Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 63

Thread: Stu Presents, Genre Deconstruction In Film: A Crash Course!

  1. #26
    - - - - -
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    11,530
    Quote Quoting StuSmallz (view post)
    It would be weird to suggest that Sci-Fi was a dying genre everywhere in the 60's, which is why I specified that that was only true "as far as major Hollywood releases went", a premise that you just admitted you partially agree with; what exactly is the issue here?
    My issue is: How many qualifiers does your premise need to hold up? Is that premise any good if it requires you to limit your viewpoint to a very specific year, decade, or medium? I realize this is a movie discussion board (that also curiously includes forums for television, music, and literature) but discussions about film, any film, removed from context and history makes less and less sense to me.

    Other points, in random order:

    - I'm all for a crash course, but why did you elide ~30 years of history? That's the part I choke on, and why I read your initial post as a dismissal. The first movie you mention by name was made in 1951, and from there you very quickly point out that movies from that era feel dated. Not long after, you're leaping to the conclusions about "2001."

    - "Frankenstein" is definitely sci-fi. The story is founded on science, and you couldn't tell the same story without it. Its themes around human bigotry and fear repeat in my recent examples: They're visible in "The Day the Earth Stood Still" (1951) and the Star Trek's "Devil in the Dark" (1967), among others. There's a reason why people have lately taken to calling Shelley the "Mother of Science Fiction," after all. (And here is a pretty good riff on why the novel is not only science fiction, but hard science fiction.)

    - What you ascribe to "Forbidden Planet" can either be attributed to a different narrative style or plain ol' bad writing. Neither is unique to science fiction. For one, awkward exposition dumps are a lasting quality, it seems (cf two very recent examples in "Arrival" and "Annihilation"). But anyway, that there are immediate and obvious counter examples from the same era sorta negates your point about "2001's" narrative juice.

    - The influence of the Cold War is evident in "The Day the Earth Stood Still," "Invasion of the Body Snatchers," and "Thing from Another World," but the way each of them interprets that paranoia is markedly different. I didn't say anything about how one "doesn't deal with Cold War paranoia in its own way."

    - Those "Flash Gordon" serials starred film actors and debuted in theaters. They're essentially shorts, written and edited to fill space in a commercial market. How are they not movies? Does "La Jetee" not qualify because it's 28 minutes long and employs still photography? When Quentin Tarantino took "The Hateful 8," cut it up into 4 pieces, and dropped it on Netflix as a form of mini-series, did it cease to be a movie?

    - "Charly" is also science fiction because it requires a scientific backing to tell its story. Remove that, and the meaning changes.

    ... revealing previously hidden truths about the genre in question, which 2001 achieves by forgoing giving us any clear morals or easy answers about what exactly is going on with its story...
    Ambiguity isn't a virtue, eg: that the Space Baby can't be explained to anyone's satisfaction makes the image less meaningful, not more.

    ...unlike a lot of earlier Sci-Fi, it's completely honest about the fact that space, the future, and the universe as a whole are mysterious places/concepts that we'll never know all the answers to as a species, although none of that should discourage us from exploring all of them to the fullest.
    Oh, sure. It's sorta like "2001" tells us space is the final frontier. That humans have a need --- a mission, if you will -- to seek out new life and new civilizations. That we must boldly go where no one has gone before....

  2. #27
    - - - - -
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    11,530
    Quote Quoting StuSmallz (view post)
    There was no dismissal of old-school Sci-Fi literature in that write-up (it'd be news to me if there was, considering the fact that I grew up reading Asimov, and still love him to this day); again, the write-up was about Science-Fiction as a genre of film, and not as a collective media organism, since we're currently posting on a board for film discussion. Stop trying to invent agendas in my words that were never there.


    ^ Poster for the first "Flash Gordon" serial in 1936.



    ^ Magazine issue where Clarke's "The Sentinel" first appeared in 1951, and later formed the basis for Kubrick's movie.

    My point was: These things are more alike than they are different. How do you write off one without also writing off the other?

  3. #28
    Quote Quoting Irish (view post)
    My issue is: How many qualifiers does your premise need to hold up? Is that premise any good if it requires you to limit your viewpoint to a very specific year, decade, or medium? I realize this is a movie discussion board (that also curiously includes forums for television, music, and literature) but discussions about film, any film, removed from context and history makes less and less sense to me.
    Other points, in random order:

    - I'm all for a crash course, but why did you elide ~30 years of history? That's the part I choke on, and why I read your initial post as a dismissal. The first movie you mention by name was made in 1951, and from there you very quickly point out that movies from that era feel dated. Not long after, you're leaping to the conclusions about "2001."

