Action

Because film is a visual medium, movement, which was originally the novelty of the medium, has naturally become its showpiece. Nothing better illustrates the power of movement in film than the action sequence. Action sequences are a key reason for the success of the Western and gangster genres. Whether it features a chase, a showdown, or a battle, the action sequence has a visceral appeal for audiences. This type of sequence is not confined to the genres where action seems natural, however. From the horror movie to the comedy, filmmakers have found action sequences to be a valuable device. Blake Edwards used action sequences in many of his comedies, most notably the Pink Panther series (1964–1978) and The Great Race (1965). Charles Crichton used the action sequence often in A Fish Called Wanda (1988). One of the best action sequences can be found in Peter Bogdanovich's What's Up, Doc? (1972).

To set the context for the following analysis, it is important to understand the dramatic and psychological characteristics of the action sequence. The editing principles rise out of those characteristics.

An action sequence is an accelerated version of the traditional film scene. The characters in a typical scene have different goals. In the course of the scene, each character attempts to achieve his or her goal. Because the goals tend to be opposed to one another, the scene could be characterized as a clash. The scene ends when one character has achieved his or her goal. This is the dramatic character of a scene. In an action sequence, there is an accelerated movement; the urgency of each character heightens their actions and also, therefore, their opposition to the goals of the other characters. The subtleties of the typical scene are set aside for an urgent expression of those various and opposing goals. The scene plays faster, and the nature of the clash of goals is more overt. In this sense, action sequences are more dynamic than typical scenes. They are often turning points or climactic scenes in a film.

From a psychological point of view, action sequences are scenes at the edge of emotional and physical survival The achievement of one character's goals may well mean the end of another character. This is why the action sequence so often plays itself out as a matter of life or death. It is critical that the audience not only understand the goals of each character in such a scene, but also that the audience choose sides. Identification with the goals of one of the characters is key to the success of the action sequence. Without that identification, the scene would lose its meaning. The audience must be at the edge of physical survival with the character; if it is not, the action sequence fails in its strength: excitation, deep involvement, catharsis. To identify, we must go beyond understanding the goals of the characters. We must become emotionally involved with the character.

Because the moment of survival is central to the action sequence, many action sequences are fights to the death, car chases, assassination attempts, or critical life-and-death moments for one of the characters.

The editing of action sequences can be demonstrated around particular issues: identification, excitation, conflict, and intensification.

To encourage identification, particular types of shots are useful, including close-ups and point-of-view shots. Some directors, such as Otto Preminger, like to crowd the actors by placing the camera very close to them. Another factor affecting point-of-view shots is whether the camera is at the actor's eye level or is higher or lower. A camera that looks down on an actor portrays the character as a victim; a camera that looks up at an actor portrays the character as a dominant or ominous presence. A contemporary director who is particularly good at encouraging identification is Roman Polanski. His point-of-view shot is eye-level, with the camera positioned at the actor's shoulder. The camera hovers there, seeing what the character sees. Both close-ups and point-of-view shots encourage identification. A close-up can be created from an objective camera placement, for example, from the side. The close-up itself encourages emotional involvement and identification, as does subjective camera placement.

Excitation is accomplished through movement within shots, movement of shots, and variation in the length of shots. Pans, tilts, and zooms are used to follow characters moving within shots. Trucking, tracking, dollying, handheld, and Stedicam shots follow the motion; the camera itself moves to record these shots. Moving shots are more exciting when the point of view is subjective; these shots also encourage identification. Finally, using pace and making shots shorter will increase the excitement of a sequence.

Conflict is developed in an action sequence by crosscutting. For example, in a two-character scene, each character attempts to achieve a goal. As this effort is being made, the conflict is presented by crosscutting between the efforts of each character. Crosscutting is a central feature of the action sequence.

