Have Directors Forgotten how to Film Action?

[Parasondox]

Good morning to everyone at the Escapist

Now one of my favourite YouTuber made a very good thought video about how directors approach action scenes in movies. Pointing out pros and cons and some of the problems there are today when it comes to filming action and looked at all sides to the discussion.


Video source is from Chris Stuckmann via YouTube.

Now, as a person who is interested in film making and the whole creative side of the film industry, I do see his point. Sometimes when it comes to a big budget movie, eg, Transformers, Taken etc, the action scenes often seems a bit confusing at times, out of control and hard to even follow on whos who. Close shots, shaky cam, cut after first punch, cut after another and another cut to really create some sort of effect rather than a wide shot and a full fight scene sequence like you would see in the Matrix, or even recently The Raid. Certain films lately, we are seeing that too many times.

Side Note: I really hope the American version of The Raid, does not do shaky cam, cut after cut and a very strange close shot action. I hope they adapt more of a wide take and in tune fight sequence like the original. But I don't know what they will plan because this is just my opinion.

So really what do you think? I would've added more in but I think the video actually explains a lot of it and I don't want to repeat everything.

 

[Zontar]

I'd have to say that even though overall they have forgotten, there are plenty of examples of it done right. Dredd, Pacific Rim and The Avengers come to mind. Something to remember though is that a lot of the things that are used (namely shaky cam) are not used because they add anything but to justify the cost of developing it (it's the same reason why there are so many movies that use lens flare when it has never been used well).

 

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

I suspect lighter film rigs and modern movie styles are partly to blame. decades ago those film cameras were pretty expensive lead monsters which required hefty systems to just move them about during shot. This not meant that 'in the action' shots were harder to do but any sort of shudder was a sign of poor operators and low budget films. Even with advances like the Steadycam harness the ideal of a smooth film was the overriding mark of quality.

Nowadays with the rise in popularity of 'found' films and pusdo-documentaries combined with a desire for gritty immersive action has resulted in directors going for lighter rigs and 'following the trend.'

I suspect there is much modern film-makers could learn form the adage of 'just because you can do it doesn't mean you should.'

Yes you can use a lightweight handheld to get the audience right into it and shake it in order to improve immersion, but that doesn't mean you should do it for every fight.

 

[BeeGeenie]

Shaky cam can make some people physically ill, not to mention that you can't even tell what's going on. Causing nausea in your audience is not something directors should strive for.

That said, they don't do it because they've forgotten how to shoot a decent action scene. They do it because they're too cheap and lazy to shoot a decent action scene.
After all, why hire professional martial arts trainers and choreographers, when you can just tell the star to " Just flail around for a few seconds while I do a close-up on my camcorder!"

Then again, I've never cared much for gratuitous, pointless action sequences, so maybe I'm not the target audience.

 

[Casual Shinji]

People complain far too much about "shaky cam". It's not that hard to follow. It baffles me how some people can't tell what's going on in something like the Bourne films."

We can tell what's going on, but shaky cam tends to distract you from what's going on for no reason. Every Bourne movie after the first one -- which was actually pretty damn good -- has excessive shaky cam not just during the action scenes, but during normal talking scenes too. It's hard to focus and take in a scene when the screen is constantly jittering around. It's a cheap tool to make a scene seem more interesting than it actually is. Same with dutch angles.

Anyway, we still got Edgar Wright. That dude knows how to make some fucking awesome action, all while keeping the camera perfectly steady.

 

[sextus the crazy]

The problem with action is how people film firearms, not fist punches. It's fucking painful to see how some directors film and utilize firearms lately.

Even worse is how they use military aircraft. Seriously, they treat every fixed-wing aircraft with guns on it like is a fucking ground attack plane. In the remakes of "the day the earth stood still" and "The A-Team", they had guys piloting drones like fighter jets, coming in real close to fire missiles at stuff. In "Olympus has fallen", they treat that outdated AC-130 model like it's a fighter jet, too, having it strafe all sorts of shit, even though it's practically impossible.