    - "Frankenstein" is definitely sci-fi. The story is founded on science, and you couldn't tell the same story without it. Its themes around human bigotry and fear repeat in my recent examples: They're visible in "The Day the Earth Stood Still" (1951) and the Star Trek's "Devil in the Dark" (1967), among others. There's a reason why people have lately taken to calling Shelley the "Mother of Science Fiction," after all. (And here is a pretty good riff on why the novel is not only science fiction, but hard science fiction.)

    - What you ascribe to "Forbidden Planet" can either be attributed to a different narrative style or plain ol' bad writing. Neither is unique to science fiction. For one, awkward exposition dumps are a lasting quality, it seems (cf two very recent examples in "Arrival" and "Annihilation"). But anyway, that there are immediate and obvious counter examples from the same era sorta negates your point about "2001's" narrative juice.

    - The influence of the Cold War is evident in "The Day the Earth Stood Still," "Invasion of the Body Snatchers," and "Thing from Another World," but the way each of them interprets that paranoia is markedly different. I didn't say anything about how one "doesn't deal with Cold War paranoia in its own way."

    - Those "Flash Gordon" serials starred film actors and debuted in theaters. They're essentially shorts, written and edited to fill space in a commercial market. How are they not movies? Does "La Jetee" not qualify because it's 28 minutes long and employs still photography? When Quentin Tarantino took "The Hateful 8," cut it up into 4 pieces, and dropped it on Netflix as a form of mini-series, did it cease to be a movie?

    Ambiguity isn't a virtue, eg: that the Space Baby can't be explained to anyone's satisfaction makes the image less meaningful, not more.

    Oh, sure. It's sorta like "2001" tells us space is the final frontier. That humans have a need --- a mission, if you will -- to seek out new life and new civilizations. That we must boldly go where no one has gone before....
    That depends on the larger context that both the qualifiers and the main premise itself are surrounded by; in this case, both of them are legitimate, because this project focuses on singlular case studies of genre deconstructions in film, which only needs the relevant historical background of the specific films/aspects of the genre that the case study is deconstructing, and attempting to write a more all-encompassing history of Sci-Fi (or any other genre) here would only serve to render these write-ups as unnecessarily bloated, and would distract from the main goal of the project. It's the reason why I "elided" the handful of Sci-Fi films that existed before the 50's (which is a question you already answered yourself in that post anyway, by acknowledging that this is "a crash course"), because those were the films that defined the genre at that time, and why I focused on the dated aspects of them, even though there are 50's Sci-Fi films that I personally enjoy, because that's what Kubrick was primarily deconstructing with 2001 (as opposed to something like Metropolis).

    I respect that you feel Frankenstein and Charly are Sci-Fi, but what genre(s) any movie falls into is always a subjective matter, and I don't feel that either of them are predominantly Sci-Fi films on the whole, so I couldn't include them in the historical background section (it's like how I feel Face/Off is predominantly an Action movie, even though it contains certain elements that are undeniably Sci-Fi).

    Awkward/unnecessary exposition isn't a flaw that's exclusive to Sci-Fi (and I never said it was), but it's one that is particularly detrimental to that particular genre, since it tends to benefit from inspiring a sense of wonder within us inone way or another, and over-explaining things saps that quality. And, if Invasion Of The Body Snatchers is one of your counter-examples of a 50's Sci-Fi that wasn't burdened with exposition, than it's one that just serves to prove my point, as, while a short film, literally half of it (at least half) consists of nothing but people speculating, researching, or expositing information through dialogue (sometimes redundantly so), unraveling the mystery of what's going on in Santa Mira to us detail-by-detail, and it's impossible for me to name any recent Sci-Fi, Arrival, Annhilation, or otherwise, that held my hand anywhere near as much as Body Snatchers did. And all of that's without me even factoring in the overbearing musical cues, the introductory framing device, and the periodic, super-unnecessary voice-overs from Dr. Bennell, all of which have the cinematic effect of grabbing our feet (in addition to our hands) and dragging us through the film, which was otherwise pretty good (although obviously, it would've been better if those aspects had been toned down).

    But regardless of what form that paranoia pops up in those films, it's still there, which is another way that 2001 distinguished itself from those films, since the echo of Cold War tensions is an aspect that Kubrick specifically choose to deemphasize in the final film.

    No, because The Hateful Eight was still originally produced as a feature film, regardless of how the ADD-aiding execs at Netflix have it chopped up (and as opposed to the Flash Gordon serials, whose relevant influence on the genre I already acknowledged in my original write-up anyway, and again, I hold zero "disdain" for them personally).

    Star Trek isn't comparable to 2001 in its portrayal of space exploration, because there's very little mystery, if any at all, in the average episode of that show (and certainly not in "The Devil In The Dark"), and whether or not the ambiguity of 2001 benefits it is another matter of personal opinion; I happen to feel that it does, and if you browse the opinions of other fans of the film, you'll find that a lot of them feel the same way.
    Last edited by StuSmallz; 12-03-2020 at 07:00 AM.