Intensification is particularly important as we move toward the conclusion of the scene, the point at which one character achieves his or her goal and the other character fails. Intensification is achieved by varying the length of the shots. Conventionally, it means shortening the shots as the sequence approaches the climax. However, variation—for example, switching between a series of shorter shots and the pattern set earlier—also produces some intensification. Most action sequences use variation. The behavior of the characters is another source of intensification.

Thus, action sequences are characterized by their use of pace, movement, and subjective camera placement and movement. Where necessary, long shots are used to follow the action, but the critical impact in the action sequence is achieved through the use of close-ups and subjective shots that are paced for intensity.

The ride of the Ku Klux Klan in D.W. Griffith's The Birth of a Nation (1915) began a tradition of filmmakers creating action set-pieces. Eisenstein followed with the Odessa Steps sequence in Potemkin (1925) and later with the baffle on the ice in Alexander Nevsky (1938). In the same formal vein, King Vidor created a great action sequence in the mobilization to stop the advance of the railway in Duel in the Sun (1946). One of the greatest action sequences of all is the samurai defense of the peasant village in Akira Kurosawa's The Seven Samurai (1954).

Particular directors excelled at large-scale action sequences. Cecil B. DeMille made an extravaganza of his action sequences. Notable are his films The Plainsman (1936), Northwest Mounted Police (1940), and Unconquered (1947), although DeMille is most famous for his Biblical films, such as The Ten Commandments (1923 and 1956).

Other directors were known for the entertainment quality of their action sequences. Few sequences are more entertaining than the thuggee attack on the village in George Stevens's Gunga Din (1939) or as exciting as the robbery in Jules Dassin's Rififi (1954).

Although not as critically acclaimed as the aforementioned, there were several other great directors of action films. Henry Hathaway, for example, directed a number of great action sequences in numerous genres, including adventure films (The Lives of a Bengal Lancer, 1935), gangster films (Kiss of Death, 1947), war films (The Desert Fox, 1951), and Western films (Nevada Smith, 1966). Another American action director of note is Don Siegel. As Andrew Sarris says about Siegel, “The final car chase in The Lineup (1958) and the final shoot-up in Madigan (1968) are among the most stunning displays of action montage in the history of American cinema.”¹ Since that was written, Siegel has been prolific; the money drop in Dirty Harry (1971) should also be added to Sarris's list.

Other directors who have received a good deal of critical attention for their nonaction films have managed to produce some of the most creative action sequences, which have remained in the public memory. The final shoot-out in Fred Zinnemann's High Noon (1952),² the chariot race in William Wyler's Ben Hur (1959), the assassination in the woods in Bernardo Bertolucci's The Conformist (1971), and the attack on the train in David Lean's Lawrence of Arabia (1962) are among the most notable sequences. Even more surprising are the visual set-pieces by directors such as Joseph L. Mankiewicz, who is best known for his sophisticated melodramas. Consider, for example, the sequence in Five Fingers (1952) that shows the attempt to capture a spy, Aiello (James Mason), who has been discovered stealing information about the Allied invasion of Europe. Equally surprising is Orson Welles's finale to Touch of Evil (1958), a film that begins with a 3-minute uncut tracking shot. In the final sequence, Varguez (Charlton Heston) records the sheriff confessing his crime to a colleague. The action takes place on and below a bridge, and it is cut in a remarkably dynamic fashion.