*sigh*

 

[bartholen_v1legacy]

Asking this question now instead of, say, 7 years ago when the shaky-cam boom seemed to be at its peak, is a bit surprising. Sure, there are still plenty of crap movies with badly filmed action (burn in hell, Bourne Legacy!), but there are also many films which have done it right. Like someone mentioned, Pacific Rim and The Avengers did it right, and I'd add to the list Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol, Skyfall and Watchmen (say what you will about the slo-mo, at least you could see what was going on). At least major blockbusters these days seem to have the hang of it, while M:I III from 2005 had some of the cheapest, most atrocious shakycam I've ever seen.

 

[teebeeohh]

no
it's just that it took a while to figure out how to do action well with the old, heavy cameras and in the last 20-25 years directors got a great many new tools and they have to get that out of their system. you can see this with CGI, while for a time it was supposed to do everything more and more people figure out that it's best used sparringly, to do things that practical effect can't do or to touch put on physical models to make their movement appear more fluid and such. shaky-cam will find it's niche as well.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

Before you could actually see the fight, now its fast cuts and shaky cam and you have no idea whats going on. Why cant they just train these actors to do a few moves instead of covering up their lack of skill. Seems asian countries are doing the good action these days, starting from Hong Kong movies to Philipines and Thailand. The Raid and Tom Yung Gong has some of the best fight scenes filmed.

For action involving guns, John Woo just amazed me when i first saw Hard Boiled and A Better Tomorrow. Saving Private Ryan has some great action scenes also, because you can actually see whats happening and follow whats going on.

I wonder if its due to directors coming from a music video background instead of working their way from tv series. I love the action in Saving Private Ryan, and i remember Steven Spielberg filming an episode of Colombo. Also James Cameron started with B movies like Piranha 2.

Maybe its a generational thing? They grew up with no cgi and physical effects. An films they grew up with were more about acting and camera work than how many cgi creatures they can throw at the screen.

 

[omega 616]

Yeah, they really have, I haven't even watched the video and I know they can't.

All this super close, shaky cam, short shots that are meant to make you feel "in the action", just make me think the actors can't act and they are trying to cover it up. 90% of the time I can't tell whats going on, it's like trying to do that "read 1,000 words a minute" gif thing ... it's almost subliminal action scenes.

Fight scenes have been all but ruined, might as well black the screen and in white letters write *insert fight scene*.

 

[dyre]

I wouldn't say all directors have forgotten how to film action, but it seems that a great many action directors have forgotten how to film action.

However, I can think of a number of quality directors who have made wonderful action scenes in the past five years.

Skyfall and to a slightly lesser extent, Casino Royale, had excellent action sequences.
Taratino is still in top form, with Inglorious Basterds and Django Unchained. I may be in the minority here, but I think he has actually improved since his Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill days
Inception and the Dark Knight series are sort of a class below the aforementioned films, but they are still quite good
Hurt Locker wasn't an action film per se, but it had some quality action scenes
Let's not forget Avatar; mediocre film, but the action was quite good, wasn't it?
I think The Avengers and Pacific Rim were both mediocre films, but the action scenes were pretty solid overall
IMO World War Z has some of the best zombie-related action in the lackluster history of zombie films

edit: Also, The Raid is one of the best pure action films I've seen in awhile, although I assume the OP is talking about Western directors losing their touch rather than claiming that it is a global phenomena.

 

[Suncatcher]

There are some who can do it. Several in fact. I think that the real problem is that few directors (or writers, or actors) nowadays actually have any idea how the things they portray are supposed to work. They add shaky cam, for example, to make you feel like it's real and visceral and you're in the action, because the closest any of them have been to real-world action is through camera footage of a fight and so they have no idea how the human brain stabilizes the image so you can actually see what's going on while running and dodging. Same with fighter jets; the actual engagement range of their weapons is somewhere around "the horizon" but in movies they're always shown flying right down the monster's throat because nobody involved has ever bothered to so much as read a wikipedia article about air combat.