  4. #29
    Since 1929 Morris Schæffer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    11,030
    Looks like you opened something up Stu. Hang in there!
    [+] closer to next rating / [-] closer to previous rating

    • Dark (S3) ✦✦✦½ [-]
    • Fall (Mann, 2022) ✦✦✦½ [-]
    • Ms. Marvel (S1) ✦½ [+]
    • Dark (S2) ✦✦✦✦
    • Moon Knight (S1) ✦✦½ [-]
    • Get Carter (Hodges, 1971) ✦✦✦½ [+]
    • Prey (Trachtenberg, 2022) ✦✦✦ [-]
    • Black Bird (S1) ✦✦✦✦
    • Better Call Saul (S6) ✦✦✦½ [+]
    • Halo (S1) ✦✦✦ [-]
    • Slow Horses (S1) ✦✦✦½ [+]
    • H4Z4RD (Govaerts, 2022/BE) ✦✦½ [-]
    • Gangs of London (S1) ✦✦✦½ [+]
    • We Own This City (S1) ✦✦✦½ [+]
    • Thor: Love and Thunder (Waititi, 2022) ✦✦ [+]


  5. #30
    Quote Quoting Morris Schæffer (view post)
    Looks like you opened something up Stu. Hang in there!
    Thanks! And yeah, me and my projects are like a mother bear with her cubs; don't mess with my babies, people!
    Last edited by StuSmallz; 12-03-2020 at 09:24 AM.

  6. #31
    Also, another common aspect of 50's Sci-Fi that 2001 subverted (that I didn't have space to mention in my original write-up) is how they tended to go out of their way to explicitly reaffirm familiar, traditional notions of religious faith, which you can see in the paraphrased quotes below...

    The Day The Earth Stood Still: [
    ]

    War Of The Worlds: [
    ]

    ​Forbidden Planet: [
    ]

    ...as if they were afraid they would scare their audiences on some level with the futuristic settings/technology they depicted, and wanted to say "Hey! We may be aliens/living in the future, but we still believe in God the same as you, okay?", which is a stark contrast to the way that 2001 not only never mentions the concepts of God or faith, but also basically elevates some sort of mysterious alien intelligence to being on the same level as God (right down to being invisible), before basically doing the exact same thing to man himself at the end, wouldn't you say?
    Last edited by StuSmallz; 01-13-2021 at 07:35 AM.

  7. #32
    collecting tapes Skitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Neo-Ohio
    Posts
    16,583
    Good point.

  8. #33
    Director bac0n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Monster Island
    Posts
    6,501
    Good point indeed. Forbidden Planet seemed to go out of its way to reassert judeo-christian dogma. I'm surprised Dr. Morbius didn't celebrate the Eucharist after he introduced his daughter.

    One of my favorites of the sci-fi genre, altho it lands in the late 70s, is Black Hole, which had a huge throwback vibe to it. It also is heavy in the religious assertions, I'm sure as an homage to its 50s sci-fi forebears, and quite possibly as a counterpoint to 2001.
    Losing is like fertilizer: it stinks for a while, then you get used to it. (Tony, Hibbing)

  9. #34
    Since 1929 Morris Schæffer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    11,030
    Black hole is not without cheesiness, but neither is it devoid of Majestic sights. MVP is John Barry. What a score.
    [+] closer to next rating / [-] closer to previous rating

    • Dark (S3) ✦✦✦½ [-]
    • Fall (Mann, 2022) ✦✦✦½ [-]
    • Ms. Marvel (S1) ✦½ [+]
    • Dark (S2) ✦✦✦✦
    • Moon Knight (S1) ✦✦½ [-]
    • Get Carter (Hodges, 1971) ✦✦✦½ [+]
    • Prey (Trachtenberg, 2022) ✦✦✦ [-]
    • Black Bird (S1) ✦✦✦✦
    • Better Call Saul (S6) ✦✦✦½ [+]
    • Halo (S1) ✦✦✦ [-]
    • Slow Horses (S1) ✦✦✦½ [+]
    • H4Z4RD (Govaerts, 2022/BE) ✦✦½ [-]
    • Gangs of London (S1) ✦✦✦½ [+]
    • We Own This City (S1) ✦✦✦½ [+]
    • Thor: Love and Thunder (Waititi, 2022) ✦✦ [+]


  10. #35
    Quote Quoting StuSmallz (view post)
    Also, another common aspect of 50's Sci-Fi that 2001 subverted (that I didn't have space to mention in my original write-up) is how they tended to go out of their way to explicitly reaffirm familiar, traditional notions of religious faith, which you can see in the paraphrased quotes below...

