Wait…what? Why would I pick to do a double review of The Rock and Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol? Could I pick two films that had any less to do with each other than the fact that they’re both popcorn action films? Well to be honest, there really isn’t a whole lot these two films have in common on the surface , but that’s not what I’m really interested in with this review. What I AM interested in is the bones of the film, the unseen underworks of the movie, and the beating heart of both these action blockbusters.
Now a lot of you know how I feel about the pompous, self-important , bloated CG cartoon that was Transformers 2 and 3, more importantly… you know how I feel about its director Michael Bay. So imagine my surprise when, while watching The Rock (one of my all-time favorite action films) I discovered that it was NOT directed by Don Simpson like I had previously thought, but by the one and only Michael Bay. This absolutely blew my mind, but made me completely rethink my entire opinion on this man. How could someone as talented and brilliant as the director of this film fall so far from grace with his recent outings? More importantly, how does this factor in with the recent smash hit Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol? Well, we’re going to find out together, and while this may be one of the longer reviews I’ve written in quite a while, it’s also the most personal, and you might just learn how these films have a little more in common than you may think.
I-Effects vs. Stunt Work-Bigger isn’t always better-Quick! Think of the most exhilarating moments from The Rock, Mission Impossible III (or IV), and Transformers 2 or 3. I don’t know about you, but when I think of The Rock I think of scenes like Mason rolling through the incinerator, the shower room shootout, when the marines fire the first rocket, and countless others. In Mission Impossible III I think of scenes like the warehouse shootout, the battle on the bridge, and the Hong Kong tower robbery. Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol has countless scenes just as exciting as these, but I won’t mention them out of fear of revealing some spoilers. When I try to think of scenes like these in the two latest Transformers films I think of elaborate action set pieces that don’t really elicit the same reactions as the other films, and why do you suppose that is? People who have read my reviews will know how caring about these characters adds a lot more tension and gravity to these situations, but another part of eliciting these feeling stems from the original, practical, and precise creation of these scenes.
Once upon a time computer generated imagery (CGI) was the wave of the future and was used to supplement special effects or action scenes. It started with noble intentions, but as the technology was advanced and exploited as complacency in Hollywood set in it grew into a monster that allowed lazy directors to create entire film scenes with it. Nowhere is this more visible than in the Star Wars prequels, where the entire scene seems to look like a fancy cartoon, but another great example can be found in the last two Transformers films. The technology is used by Michael Bay to create cartoony looking fight scenes between cartoony looking robots in cartoony looking cities. No work was needed to create these scenes, and as a result creating high tech Saturday morning cartoon action scenes doesn’t create any real sense of awe anymore in an audience that is no longer impressed by special effects in this day and age. I mean if I wanted to see clean looking CG action pieces I would play a video game like Uncharted 2, Gears of War 3, or countless others that look just as good as real life.
Now compare these sterile, cartoony looking action scenes with the action pieces from the other films I brought up. Real stunts requiring things like precise timing, execution, and physical effort can create a visceral reaction in the audience such as a gasp, a jump, or an increased heart rate, reactions which can be associated with the same feelings the characters in the scene must be experiencing. This linking of emotional response is called an “emotional association”, and as a result this response helps pull the audience into this amazing scene or stunt they have just witnessed and also creates a tension that all the fake CG robots in the world can’t create. Think of scenes like the “Tower Climb” in Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol, a scene which created an audible gasp from the audience which I haven’t heard since… well… since a few of the stunts in The Rock. But don’t take my word for it, check it out yourself. Now honestly tell me, which of the following scenes do you find more exhilarating? The antiquated and CG-less incinerator scene from The Rock (starting at 1:08)…
Or the dazzling and colorful cartoon robot fight scene from Transformers 3?
