Scenario: A popular film site has requested submissions from contributors for a series of posts from genre fans talking about why they like a particular genre. You have been asked to produce either an article or a video discussing your relationship with films in a particular genre, and what it is about them that makes them so appealing. This will form part of a ‘fan season’ on the site/vlog.
Task
You must select a specific genre and evaluate your relationship towards it. You must try and analyse your responses, and articulate why you feel the way you do about these films. You must also consider how others respond to these films (are they the same or different?). You must engage with critical theories to help explore the reasoning behind how audiences interact with films. These must be supported with specific examples from films to support points, and utilising correct subject terminology. As a minimum, your work must cover:
- Active spectatorship, fandom preferred readings
- Frameworks of interpretation intertextuality media literacy
- Social networking conditions of reception, pre and post viewing experiences
Me and My Movies
The action movie genre is among my favorite and is crossed over with many other genres. It has spawned endless movies, good and bad. My earliest memory of action movies are mostly associated with action movie icon Arnold Schwarzenegger, with movies such as Terminator 2: Judgement Day and Commando. My relationship to these movies started when I was pretty young so I can’t pinpoint the exact age I was when I first viewed these. Much like my memories of wrestling I’m sure it goes back further; however, viewings of Terminator 2 and Commando are the earliest memories. The former is considered an action masterpiece with the latter being a cult classic, and a quintessential 80s action movie. I always thought the villain in Commando somewhat resemble Freddie Mercury….
… I’m not the only one am I? Whatever. But yeah my point being the relationship I have with the action genre goes way back and I think my father and brother were influential in my love of the genre. Before DVDs were a thing my dad would buy a bunch of VHS tapes and record movies on the TV so we could watch them back, a majority of them action movies and a lot of them starring Arnold Schwarzenegger, so it's no surprise he is my favorite action star. My dad would get mad whenever one of us would accidently change the channel when the tape was running. Good times.
So then, that is as far back as my memories as action movies goes, but what has evolved since then? Well I’m smarter now. I’m not the same kid that got sexually confused after watching Batman & Robin at 5 years old (you know, the one with Arnold) and I’ve since enjoyed even more wacky action movies, some of them even good.
But on a more serious note I’ve begun to appreciate how a good action scene or sequence is crafted. For example, check out this on foot chase scene from Point Break, starring Keanu Reeves and Patrick Swayze. Though often hailed as a great action sequence, why is it so? Well to me it is well edited, cut and in an establishment environment where the action is easy to follow. It also is tacked on and actually serves a purpose in the story, with Reeves character unable to bring himself to take down the criminal (Swayze’s character) he’s bonded with.
Meanwhile, you look at this scene from Taken 3 and what do you get? Too many cuts that jump all over, horribly established scenery making the action hard to follow and generally too quick making it hard to stay focused and maintain attention. Shaky cam don’t help either. This is often the norm for action movies nowadays, but it isn’t inherently evil. Given Liam Neeson’s advanced age, it makes sense why they’d wanna cut around it make him look good. Still, for me it is just too hard for me to follow and so I can’t enjoy it.
This is what I ultimately find endearing about action movies: you can have great actions scene in a badly written movie, or even terrible action scenes in a very well written movie. Or even both be good or bad. But what makes good action? Well to me it’s always first asking does this action serve purpose, does it make sense, does it advance the plot and does it look good. One particular movie that springs to mind when I think of action in a movie developing a character or plot is the movie Léon: The Professional, a movie in which Léon, a professional hitman, reluctantly takes in 12-year-old Mathilda, after her family is murdered by corrupt Drug Enforcement Administration agent.
Léon and Mathilda form an unusual relationship, as she becomes his protégée and learns the hitman's trade. Many of the scenes of action, involving Léon and Mathilda, help develop the character’s relationship as they spend time bonding on these scenes when handling hitman missions. Character development isn’t just limited to the scenes between these two either, with the opening scene (3:45 to 10:00) showing off Leon’s skills as a hitman.