    []

    ...as if they were afraid they would scare their audiences on some level with the futuristic settings/technology they depicted, and wanted to say "Hey! We may be aliens/living in the future, but we still believe in God the same as you, okay?", which is a stark contrast to the way that 2001 not only never mentions the concepts of God or faith, but also basically elevates some sort of mysterious alien intelligence to being on the same level as God (right down to being invisible), before basically doing the exact same thing to man himself at the end, wouldn't you say?
    I guess the question I have is: What counts as "subversion"? After all, even a highly conventional genre film will be marginally different from other similar films, and highly original films like Kubrick's will still obey more conventions than they revise or reject: e.g., 2001 largely, if not entirely, obeys norms of continuity editing.

    Moreover, in revising or rejecting one set of norms, filmmakers often draw upon other sets of norms which supply their own conventions. Probably the most important difference between 2001 and earlier Hollywood science fiction movies is its combination certain generic staples of science fiction (space travel, artificial intelligence, aliens) with the narrative conventions of postwar European art cinema (episodic plotting, narrative ellipses, thematic ambiguity). To use the terms of the Russian formalists, the art movie conventions are the film's dominant, subordinating and deforming the conventions of Hollywood science fiction movies. In other words, it seems to me that the film's originality results more from its dynamic synthesis of multiple diverse traditions rather than its having a straightforwardly antagonistic relationship with any single tradition. Indeed, merely "subverting" genre conventions (i.e., not doing the expected thing for the sake of not doing what's expected) requires no more originality or artistry than blindly obeying them.
    Last edited by baby doll; 12-25-2020 at 12:27 AM.
    Just because...
    The Fabelmans (Steven Spielberg, 2022) mild
    Petite maman (Céline Sciamma, 2021) mild
    The Banshees of Inisherin (Martin McDonagh, 2022) mild

    The last book I read was...
    The Complete Short Stories by Mark Twain


    The (New) World

  11. #36
    Director bac0n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Monster Island
    Posts
    6,501
    Quote Quoting Morris Schæffer (view post)
    Black hole is not without cheesiness, but neither is it devoid of Majestic sights. MVP is John Barry. What a score.
    No shit, man. Pure brilliance. I just love how he plays on the dread and pure helplessness in the face of such an impossible force as is the black hole.

    And Robert Forster - a rare genre example of a rational, charismatic, resolute space captain, who does everything right.

    I love this movie.
    Losing is like fertilizer: it stinks for a while, then you get used to it. (Tony, Hibbing)

  12. #37
    collecting tapes Skitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Neo-Ohio
    Posts
    16,583
    I adore The Black Hole. Any mention of it in any capacity and that score immediately starts screaming through my head. As a kid I didnt realize it was Disneys rush answer to Star Wars, to me it was just another sci-fi movie. It's on my list of grails that the second it hits bluray it's a preorder. The only way to get it mildly HD is purchase digital like Vudu.

    Also that ending is FUCKED up, and I love it.

  13. #38
    Since 1929 Morris Schæffer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    11,030
    Quote Quoting Skitch (view post)
    I adore The Black Hole. Any mention of it in any capacity and that score immediately starts screaming through my head. As a kid I didnt realize it was Disneys rush answer to Star Wars, to me it was just another sci-fi movie. It's on my list of grails that the second it hits bluray it's a preorder. The only way to get it mildly HD is purchase digital like Vudu.

    Also that ending is FUCKED up, and I love it.
    It is on Blu-ray since circa August 2019:

    https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-B.../43569/#Review

    But it's Disney so not super easy to come by and not cheap when you do. Video Quality ain't tops but bests dvd obviously.
    [+] closer to next rating / [-] closer to previous rating

    • Dark (S3) ✦✦✦½ [-]
    • Fall (Mann, 2022) ✦✦✦½ [-]
    • Ms. Marvel (S1) ✦½ [+]
    • Dark (S2) ✦✦✦✦
    • Moon Knight (S1) ✦✦½ [-]
    • Get Carter (Hodges, 1971) ✦✦✦½ [+]
    • Prey (Trachtenberg, 2022) ✦✦✦ [-]
    • Black Bird (S1) ✦✦✦✦
    • Better Call Saul (S6) ✦✦✦½ [+]
    • Halo (S1) ✦✦✦ [-]
    • Slow Horses (S1) ✦✦✦½ [+]
    • H4Z4RD (Govaerts, 2022/BE) ✦✦½ [-]
    • Gangs of London (S1) ✦✦✦½ [+]
    • We Own This City (S1) ✦✦✦½ [+]
    • Thor: Love and Thunder (Waititi, 2022) ✦✦ [+]


  14. #39
    collecting tapes Skitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Neo-Ohio
    Posts
    16,583
    Quote Quoting Morris Schæffer (view post)
    It is on Blu-ray since circa August 2019:

    https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-B.../43569/#Review

    But it's Disney so not super easy to come by and not cheap when you do. Video Quality ain't tops but bests dvd obviously.
    what the hell

  15. #40
    The Pan megladon8's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    29,050
    I bought the DVD earlier this year as I couldn't find the bluray for a price I was willing to pay.