   THE CONTEMPORARY CONTEXT

Action has exploded recently in the U.S. film industry. It seems that the more action a film has, the more successful it is. Advances in technology and special effects have played a role here; however, the renewed popularity of action movies has meant the development of a cadre of directors who are the Siegels and Hathaways of their day. Action sequences have become far more important and expensive than they were in the time of Siegel or Hathaway. These directors have become the most successful and the most sought-after in the world, and they come from around the world. From England we have Peter Yates (Bullitt, 1968), John Boorman (Point Blank, 1967), John Mackenzie (The Long Good Friday, 1980), and John Irvin (The Dogs of War, 1980). From New Zealand comes Roger Donaldson (No Way Out, 1987); from Australia, George Miller (Mad Max 2, 1981), Bruce Beresford (Black Robe, 1991), Carl Schultz (The Seventh Sign, 1988), Phillip Noyce (Dead Calm, 1988), and Fred Schepsi (The Chant of Jimmy Blacksmith, 1978); from Canada, James Cameron (Aliens, 1986) and David Cronenberg (The Fly, 1986); and from Holland, Paul Verhoeven (Robocop, 1987). These filmmakers, together with John McTiernan (Die Hard, 1988) and Steven Spielberg (Jaws, 1975), are responsible for the majority of commercial successes in the past two decades. The action sequence and its direction have become the most commerically viable subspecialty in film.

To understand what these filmmakers are doing differently, it's important to state that they are meeting the growing public appetite for action films with all of the technology and editing styles available to them. Some filmmakers move in a realistic direction. For example, John Frankenheimer's extensive use of hand-held camera shots in the Israeli attack on the Beirut terrorist headquarters near the opening of Black Sunday (1977) creates a sense of journalistic veracity. The scene could have been shot for the evening news. James Cameron, on the other hand, was not interested at all in credibility in The Terminator (1984). The first encounter of the Terminator with Sara Connor and Reese, the man sent from the future to save her, is set in “The Tech Noir Bar.” Many are killed by the Terminator (Arnold Schwarzenegger) in his effort to kill Sara (Linda Hamilton). The cartoonish quality of the sequence continues as the Terminator steals a police car to carry on his chase. This action sequence is quite exciting, but its goals are different than Frankenheimer's in Black Sunday.

The same polarity is found in two of the greatest car chases ever filmed. In Peter Yates's Bullitt, a 12-minute car chase looks real, but the emphasis is on the thrill of the chase. Bullitt (Steve McQueen) is followed by two criminals but ends up chasing them. As the chase becomes more dangerous through the streets and highways of San Francisco, the bullets fly and the car crashes add up, leading to a fiery crash. The crispness of the cinematography provides a depth of field that beautifies this sequence, rendering it less real. It reminds us that we are watching a film produced carefully with talented stunt men. It's the choreography of the chase rather than the implications of its outcome (that two men will die) that captivates our attention.

Contrast this with the car chase sequence from William Friedkin's The French Connection (1971). A French killer attempts to kill Popeye Doyle (Gene Hackman) in front of his apartment building but instead shoots a woman who walks in front of Doyle at that fateful moment. Doyle runs after the man. When the man eludes him and gets on the subway, Doyle commandeers a civilian's car and follows him below the train track. The killer shoots a security man on the train and forces the train to continue. Doyle follows in the car. The driver of the train has a heart attack. There is another killing, and the train becomes a runaway. It doesn't stop until it crashes into another train. Doyle has followed, crashing, avoiding crashes, but remaining steadfast in pursuit. He stops where the subway train has crashed. He sees the killer and orders him to stop. The man turns to run away, and Doyle shoots and kills him.

This sequence, which runs more than 10 minutes, was filmed in the streets of New York. Just as Frankenheimer chose to use cinema verité techniques, so too did Friedkin. The camera work throughout this sequence is rough and handheld; the cutting is on handheld movement. Together with the violence of the pursuit and the overmodulated sound effects (to simulate unrefined sound, as in cinema verité), the effect of these techniques is violent and realistic. The roughness of the whole sequence contributes to an authenticity that is absent in the Bullitt sequence. Again, the goals are different. Both sequences are exciting, but the editing elements that come into play move in two different directions: one toward a technological choreography, the other toward a believable human struggle in which technology is a means rather than an end.