If you go back a couple decades, a lot of the people involved in the business had been drafted or at least tangentially involved in warfare at some point, so they generally knew what they were doing with action. You look at even shitty monster b-movies done on a budget of $50 and a broken dryer, and yeah the science and the monsters and everything about them is ridiculous but when it comes to solve the problem people get together, talk, and figure shit out (like the real world, rather than the designated hero doing it himself or being instructed by the designated exposition genius), and then they execute their plan with mostly realistic tactics and teamwork (instead of the designated hero dodging/surviving thousands of bullets and killing everything himself).

Nowadays, there are still some writers and directors who put together great action sequences. Because they do research, hire actual experts to consult with, train their actors in the roles that need to be portrayed, put everything together in a way that actually makes sense, and film it so you can see the awesomeness. But that's a hell of a lot more work than just winging it and getting back to your cocaine.


One thing that I've never seen anybody do right though? Molten metal. Every movie with a foundry scene in it, regardless of the quality of the rest of the film, regardless of who's in charge or what's going on, will suddenly get stupid fast. This wasn't a problem before the CGI was developed to show the stuff I suppose, but every director thinks the stuff is as awesome as liquid explosions and none of them ever have any clue how it works. And they don't seem to ever talk to somebody who does, though I suppose there aren't many experts in swordfighting inside a crucible or floating on a tower shield over a 2,000 degree river. Or maybe all the experts just said that everybody would be dead instantly from convection, and the directors discarded that as uninteresting.

 

[Tuesday Night Fever]

The problem with action is how people film firearms, not fist punches. It's fucking painful to see how some directors film and utilize firearms lately.

Even worse is how they use military aircraft. Seriously, they treat every fixed-wing aircraft with guns on it like is a fucking ground attack plane. In the remakes of "the day the earth stood still" and "The A-Team", they had guys piloting drones like fighter jets, coming in real close to fire missiles at stuff. In "Olympus has fallen", they treat that outdated AC-130 model like it's a fighter jet, too, having it strafe all sorts of shit, even though it's practically impossible.

*sigh*

I also love Hollywood's notion of how VTOLs operate. Like the segment of True Lies where Arnie flies a Harrier (which lead directly to how the Harrier killstreak operates in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 and the "You're Fired" challenge for getting kills with it), or the hilariously terrible F-35 segment of Live Free or Die Hard.

Those jets would burn through their fuel soooo fast if they attempted to engage targets while hovering. Not to mention they'd be making their fairly fragile aircraft incredibly easy targets, effectively eliminating one of their greatest combat advantages.

Seriously directors... if you want a combat aircraft that can hover, just use a helicopter.

 

[sextus the crazy]

The problem with action is how people film firearms, not fist punches. It's fucking painful to see how some directors film and utilize firearms lately.

Even worse is how they use military aircraft. Seriously, they treat every fixed-wing aircraft with guns on it like is a fucking ground attack plane. In the remakes of "the day the earth stood still" and "The A-Team", they had guys piloting drones like fighter jets, coming in real close to fire missiles at stuff. In "Olympus has fallen", they treat that outdated AC-130 model like it's a fighter jet, too, having it strafe all sorts of shit, even though it's practically impossible.

*sigh*

I also love Hollywood's notion of how VTOLs operate. Like the segment of True Lies where Arnie flies a Harrier (which lead directly to how the Harrier killstreak operates in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 and the "You're Fired" challenge for getting kills with it), or the hilariously terrible F-35 segment of Live Free or Die Hard.

Those jets would burn through their fuel soooo fast if they attempted to engage targets while hovering. Not to mention they'd be making their fairly fragile aircraft incredibly easy targets, effectively eliminating one of their greatest combat advantages.

Seriously directors... if you want a combat aircraft that can hover, just use a helicopter.

Haha, yeah. Vertical Take-off and Landing should only be used for that, not as some sort of hovercraft substitute. The fact that I took down said harrier with two mags of 5.56 ammo and a mag from my M9 in MW2 shows how fragile the craft is (theoretically, anyway). I get the feeling writers are as good at military strategy as strategists are at writing.