Of course these are all my opinions and I imagine other individuals, as well as audiences, have their preferences when it comes to the action genre. No doubt the action genre covers a large demographic made up of people from different backgrounds, ethnicities, faiths and beliefs. These people may not share my opinions on certain action movies being good or bad, and could find something like gratification where I could find annoyance, and vice versa. So no doubt my relationship to these movies differ or compare to others interpretations or interactions.
That said let’s move onto what exactly makes the action genre so appealing to audiences. Looking at the conventions of a typical action movie, one can expect the following:
- Good guys vs. Bad guys.
- Weapons (ranged and melee styled) and fight scenes.
- Explosions and fire.
- Cat and mouse chase scenes (often on foot or in the form of a car chase).
- Often set in an urban area or landscape i.e. big modern city.
- Death, blood and destruction.
- A motive for the protagonist and a villainous plot.
Using TVTropes, one can often summarize the action genre hero/protagonist as such, though they aren’t always often the case, but here it is:
- Male - almost always American (and almost always Caucasian at that. And if not, But Not Too Black and/or But Not Too Foreign will usually be invoked).
- Born to blue-collar parents.
- Buzz-cut, fade, bald, or faux hawk (if the story is set after 2000) black or dark brown hair. note
- And shaved, usually with Perma-Stubble. Growing the Beard means developing personality.
- Usually a former soldier or police officer, very rarely in active service.
But what can this tell us about audiences of the action genre? By applying audience theory we can get an idea as to why audiences watch action movies or how they take in and consume the media their watching.
The effects model is one such audience that analysis the relationship between audiences and media texts. As the name suggests, the effects model is a theory where the consumption of media texts has an effect or influence upon the audience. It is normally considered that this effect is negative. Audiences are passive and powerless to prevent the influence. The power lies with the message of the text. An example would be the action movie Missing in Action, starring Chuck Norris. The movie concerns Norris’ character, a colonel in the US army, who investigates Ho Chi Minh City in northern Vietnam for potential US POWs. The movie is a typical action fest with the American hero triumphantly slaying the enemy while saving the day. The movie, while a commercial success, was panned critically as nothing more than a Rambo rip-off, as well as for being xenophobic in nature towards the Vietnamese. The message in the film lies simply in this: America are the greater good who are fighting the evil communists, and Chuck Norris is an American hero delivering justice and saving lives. Due to it being a product of its time during release, it is easy to forgive the movie’s creation as typically portraying good guy American vs. bad guy Vietnamese communists. The message was there, and the audience and critics rejected it.
Another audience theory that can be applied is the hypodermic model. Here, the messages in the media text are injected into the audience by the powerful, syringe-like, media. The audience is powerless to resist. Therefore, the media works like a drug and the audience is drugged, addicted, doped or duped. Like propaganda. An exemplar action movie for this audience theory would be The Green Berets, one of the earliest action movies concerning the Vietnam War. In fact, the movie was shot during the war and just before the infamous Tet Offensive and My Lai Massacre in 1968. John Wayne, concerned by the anti-war atmosphere in the United States, wanted to make this film to present the pro-military position, thus the film glorified the American war effort in Vietnam. The movie has since been panned critically, and since then there have been numerous anti-war movies surrounding Vietnam and that particular period. Oliver Stone, who fought in Vietnam, ensured the movie Platoon was made in response to The Green Berets. Because of the critical panning the movie received, it is clear it’s message did not succeed, but there were no doubt some who took in the message and agreed, especially contemporary viewers and audiences.
Finally, there is the the uses and gratifications model, the opposite of the effects model. The audience is meant to be active and use the text for itself, not the text using the audience in order to influence them. The audience uses the media texts for personal pleasure and gratification, as well as personal preference. Here the power lies with the audience not the producers. This theory emphasizes what audiences do with media texts - how and why the use them. The audience is free to reject, use or play with the media meanings as they see fit. This can apply to any movie, action or not. One could look at Lethal Weapon as an example if they so prefer, a buddy cop action-comedy that follows two detectives in their story. You can view this however you want and take in what you need: comedy or action. As a subgenre of the action genre, this helps. In addition, one can take in elements of the movie such as Mel Gibson’s characters suicidal tendencies as funny, offensive or something else.