    DVD was just fine.
    "All right, that's too hot. Anything we can do about that heat?"

    "Rick...it's a flamethrower."

  16. #41
    Fine, I guess I will be the voice of reason: The Black Hole is really bad.

    You're welcome. Merry Christmas!

    Last 10 Movies Seen
    (90+ = canonical, 80-89 = brilliant, 70-79 = strongly recommended, 60-69 = good, 50-59 = mixed, 40-49 = below average with some good points, 30-39 = poor, 20-29 = bad, 10-19 = terrible, 0-9 = soul-crushingly inept in every way)

    Run
    (2020) 64
    The Whistlers
    (2019
    ) 55
    Pawn (2020) 62
    Matilda (1996) 37
    The Town that Dreaded Sundown
    (1976) 61
    Moby Dick (2011) 50

    Soul
    (2020) 64

    Heroic Duo
    (2003) 55
    A Moment of Romance (1990) 61
    As Tears Go By (1988) 65

    Stuff at Letterboxd
    Listening Habits at LastFM

  17. #42
    Producer Yxklyx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    3,156
    Quote Quoting transmogrifier (view post)
    Fine, I guess I will be the voice of reason: The Black Hole is really bad.

    You're welcome. Merry Christmas!

    Schell overacting again? This thread has piqued my interest a little.

  18. #43
    Director bac0n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Monster Island
    Posts
    6,501
    Hahaha of course. He chews up scenery like Mothra eating drapes.
    Losing is like fertilizer: it stinks for a while, then you get used to it. (Tony, Hibbing)

  19. #44
    Quote Quoting baby doll (view post)
    Moreover, in revising or rejecting one set of norms, filmmakers often draw upon other sets of norms which supply their own conventions. Probably the most important difference between 2001 and earlier Hollywood science fiction movies is its combination certain generic staples of science fiction (space travel, artificial intelligence, aliens) with the narrative conventions of postwar European art cinema (episodic plotting, narrative ellipses, thematic ambiguity). To use the terms of the Russian formalists, the art movie conventions are the film's dominant, subordinating and deforming the conventions of Hollywood science fiction movies. In other words, it seems to me that the film's originality results more from its dynamic synthesis of multiple diverse traditions rather than its having a straightforwardly antagonistic relationship with any single tradition. Indeed, merely "subverting" genre conventions (i.e., not doing the expected thing for the sake of not doing what's expected) requires no more originality or artistry than blindly obeying them.
    It doesn't need to be an either/or dilemma though, as there's reason to believe that Kubrick was both inspired by the stylistic tendencies of the arthouse scene in its own right, while also seeking to direct that inspiration in part to deconstruct traditional Hollywood Sci-Fi at the same time. At any rate, you're right that blind subversion of typical genre elements needs no more effort than just repeating them, but that's not what Kubrick was doing with 2001 (IMO), and I'd also say that, in general, it tends to be harder to successfully uproot the typical "rules" of a genre than to follow them, even when you're talking about a good "genre film". For example, if you were to take 2001's particular approach to its plot, and attempted to reverse-engineer it so that it fit in line with the more hand-holdy Sci-Fi that Hollywood tended to put out beforehand, the alternative is so obvious that it practically writes itself; just keep everything else exactly the same, right down to the

    [
    ]
    Last edited by StuSmallz; 02-11-2021 at 05:44 AM.

  20. #45
    Chinatown (1974)



    Genre: Noir

    Historical Background: Despite a number of spiritual predecessors having been released in previous decades, what we now know as classical-era Noir truly began peaking in the 1940’s, as filmmakers worldwide synthesized the cinematic influence of German Expressionism with the lurid content of vintage pulp literature, churning out tales driven by seedy crimes, casually cynical moods, and black-and-white cinematography drenched in shadows as dark as the souls of the films themselves. And, while the genre’s classic era is generally considered to have ended with the 50’s, its rich legacy lived on in the Neo period afterward, particularly in Hollywood during the 70’s, as a number of significant productions brought renewed attention to the genre, by both tributing the films of the genre's heyday, while also updating it for the cinematic sensibilities of the time, which leads us to the film in question here.