Another issue to be considered is directorial style. Paul Verhoeven has a very aggressive directorial style. He combines the power of technology—the cars, the machines—with a mobile camera that always moves toward the action. As the camera moves, the cutting adds to the dynamism of the scene. The final scene in Robocop, the gunfight in the steelworks, features many of the strengths of the chase sequence of Bullitt—the crispness and choreography of the action sequence—but added to it is the aggressive camera in search of the visceral elements of the sequence, and Verhoeven managed to find them.

In the final attack in Mad Max 2, George Miller also is interested in the technology—the bikes, the trucks, the weapons—but he lingers over the instances of human loss that occur in the sequence. Like Verhoeven, Miller has a roving camera, but where Verhoeven moves in on the action, Miller is more detached. Miller follows action to explain the narrative; Verhoeven uses camera movement to overstate the narrative. Despite a high level of action in the Road Warrior sequence of Mad Max 2, the result of Miller's technique is the opportunity to detach and reflect; this opportunity is not available in Robocop. Miller loves the technology, but he also seems to be able to generate more empathy for the fate of his characters. Both are exciting sequences, but the personalities of the directors lead us to different emotional responses to their two action sequences.

Another directorial approach is taken by Steven Spielberg. Like Alfred Hitchcock, Spielberg seems to be interested in the filmic possibilities of the action sequence. His 12-minute prologue to Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989) is a model of the entertainment possibilities of a chase. The young Indiana Jones has stolen the Cross of Coronada from a group of archeological poachers. They chase him on horseback, by car, and on foot on a moving train. Throughout the sequence until the boy is confronted by the sheriff about the theft, the emphasis is on the chase and the will of Jones to stand up for his belief that artifacts belong in museums, not in the hands of fortune hunters. Spielberg used a moving camera and a genteel cutting style to emphasize the fun in the sequence. The result is an enjoyable sequence that has humor and excitement. This, however, is not always Spielberg's filmic goal.

Spielberg had quite a different goal for the beach-kill sequence early in Jaws. Spielberg focused on the anxiety of the sheriff, who sits on the beach fearing that the shark will strike again. His anxiety is not shared, however. Children and adults frolic on the beach. Spielberg crosscut between pointof-view shots of the sheriff and shots of various red herrings: a swim cap in the water, a young woman screaming as a young man lifts her high in the water. When the kill finally comes (the victim is a young boy from the first shot of the sequence), the shock is numbing. The quick cutting and the randomness of the opposite emotions of the beach-goers and the sheriff create a tension that is overwhelming. Point of view and crosscutting create a purely filmic action sequence that is extremely powerful. Spielberg's filmic goal was not the joy of filmmaking, but the power of editing. It's not what he shows, but rather the ordering of the shots—an editing solution (similar to Hitchcock). In a story about primal fear and raw power, Spielberg found a successful filmic solution. That solution is manipulative, but that's what the story required. Similarly, Indiana Jones's story called for excitement and pleasure, emotions that are central to the success of the adventure genre.

We turn now to a detailed analysis that compares the style of action editing in a film made 75 years ago to an action sequence from a film produced 21 years ago.

   THE GENERAL: AN EARLY ACTION SEQUENCE

Buster Keaton's The General (1927) is set during the Civil War (Figure 17.1). Johnny Gray (Keaton) is a railroad engineer who attempts to enlist when the war begins. He is refused. His girlfriend, Annabelle (Marion Beck), views the rejection as a result of his cowardice. Most of the story relates to a Union plot to steal Gray's train, which is called “the General,” and take it north. Johnny Gray is outraged when the train is stolen. He pursues the Union men to recapture the train. Unbeknownst to Johnny, Annabelle was in one of the cars and has been taken along with the train.

The action sequence that is described here is the taking of the train and Johnny's pursuit of it into Union territory. This sequence is very lengthy by current standards for an action sequence. At 18 minutes, it is one of the longest action sequences ever produced (Figures 17.2 and 17.3).

