Extreme close-up action scenes

Saw the Expendables yesterday and enjoyed it immensely, but it embraced a feature of modern action movies that has perplexed me for a long time: the extreme close-up action scene. You know what I’m talking about-- a big, exciting hand-to-hand fight between 2 (or more) skilled muscleheads trying to kill each other, portrayed in split-second cuts of extreme close-ups of blurry arms/legs doing something, that you can’t tell what the hell is going on because you can’t see what’s happening. This is an action-film-making phenomenon that seems to be very popular these days for some reason. I can’t think of any recent action movie that doesn’t do this.

My question is why?! Martial arts movies, for the most part, don’t do this. I remember all of the Arnold/Stallone/Van Damme/Seagal movies from the 80s and 90s shooting their action sequences from a nice distance away so you could see the ass kicking.

Do today’s directors just not know how to properly film a fight scene?

We can divide everything into 3 periods of time, which are Before Hong Kong, Hong Kong, and After Hong Kong.

BEFORE HONG KONG

From the 80s on at least, the idea of a good action scene was to have a lot of stuff blow up, to have a few hard-ass quips, some big muscles, big guns, but otherwise not require a lot of technical fighting prowess on the part of the actors. After all, the highest priorities for an actor are that they can act, and that they be good looking. Hoping for them to also be able to do back-flips is a bit much, and there’s only so much you can do with a stunt double.

Now, if they were doing sword fighting, then you’d see a lot of effort put in to training the actors. There’s a whole history of stage and cinema sword swinging that has been developed to be fairly flashy. There isn’t a comparative example for fighting (in the West), except perhaps in things like Slapstick and clowning – which isn’t exactly the sort of effect you want.

HONG KONG

Starting around say 1996, there was somewhat of a discovery of Hong Kong films, in the US. In short order we had Jackie Chan release Super Cop and Rumble in the Bronx, which led to the Rush Hour and Shanghai Noon serieses. Some people found out about John Woo’s films, giving him a large enough name in Hollywood to be invited over to make Face-Off.

This gave the US a taste for flashy hand-to-hand fighting. Via Hong Kong, there was a whole branch of martial arts that had been developed to be flashy and interesting, like stage dueling. A few directors and white actors gave it a go, most notably everyone in Lethal Weapon 4 (which brought Jet Li over to make some films of his own, alongside Jackie Chan), and Mark Whalberg in The Big Hit.

Ang Lee kept the light going on with Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, but the desire for real hand-to-hand fighting began to fade and overall the Going Kung Fu thing always looked a bit silly as performed by a bunch of whiteys particularly when you know that in real day life, an American would always grab a gun and shoot the perp. The Bourne Identity was able to replace Kung Fu with much more Western seeming moves, but The Matrix had probably shown that you were still better off (in terms of making a buck) to have flashy special effects than to have actors who could do back-flips. And probably most actors preferred it as well.

POST HONG KONG

The problem, though, is that now audiences know that flashy hand-to-hand fighting is possible and they expect it – but they don’t want to see Kung Fu by white people, the actors don’t want to have to learn how to be martial arts experts, and outside of the one-off work in the Bourne Identity there still isn’t a Western fighting style for stage that’s been developed. It’s easier to create the impression of fancy, flashy fist-fights through quick editing than through any other means.

The only alternative is to go back to the stuff in the 80s where you get heavily muscled men sort of randomly flailing about at each other, and expecting anyone to take it serious – or blowing shit up.

I was gong to post a thread about this yesterday.

It seems like we had some OK action in the early 2000’s.

The Matrix filmed its action in full frame, for the most part requiring the actors to learn the moves and choreography. Same thing with Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.

I don’t know what has gone wrong lately.

That could certainly be some element of it, but I’m not sure I entirely buy it because–

–there was nothing wrong with this.

I don’t buy that audiences can’t take a realistic fight seriously. UFC is real fighting without anyone flipping around doing fancy Hong Kong kung-fu moves, and it’s huge. I don’t expect Stallone or Vin Diesel or Matt Damon to be flipping around, throwing fancy double-roundhouse kicks to the top of a 6’6" man’s head, that would be ridiculous. Having them beat each other up street-fight style is still perfectly acceptable entertainment. The fight scene from the end of Commando still holds up, and that was just Arnold and Vernon Wells beating the shit out of each other.

