At one moment, we see a confrontation
in the setting described above,
but with the positions reversed: Salinger
remains hidden in the background
behind a corner of the wall, while now
in the place he was spying before is one
of the mercenaries who have burst into
the museum, shooting at him. In the
exchange of gunfire and of camera shots, the field of
vision of each character remains clear, information
possessed by both the spectator and the characters
themselves. However, this changes in the next shot: a
high angle shot shows Salinger crouching down in his
trench-corner and also reveals the lower floor of the Guggenheim,
where we can see the advancing positions
of the other two armed men. In this moment, the spectator
is privileged with information that is unknown
to the impromptu hero of the movie, a strategy that
is repeated almost immediately, when Salinger catches
sight of the (presumably) dead hand of the witness holding
a gun and decides to move forward to reach it. But
first, he turns around to offer a calming gesture to one
of a museum visitor in a state of panic. The spectator’s
privilege of information over the character is repeated
when we see, in the background, a figure crossing from
one side to another to hide in a different corner without
Salinger noticing. Immediately thereafter, we see our
hero leaving his shelter and running for the gun, dodging
the enemy fire on his way.

You might also like