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but I can honestly say that the incinerator scene creates waaaaaaay more excitement and tension than cartoon robots. Now of course you can say that story wise there was a lot more going on in The Rock than the absolute nothing in Transformers, but even taken out of context I find the incinerator scene the greater of the two. Why? Because while making this film the director went to the trouble of hiring a stuntman, creating this elaborately dangerous set, and then filming this insanely dangerous scene which came out looking real and amazing. He did NOT just have a computer animator create a colorful action scene out of pixels with little to no effort on his end and have it come out looking like f**king crap, he was forced to actually… wait for it… care about the scene.
II-Definable Components of a Story Arc-A few articles back I wrote about the importance of the Story Arc in a story, and how recently Hollywood appears to have forgotten how to incorporate all five parts of a story arc into a film. One of the reasons I loved MI: GP was that, just like The Rock, it had all five parts which were easily identified throughout the film. These days just including that facet into a film seems to be all it takes to make a film into a masterpiece.
Both films start with a powerful and well executed introduction, MI: GP opens with an exciting, action packed assassination that sets the tone for an exciting, action packed film while The Rock transitions from a quietly powerful cemetery visit into a brilliantly executed base infiltration. This transition shows that while this is an action film at its’ core it definitely has a message behind the action and heart to the story, as well as establishing that General Hummel is an anti-hero and not just a typical villain. This simple extra five minutes of expository monologue perfectly establishes this important facet of the character, a stark contrast to the rushed mess of dialogue that Michael Bay movies will eventually become.
Next comes the majority of the story arc, rising action. Now it’s during this point in the story arc that the majority of other summer blockbusters seem to self-destruct lately, but where films like Transformers and G.I. Joe utterly fail as movies, MI: GP and The Rock excel, and there’s a simple reason why. The former two films convey information poorly and ineffectively, usually with rushed dialogue which is drowned out during action that is occurring on screen. This creates a sense of confusion in the audience, which leads to giving up on following the story, which leads to action scenes that have no significant impact on the audience.
The latter films however create scenes that effectively convey critical information in an effective and simple way, and sadly, this tactic is a thousand times easier to create than trying to create an “exciting” or “exhilarating” way of doing so. A scene will start, characters will exchange genuine, believable dialogue, dialogue which conveys information and reveals personal traits of the character to the audience, and then the scene ends and transitions to the next scene which repeats this simple method. Every scene serves a purpose, and every action advances the story along by increasing either the importance of the situation or the level of tension, hence the name “rising action”.
Both of the latter films each have a clear and distinct climax whereas Transformers, Green Lantern, Captain America, Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, and pretty much any other summer blockbuster have impossible to pinpoint climaxes, or climaxes that we don’t realize are supposed to be the climax, but we don’t recognize until the film is over. The Rock and MI: GPs’ climaxes strangely enough both center around the launch of a missile, one towards San Francisco and one towards the U.S., and in each of these scenes the tension of this moment is so intense that there is no doubt in our mind that we are at the climax of the film, with the launch in The Rock being a little more intense and suspenseful in my opinion. So with this information what would you say the climax was in each of those other summer films? I can tell you right now there was no real, literal climax, as the action never really peaked before leading into the next section. In fact, the vast majority of summer releases seem to just create rising action that just keeps rising into the resolution.
Next comes falling action, with MI: GP Ethan hunt and friends try to abort the missile while in The Rock John Mason and Stanley Goodspeed race to disable the last rocket. It’s tense and exciting, and a perfect way to finish the film, but it is definitely falling action since it follows the climax and signals the downward trend of action. Again, most other action films seem to glaze right over this, and I could give examples from the other films I’ve listed but by now I’ve given those examples way too much. And finally we have resolution, with each film tying up the loose ends of the movie.
Now while I’ve stated that having these components is in a movie is necessary to create an effective and engrossing story, it must be a sad time in Hollywood if I have to use The Rock as a prime example of how to convey the story arc in an action film. The Rock isn’t supposed to be Dickens, or Twain, or Shakespeare, or the work of any other master storyteller, it’s meant to be action schlock (albeit excellent action schlock). But in this time of slapped together, lazily written, poorly executed cartoony action films just having a solid story like in the old days of action films transforms a generic action adventure film into movie magic.