 

[PROTOTYPical]

Why are The 300 and Rise of an Empire not mentioned by him or people? That is how i want that kind of action to be shown, not just with wide shots/close shots, but even slowing time at points where we want to see and dwell on what's happening. Rise of an Empire nailed that. They know when I as a viewer would have slowed down the speed or paused the film on dvd to see an awesome kill, and they did it for me. I knew exactly what guy A was doing to guy B, and how he was doing it, and it was gorgeous. The blood itself was very highlighted and whatever but I don't care, it looked great.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

People complain far too much about "shaky cam". It's not that hard to follow. It baffles me how some people can't tell what's going on in something like the Bourne films."

It's not hard to follow, it just looks shit and lazy.

 

[StriderShinryu]

I'd say it's more a case of it just being the in thing to do. Well, that and it's a much easier way to make actors look like action heroes (or to gloss over costume issues) when you can't really see what's going on.

 

[Parasondox]

Why are The 300 and Rise of an Empire not mentioned by him or people? That is how i want that kind of action to be shown, not just with wide shots/close shots, but even slowing time at points where we want to see and dwell on what's happening. Rise of an Empire nailed that. They know when I as a viewer would have slowed down the speed or paused the film on dvd to see an awesome kill, and they did it for me. I knew exactly what guy A was doing to guy B, and how he was doing it, and it was gorgeous. The blood itself was very highlighted and whatever but I don't care, it looked great.

I think because the new movie was recent and he had reviewed other movies this month, that maybe it slipped his mind. I agree that 300 and 300: Rise of an Empire, does have great action sequences and uses the effect of slow-motion works will will the theme and story. Full, long shots of a battle, showing whos who and making the action seem more epic. Those are examples of that practice being done well. That's where I have to praise Zack Snyder (300 mostly) for executing that style visually.

 

[gargantual]

I think another problem is that action is marginalized. Even in the writing its not broken down into a natural chain of events from every movement and strike, the way every piece of dialogue and expression is valued in drama. That combat is almost language, when it comes off right.

In the west folks will describe in the script a brief sentence or short paragraph of the generic style in which enemies are taken down.

Opposite of that, an interviewer would ask Iko Uwais or Yuyan Rushian of "The Raid", how would they proceed to take down three attackers that are coming at them. Now we know in the real world scenario, it'd be better to just fork over the wallet, or buy time. But for the sake of viewer curiosity they'd actually detail the process, like where your position and stance needs to be relative to the attackers, or what type of area is better as a chokepoint, to force them, to come at you one at a time, how to make one disabling strike on one dude, and pivot to the next opponent at a good angle to minimize exposure, while striking. Or defending first, and always going for the counter.

Hell Elysium even had a little of that with the Robot guards. Throw a grenade behind them for cover to reduce visibility, turn and fire at the others. Not dumb like the terrorists in Olympus Has Fallen who apparently never learned how to check a friggin corner. Y'know. Just practical stuff, and why is it that corner checking only happens in detective shows during that quiet urban 'Clarise Starling moment with a serial killer' or when SWAT's clearing an apt in Law & Order, and its not standard depiction of all Urban Warfare.

And say what you will about eastern films and gunplay, but at least I see more of them pretend with their bodies, that guns actually have recoil.

For the way most of us military or enthusiast viewers in America can be easily disgusted by lazy-armed headshot kills, and handicapped gunplay in big summer popcorn or The Walking Dead. Just immagine how annoyed martial art filmgoers or watchers in Japan, Hong Kong, Indonesia etc have been for years at seeing America trying to edit out poor handfighting and dependence on poorly executed 'wirework-legs'. It must be like "for cryin-out-loud just hit the goons pressure point and move on."

"I'll make an exception for 'The Rundown' with the Rock. The part where he friggin bashed their heads in with the tree stick in slo-mo. Fucking gold.

In oldie motion pictures, where movement was slow, melodramatic and or comical (I.E. slapstick) those nuances were also detailed. Choreographers didn't completely wing it. Even violence in Tom and Jerry and '30s-40's Looney Tunes was very distinct about the nature squash, stretch and solid impact, with uncommon sounds. All that stuff is highlighted.