I’m not saying it’s “bad” per se, but it is over with. It’s like how everyone was told to get a smaller car in the 80s because of Global Warming. So they gave up their sedans for coupes. But then the coupes were too small for pets and groceries and to have your kids plus their friends in the car, etc. So, did we go back to the sedan? No of course not. Sedans had been declared uncool and old-fogeyish. Only old people still had sedans. The answer was the SUV. Was the SUV better than the sedan? In terms of global warming, it was a step backwards, but I’ll be damned if you could get people to go back to the sedan.

80s movies are 80s movies. Old people like them and maybe they have a sort of kitsch appeal, but I don’t think most people in Hollywood want to try and recreate them. That’s not where the modern age is at. The quick-cut may be a step backwards, but the only path forward is probably going to be to properly develop Western stage fighting.

You know why those fights are incomprehensible? Because you are watching it for the first time. Now think about the editor or director sitting in a room, cutting the fight together. They see those sequences 100s of times. Their brains have knitted together the physical dialog they are trying to bring to the screen. Ours as the audience haven’t. So when you watch it a few more times, your brain will start to ‘catch’ what is actually happening. And it becomes clearer.

Whether this is a mistake, or on purpose I’ll leave to others to decide.The fact that it’s been going on for so long makes me think it’s on purpose. Is it a ploy to sell DVDs?

It’s just bad direction mixed with the vogue quick cut style that dominates cinema now. Some directors, like Nolan for instance, simply can’t film action with any spacial awareness at all. I like the new Batman movies but Nolan can’t film a fight scene to save his life. He’s great at framing wide angles, and that saves his films, but when it comes to quick action he has no clue how to shoot it. The Bourne movies are a good example of the quick cut style that still maintains spatial awareness in fight scenes. As hectic as those fights are you always know who is throwing a punch, where the other person is and how they ended up where they are framed in the shot. Here’s the big difference though. Shooting fighting clearly and still making it look real and brutal takes extreme choreography and a million takes. I just don’t think many directors are willing to do it.

The Transformer movies and Casino Royale had a lot of this annoyance in their movies. Even Quantum of Solace had “hey let’s do 100 different camera angles in 90 seconds” bullshit at the beginning. I think it was some kind of car chase? I don’t know because the camera won’t hold still long enough for me to see what’s going on! All I get from this is a mild headache and a vague approximation of what’s going on.

Another thing we’re missing is the 80’s one liners. Everyone had one liners.

I think Arnold officially iced that in 1997’s Batman & Robin.

If it is, it’s a really poorly thought out one. If the first viewing is bad enough to convince the audience that they don’t want to see it a second time, it doesn’t matter how good that second viewing would have been.

And “The deliberate sabotage of this movie (to encourage you to buy the DVD) is less apparent the second time you watch it” isn’t exactly shining praise.

The first movie I remember that drove me nuts with the fast-cut fight scenes was “Gladiator”.

Warning: Quick cuts may induce nausea. Click on the link below at your own risk.

I was going to post this, also.
I HATED that blurry, choppy fight scene.

Side effect of music videos intended for the ADHD generation? The abandonment of “what happens next” storytelling to embrace a fleeting impression similar to Poe’s single effect?

Being a long-time action tough guy connoisseur I mostly agree with the Sage Rat timeline. HK cinema raised the bar, and any close-up style films are a pure reflection of the lack of competence in the director, actors, and/or stunt choreographers on the project. Gladiator and Minority Report have been the worst big-budget offenders in recent memory to me.

A notable exception to the timeline has been the Rocky movies, which were very well filmed and choreographed and didn’t rely on cheap cutaways and close-ups.

I’m not one to watch action films. I did see Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, being that they are James Bond.

I didn’t notice it really in Casino Royale but boy did Quantum of Solace give me a friggin’ headache. I’m so with the OP, and EvilTOJ. I honestly could not follow most of the movie because of the way it was shot.

Glad to know that since I can’t handle the way modern action movies are shot, I am not missing anything by avoiding them.

I remember being disappointed that the action in *Gladiator *wasn’t shot like the action in Braveheart.