III-A New Generation of Action Stars-I’ll keep this brief because I can’t elaborate much on it, but when you take all the physical work out of creating an action set piece by using nothing but CG to create scenes you remove the necessity of action star types to perform in the scene. This is great when you can cast more believable people in the role of a “hero of circumstance” like Sigourney Weaver as Ellen Ripley, but casting directors have gotten so lazy that they aren’t even focusing on the best fit as much as the “hot ticket”. The best example would be casting Shia Lebouf as the hero of multiple action films, and I’m not just talking about the Transformer films, I’m also talking about countless other action/adventure movies such as Eagle Eye, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, Disturbia, and so on.
I know it sounds petty and trivial, and for the most part it is, but it’s just next to impossible to believe this weak coward in real life is supposed to be a tough guy in film. And yes, I said coward because a good friend of mine was the Blackhawk pilot at the end of the first Transformers film and said that even though the helicopter was parked and braked during the scenes Shia would cry every… single… time he had to get close to it. Compare this behavior to behind the scenes special features that show Arnold, Bruce, and Tom Cruise doing all their own stunts, often turning away stuntmen to make the scene look more realistic. Hollywood seems to think that anyone can be in an action movie now, and we’ve gone from using action heroes like this…
To action heroes like this...
Now some of you out there may be saying “Well Nicolas Cage isn’t an action hero, and he was in The Rock!”, to which I reply, “I couldn’t agree more”. While I do like Nicolas Cage as an actor, I loathe him as an action hero, and I believe his picture should be right up there with those other three guys. Nicolas Cage is at his best when he’s playing a whiny, loser-y, kind of douche-y fish out of water character battling with crippling self-esteem issues, like in Weatherman, Leaving Las Vegas, and Adaptation. Casting him as some sort of bad-ass would suck, which is exactly what they tend to do with him lately in films such as Ghost Rider, Windtalkers, and of course, Con Air.
Now stop and think about this for a second. Yes, Nicolas Cage had top billing in The Rock, but would you really consider him an action hero in it? My vote is NO. Stanley Goodspeed was not a door kicking, ass beating, line quipping action star, he was a brilliant chemical scientist with a fear of going into combat, and for damn good reason. The bad ass billings in the film go to Sean Connery and Michael Beihn, Goodspeed was just more of a shipwreck of a field agent stumbling his way through tense situations and needing Sean Connery to get him out of a bunch of bad places. Even when he totally gets a massive advantage by getting the drop on one of the Marines he’s able to land two whole solid blows before said Marine proceeds to swiftly kick his ass, once again getting saved by sheer luck when he pops the chemical vial into the guys’ mouth.
“Well what about Tom Cruise in Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol?” you might ask. Well, yeah Tom was kicking ass in that movie, but the film didn’t revolve around how much ass he could actually kick. The Mission Impossible franchise (and the first film in particular) never really focused on shooting or fighting, they revolved around a group of individuals being able to think around walls and solve seemingly impossible situations. Tom Cruise, while being the main character and team leader, never really felt like the action star of the film, he was part of a larger story. At the end of the fourth film each member of the team had a critical task to accomplish, and I thought it did a great job showing how each of these players was just as important as, if not more so than, Ethan Hunt.
I can also buy the idea of Cruise in this role for one big reason which I discussed earlier, by using practical effects and real stunts the film creates a scene that Cruise HAD to physically participate in himself. There is a huge difference between Tom Cruise scaling a massive skyscraper in a real wide angle shot, and Shia Labeouf squaring off one on one with a giant killer cartoon robot.
Now as I just demonstrated, I don’t mind having a loser in an action movie, but I DO mind when you have said loser issuing orders to soldiers, bossing around giant robots, and magically kicking ass without any explanation.