The question remains however: what exactly does this tell us about audience and consumers of action movies? Well it can range from them being individuals who expect the same formula of action movie, sheep who will willingly take in the syringe-like message, or they are in fact free from such effects, instead taking from the action and movie whatever they please. The latter model, uses and gratification, is what I believe what may be most common, as I myself subscribe to it. From time to time I may or may not agree with the message of a specific message, but I don’t think that makes me submissive to the film’s ideology.
More often or not an audience's or individual's opinion on a movie can be decided before they even see the movie, perhaps by watching a trailer. A particular fan of action may not like Lethal Weapon but prefer the subgenre of Mad Max: Fury Road, set in a post-nuclear wasteland. That isn’t all, social media and people and critics reviews of the movie can dictate whether a person may develop a biased opinion before viewing the movie, or become a deciding factor into whether or not they wish to see the movie. Often a critically acclaimed action movie, Mad Max: Fury Road might not be everyone’s cup of tea, and that individual may prefer the action or story told in something like The Professional. This could bring in various factors of the audience / individual’s tastes, such as religious and cultural background, ethnicity and race, gender or even hobbies and social class.
You can expect fandoms to come into play too when it comes to preference to movies in general. Star Wars comes to mind, with it being one of the biggest and most famous franchises of all times. Having recently watched The Last Jedi at cinemas, I took in fans and event promoters wearing stormtrooper outfits as well as jedi robes. People of all ages flocked to the cinema to watch it and a range of ages dressed up as numerous characters from the movies. Star Wars itself is often described as a sci-fi space epic, because it covers a lot of genres. However, where there is the story the action is also there, and I find The Force Awakens to actually be a good example of an action movie where the action feeds into the story. A lot of this has to do with character development and the action feeding into the narrative, speaking from a visual standpoint.
A few examples include the opening scene in which stormtrooper turned rebel Fin witnesses the massacre carried out by the First Order, as well as Kylo Ren’s use of the force to subjugate rebel pilot Poe Dameron and a blaster shot in mid-air. Another example of this would be the weapon of Chewbacca, a crossbow-like laser blaster, which is emphasized in the movie as a deadly, ragdoll inducing weapon against opponents. When used on Kylo Ren however, he merely staggers to his knees, clearly in pain, but able to still fight on a put up a fight against Fin and Rey, almost killing the former only to be defeated by the latter. This feeds into Kylo Ren’s development as a character, as well as provide some excellent action sequences such as the lightsaber duel near the end of the movie.
Fans of the Star Wars movies, much like other fandoms, bicker, argue and form disagreements over their thoughts about the films. Indeed it has been the case with each trilogy, with the recent Star Wars movies both delighting and disappointing fans, often splitting opinion. Thus, fandoms can also influence casual fans and viewers opinions on a product before they go see the movie, though action movies are often universal and any movie can have them. Star Wars is not the only action like movie with a fandom. The Marvel movies, for example, have a huge fan base comprised of moviegoers and comic book lovers, and they too can influence a movie’s critical reception.
Action movies are often in line with the criticism that they are all the same: high-paced, explosive action with black and white good guy vs. bad guy characters. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing however, as it may be what the audience wants. A passive audience merely take in what they are watching as the same old stuff, and if that product is successful then more and more production and movie companies will churn out the same old movies. Of course, an active audience would suggest the audience interact with and engage the product, be it ideologically or otherwise. More often or not however, action movies are viewed as a form of catharsis, with audiences wanting to be excited by the death and destruction going on, as well as the good guy saving the day.
No comments:
Post a Comment