    How Chinatown Deconstructed It: By maintaining an essentially perfect balance between subverting the elements that defined classical Noir, while also serving as a genuinely affectionate love letter to the genre at the same time, through the multi-layered central mystery, courtesy of Robert Towne’s brilliant, clockwork-precise screenplay, an obvious call-back to the relatively Byzantine plots of many old-school Noirs. But, instead of just being surface-level busywork (ala The Long Goodbye), Chinatown’s intricate, conspiratorial plot is just as compelling and well-written as the best Classical Noirs, never becoming convoluted or confusing just for the sake of being so, but rather, slowly, steadily unravelling its mystery step by tantalizing step, maintaining a very well-justified confidence in its storytelling all the way until the (very) bitter end.

    However, as far as its characters go, Chinatown takes the two most iconic archetypes of Classical Noir and seems to establish textbook examples of both with its male & female leads, before turning both of them completely and utterly around on their heads by the end. With Evelyn Mulwray, the combination of her initially cold demeanor and our genre expectations cleverly manipulate us into assuming that’s just another iteration of the treacherous, deceitful femme fatale at first, but a number of shocking story turns reveal that not only is she entirely innocent of the wrongdoing she’s suspected of, rendering her a highly sympathetic figure in the process, but also makes her the biggest victim in the entire film to boot, taking an extremely familiar stock character and breathing all-new life into her, as she slowly forms a romance that's unusually affectionate and genuine by the typical standards of the genre, although it ultimately proves to be a doomed one in the end.

    And with Jake Gittes, we get a protagonist who first appears to be a vintage hard-boiled private eye, the wisecracking type who never truly loses his cool no matter how much hot water he’s in, before utterly putting him through an emotional wringer, often humiliating him in various manners along the way, the kind we never saw done to Bogart back in the day, whether it be him excitedly telling a dirty, racist (and not particularly funny) joke while he's ignorant of the presence of a female client behind him, having the antagonist repeatedly mispronounce his last name, or getting his nose sliced up by a petty, two-bit hood at one point, forcing him to to wear a comically over-sized bandage as a result. Besides that, the detail of him specializing in petty adultery investigations is an early hint that he's in way over his head trying to uncover Noah Cross's scheme, as, even though he does eventually unravel that central conspiracy that drives Chinatown’s story (after getting fooled multiple times, and making a number of false assumptions along the way), he’s ultimately completely powerless to either stop it or to save Evelyn, with his hard-boiled exterior finally cracking for good at the end.

    Finally, Chinatown updates Film Noir by utilizing a contemporary cast and crew of New Hollywood-era icons (along with the nice homage of casting one of the directors that popularized the genre in the first place), by dragging the genre out of the high-contrast, black-and-white shadows of old and into the harsh light of modern color film (despite the film’s 30’s period setting), and by shaking off the shackles of the Hays Code, which kept Classical Noirs from ever getting too lurid with their content, either by forbidding even just the mention of such acts as incest (which Chinatown very much does), or by preventing the bad guys from ever truly “getting away with it”, preserving the naive overall message Classical Hollywood sent that, no matter what, you could always count on the baddies getting some sort of comeuppance in the end. Not so much with Chinatown; here, even though Jake has finally figured out the incestuous billionaire’s greedy scheme, it’s all for naught, as he holds the local police in his massive pockets, leaving Jake completely helpless to either put a stop to the resource-hoarding conspiracy, or even just to save the life of the woman he loves, a Watergate-era message that holds even greater resonance in a post-Trump America, as all an emotionally-devastated Jake can do at the end is walk away, to the haunting trumpet of one of Neo-Noir’s greatest works.
    Last edited by StuSmallz; 11-10-2022 at 06:20 AM.

  21. #46
    Die Hard
    (McTiernan, '88)




    Genre: Action


    Background: While physical action has been an element of cinema all the way back to the silent era, whether you’re talking about certain daredevil comedians of the time, or such trigger-happy genres as War films or “yippee-ki-yay” Westerns (see what I did there?), I still agree with Tom Breihan that the Action film didn’t really become a genre of its own until the 1960’s, when films like The Dirty Dozen, Bullitt, & The Wild Bunch provided the kind of over-the-top, intense stuntwork that helped to firmly establish the style. From there, the genre added a layer of urban grit throughout the 70’s, before the 80’s took it to brand-new heights of overkill (literally), perfect for the decade of excess, with their abundance of ‘roided-out biceps, gratuitous, machine gun-driven carnage, and unstoppable one man (or woman) armies. However, while the 80’s Action movie was basically a genre unto itself, and that era as a whole has proved to be the style’s golden age in retrospect, it still needed to be brought back down to Earth eventually, so it’s only fitting that, as the end of that decade approached, we would receive a movie that did just that, in the form of Die Hard, a movie that would basically redefine the genre as we knew it.