IV-Camerawork, the Ancient Lost Art of Giving a S**t-In the golden age of action films talented directors such as James Cameron, Sam Raimi, Sylvester Stallone, Michael Bay, James McTiernan, Don Simpson, and yes… even Michael bay needed something to differentiate themselves from the countless other action films out on the market. These directors were forced to care about their work in order to differentiate themselves from the pack, so they took painstaking steps to create a film that made them stand out from the competition. They did so by either exhibiting and utilizing outstanding camerawork, or flat out creating entirely new methods of camerawork.
Camerawork is the tactical use of film cameras to create a scene that conveys a distinct style or emotion to the viewer. While films nowadays might be mostly lost with modern Hollywood directors there was a time that this was one of the most crucial components of a film, especially action films. Creative and unique camerawork can turn a generic action schlock picture into a standout entertaining film, and believe it or not one of the most creative and original pioneers of action camerawork was none other than Michael Bay himself.
Now faithful readers of this blog will remember that my criticisms towards Mr. Bay have been severe to say the least, but despite my opinions of the man I have never hesitated to state that I believe him to be one of the finest cinematographers to come out of Hollywood in the last twenty-five years. His use of wide-angle shots, Dutch angles, and slow motion was a breath of fresh air in the 90s, and even stands up to the best of action films by todays’ standards. I mean the man was even utilizing an antiquated form of the “bullet time” camera trick years before The Matrix made it so damn popular! The man was a genius of film.
So what the hell happened to this guy? In a word… complacency and misconceptions. Just like how George Lucas became a lazy fat turd who directed an entire trilogy of films by filming some actors in front of a blue screen and then digitally creating entire scenes, Michael Bay has traded his legitimate directing chops in favor of creating dazzling cartoon action scenes with no real feeling to them. Unlike Lucas however, at least Bay actually cares about the films he creates, he just thinks that creating mind numbing action scenes is what audiences want over things like story, tension, and characters. It’s just sad to see a man with so much talent utterly fail at creating the most simple of things these days, creating an emotional connection with a film. I mean, look at the opening to The Rock and tell me this isn’t better than everything in all of his recent films combined.
Now what does all of this have to do with my opinion of MI: GP? Well if you haven’t figured it out by now I loved it, but not just because of all of its’ obvious strengths. Despite its’ breathtaking stunts, outstanding story, excellent cast, brilliant direction, and tense set pieces, this film really clicked with me because it reminded me of classic action films that used special effects as a supplement, not a means, and in that regard there is no greater example than a film like the Rock. In fact, once upon a time, none other than George Lucas himself said in a behind the scenes Star Wars special feature “Special effects are a tool, a means of telling a story, and a special effect without a story is a pretty boring thing”. Downplaying special effects and focusing on the movie structure itself is an outstanding example of how these days the real key to making good action films is seriously good old fashioned live filming and stunt work, which sadly seems lost on most directors in Hollywood these days.
So why the comparison between MI: GP and The Rock? Well call me crazy, but it felt like with this film director Brad Bird was trying to create a film that was a throwback to the great action films of the 90s. This isn’t much of a stretch for Bird, I mean after all, this is the same guy who directed The Incredibles, which was a throwback to the classic 1960s James Bond spy movies and superhero comics. However you compare it though, the film is flat out excellent, and even though I may not agree with everyone who says it is the best film in the series (THAT award belongs to Mission Impossible III) I definitely hold it in the highest regards for action movie standards, which makes it look like Casablanca by the standards of today’s action film standards.
Creating a good and entertaining action film seems to be a vanishing trend in Hollywood, so when a film like MI: GP hits the mark so well and does so good in the box office it gives me hope that maybe we aren’t doomed to Transformers films for the rest of our lives. Supporting great action films like this is the key to making directors care about the quality of their films once again.
The Rock-8 out of 10
Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol-9 out of 10
No comments:
Post a Comment