    You see, while director John McTiernan had his big breakthrough the previous year with fellow Action classic Predator, a movie that already engaged in a certain amount of genre deconstruction itself, with a bit of a critique of American imperialism in Central America, and a certain famous scene of “impotent” gunfire destroying the jungle (and absolutely nothing else, as you can see here), the first act of that film still engaged in the sort of one-liner spewing, balls (and knives) to the wall Arnie action that arguably made him the most iconic Action star all time, and, even though Schwarzenegger finally faces a physical challenge with the arrival of the titular creature later, he still manages to defeat it single-handedly after the Predator had already wiped out the squad of badasses that Arnold began the film with, which, in a manner, made him seem look like even more of an unstoppable force onscreen than he was already, if that's possible.


    How Die Hard Deconstructed It: Not so much with Die Hard, which goes all-in with its deconstruction of the 80’s Action film, whether it be contrasting its main character with Rambo, having one character mock another’s comparison of the situation to the Vietnam War, or by name-dropping the aforementioned Schwarzenegger as well, which is ironic, since him and Stallone were both originally approached to star, which almost certainly would’ve resulted in a much more typical final product (like Rambo III or Red Heat, which both disappointed at the box office this same year).

    Thankfully, Die Hard ended up not being anything but a typical 80’s actioner, right from the ground floor (no pun intended) with its setting, which is a single skyscraper over the course of one night, a decision that not only adds a ton of claustrophobia and tension inbetween the literally explosive action, but showed a creative discipline on the part of the filmmakers, and functions as the first hint that this film is looking to strip away the excesses that the genre had accumulated over the course of the 80’s. And, while Die Hard isn’t the first significant single-location Action film (hello, Assault On Precinct 13), it still popularized the concept more than any other film, to the point that “Die Hard On A X” is its own TV Tropes page, and without McTiernan’s film, we almost certainly wouldn’t have The Rocks, Air Force Ones, or the Speeds of the world to enjoy (I also like the fact that there are so many copycats of this film now, some critics have absent-mindedly described a few of them as being “Die Hard in a skyscraper”; ha!)

    Besides that, Die Hard further deconstructs the genre with its main character, portrayed in a career-defining role by Bruce Willis, who, believe it or not, was actually a highly unlikely choice at the time, despite his current status as an Action star (which is the most due to this film, heh), since he was only known as a comedic TV actor then, due to his role on Moonlighting, and his gig as a spokesman for Seagram’s Wine Coolers (I kid you not). In fact, the latter job actually netted the rising star a bigger payday than he received for Die Hard itself, and would explain the reports of audiences literally laughing when they saw him in the first trailers for the film, a response that actually lead Fox’s marketing department to de-emphasize his role in subsequent promotional material.

    However, while the film's pre-release hype suffered from its lack of an established Action star (and the actor who played “Karl” would’ve made for a much more archetypal action star), I don’t think anyone can picture Die Hard without Willis playing John McClane, as his nervous, smart-alec persona makes him perfect to play the schlub-y, blue-collar, fish-out-of-water everyman, the one who becomes an action hero not by casually volunteering for a suicide mission in a non-descript jungle somewhere in the developing world, but by accidentally ending up in the right place at the right time (although I’m sure he would argue the opposite), as he's visiting his wife’s officeplace Christmas party in the middle of Los Angeles while a team of heavily-armed mercenaries are coincidentally taking over the building at the same time, threatening the lives of everyone inside in the process, and forcing him into action.


    To Be Continued...
    Last edited by StuSmallz; 06-18-2022 at 04:26 AM.

  22. #47
    Die Hard, Part 2

    But even then, John doesn’t try to take matters entirely into his own hands, as he tries to pawn his task off on the local authorities multiple times, just like any normal human being would do in his place, before the realization that the LAPD isn’t up to it forces him to rise to the occasion, and he only does so out of great reluctance anyway, because he literally has no other choice in order to survive. And of course, doing so isn’t easy, not by a long shot, as he gets shot, beaten to a dirty, bloody pulp, and has his feet cut to absolute shreds by shards of glass, due to him losing his shoes while trying a ritual a fellow plane passenger suggested to him due to his fear of flying (ironic, considering that he mocked another character for giving "a shit" about broken glass earlier; turnabout is fair play, baby!).

    Of course, all of this remains believable because of Willis’s comparatively scrawny physique (which is featured prominently in the film through his increasingly filthy tanktop), and not only is John physically vulnerable throughout, but emotionally as well, as, even without comparing him to other action icons of the time, he still seems like an extremely authentic, unsure human being, one with genuinely relatable personal problems, especially with his marriage, as he unnecessarily starts an argument with his estranged wife for reverting back to her maiden name, before he beats himself up for doing so (verbally beats up, that is; the physical beatings won't start until later). He’s a guy who’s “good at his job, but bad at his life”, and an action hero who isn't really trying to be a hero, in other words.

    Of course, his multiple near-death experiences over the course of the night lead him to reflect on how much he doesn’t want to lose Holly, she being “the best thing that ever happened” to him, making his mission not just one to save her physically, but their entire relationship, which makes for a stark contrast to the moment in First Blood Part II where Rambo abruptly falls in love with an unnecessary love interest, takes about a minute to mourn her death when she suddenly (but inevitably, of course) gets gunned down, and lays total waste to an entire camp’s worth of enemy soldiers in retaliation.

    Besides that, John’s background as an off-duty police officer make his eventual antics in the film more plausible, and, even though it may or may not be totally believable for a 1988 beat cop to smoothly handle a sub-machine gun as McClane does, it’s still more believable than Ripley suddenly turning into “Rambolina” after 5 minutes of dry-fire training with a pulse rifle in the otherwise excellent Aliens. Of course, that isn’t to imply that McClane displays absolutely no 80’s Action-isms here, as he finds time to pop off plenty of badass one-liners, but most of them are either feel like a psychological smoke screen put up for the benefit of an in-film audience ("Yippie-kay yay, motherfucker") or a coping mechanism for John to deal with the tremendous stress of the situation ("Welcome to the party, pal!"), and even his climatic one (“Happy trails, Hans”) is still undercut by his premature celebration of what would’ve been the main baddie’s coup-de-grace in most other Action movies, which, of course, proves to not be the case here.

    Finally, Die Hard deconstructs the Action movie through the action itself, which I feel achieves pretty much the perfect balance between providing the excitement we demand from the genre, while also remaining believable enough to maintain a solid grounding in the real world, as none of the crazy stuff John does in the movie feels like it was put in because the filmmakers thought it would "look cool", but because he genuinely had no other option in that scenario; he had to climb his way down the ventilation shaft because that was the only way he could escape, he had to throw the C4 down the elevator shaft because that was the only thing he could do to stop Gruber's men from blowing up the SWAT vehicle, and he had to do the improvised bungee jump because that was the only way he could get away from the FBI chopper gunning for him, as well as the roof that was fixing to blow (and even then, he's plead-praying to God not to let him die, genuinely fearing for his life like, y'know, someone from the real world would).

    Besides that, John also only takes on about a dozen baddies throughout the course of the entire film, which is about half the number of guys the typical 80’s action hero would’ve gunned down with ease in a single shootout (and that’s not even considering the fact that he never takes out Theo the technician, and he only knocks out another guy towards the end because he’s honest-to-God running low on ammo!). But, this reduction in forces allows the crack team of mercenaries (or "common thieves", if you ask Holly) more breathing room to develop and showcase their own individual identities and personalities, and keeps them from devolving into just another wave of faceless baddies, and, even facing these relatively paltry numbers, John still spends much of the film on the defense, frantically improvising solutions throughout, retreating as though their automatic weapons actually have a chance of hitting him (that was sarcasm, for the record).

    And, while it’s this realism that the series lost touch with as it became increasingly bloated with new entries, more and more resembling the kind of Action film that Die Hard was reacting against in the first place (as you can see here), the original still helped bring the genre back down to Earth again, creating a market for future everyman Action stars with the Keanus and Nic Cages of the world, setting a new(-ish) template for imitators to follow, and still towers like Nakatomi Plaza over the genre to this day; yippie-kay-yay motherf uckers! Oh, and “paper or plastic, you sonofa-“

    Last edited by StuSmallz; 06-17-2022 at 08:44 AM.

  23. #48
    collecting tapes Skitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Neo-Ohio
    Posts
    16,583
    Good write up

  24. #49
    Quote Quoting Skitch (view post)
    Good write up
    Thanks, Skitch! I didn't realize how much DH deconstructed 80's Action movies until I really studied it, but, considering how good a job McTiernan and company did with the film otherwise (like smartly changing the politically-motivated terrorists from the book into "common thieves" in order to lighten the mood), I like to think that, once leading men like Schwarzenegger & Stallone were out of the running to play McClane, and Willis was in, they really leaned into the deconstructionist elements as a result, since his natural screen presence was so different from the typical "man of action" at the time, you know?

  25. #50
    collecting tapes Skitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Neo-Ohio
    Posts
    16,583
    Spot on, I agree. I think it's why it (hur) blew up.

    I dont know if I'd call it a deconstruction, but there is also the mention of Vietnam, a common action movie theme at the time.

    Just like fuckin Saigon!
    I was in junior high, dickhead

    Do you have any idea how many direct to video gung ho Merica vietnam movies from 80s I've found since I started collecting VHS? Its crazy
    Last edited by Skitch; 03-18-2021 at 02:43 AM.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
An forum