The sequence can be brokens down as follows:

What is notable about this sequence is that the shots are set up to clarify the narrative and to detail narrative twists, for example, the shot where the cannon, loaded and detached from Johnny's engine, begins to tip downward and threaten Johnny rather than the enemy. Such narrative twists, which are the source of humor in the scene, require setup time and detailing to make sense. For an action sequence, the shots seem quite careful and long. This pattern is typical of all of the shots in this sequence.

Another characteristic of the sequence is that it proceeds at a leisurely pace by modern standards. This is not entirely due to the age of the film: In Russia, Eisenstein was cutting Potemkin at a pace that, by comparison, is rapid by recent editing standards. Pace, although not an active characteristic in Keaton's chase sequence, does pick up in the very last scene of the sequence, which has some crosscutting.

The sequence has many moving shots. In fact, the majority of the shots are moving shots. There is very little that is static in the sequence. There is some use of subjective camera placement, but the majority of moving shots are used to clarify the narrative. The camera is placed so that we see what Keaton felt we need to see to understand the narrative. In this sense, Keaton did not use movement to encourage identification with the protagonist or his goal. The audience's understanding of the goal seems to have been enough.

Finally, the entire sequence proceeds without a single close-up. There are midshots of Johnny's reaction to or his surprise at a turn of events, but there are no intense close-ups to encourage our identification with Johnny or his cause. Emotionalism plays no part in this action sequence.

This 18-minute action sequence proceeds in an exciting exposition of the chase. The articulation of the twists and turns of that chase and of the comic possibilities of the scene seems to override the need to manipulate the audience with pace and intensity. Character (Johnny) and technology (the trains) are the center of the action sequence, and as in the Bullitt car chase, we admire it from outside as spectators rather than relate to it from the inside as participants.

   RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK: A CONTEMPORARY ACTION SEQUENCE

Steven Spielberg and George Lucas directed and produced Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) together. The film exemplifies many remarkable action sequences. The focus here is on the sequence in which Indiana Jones chases and captures the trunk containing the Lost Ark of Canaan.

The film tells the story of adventurous archeologist Indiana Jones and his pursuit of the Ark. He is competing with a French archeologist and his financiers, the pre-war Nazis, who believe that the Ark has supernatural power. Only Indiana Jones and his associates can prevent the Ark from falling into unfriendly hands. The chase occurs in the latter third of the film after the Ark has been excavated from an ancient Egyptian city. The Nazis have the Ark, and Indiana Jones wants to retake it. As the scene opens, he is on foot, and the Ark is on a truck. When asked what he will do to retake it, he responds that he doesn't know and he's making it up as he goes along. This devil-may-care flippancy is key because it alerts the audience that, in keeping with the rest of the film, Jones will find himself in danger but will be inventive in eluding destruction. The fun comes in watching him do so. This is the spirit of the chase sequence (Figure 17.4).

The 7½-minute sequence can be broken down as follows:

Spielberg used long shots to make sure that we understand what is happening in the sequence. For example, in one shot we see Jones catch up to the truck. When Spielberg wanted these shots to provide information, he used both the foreground and background. He positioned the camera in these shots to film both in focus. When he wanted to use a long shot more dynamically, however, he adjusted the depth of field to lose the foreground and the background. An example of such a shot occurs in the opening scene of the chase when Jones is mounted on a horse. The loss of foreground combined with the jump-cutting makes his pursuit on horseback seem faster and more dynamic. For the most part, however, individual scenes are constructed from midshots and close-ups, including cutaways that make a point in the narrative, for example, the German commander giving the truck more gas to go faster in the hopes of crushing Jones between the truck and the command car. Close shots are very important in the creation of this sequence. They are used to enhance narrative clarity but also to intensify the narrative.

Besides the close-ups, the camera position often puts us in the position of Indiana Jones. Not only do we see his reactions to events, but we also see the events unfolding as he sees them. This subjectivity of camera placement gives us no choice but to identify with the character.

Another important element in the sequence is the pace. Shots often last no longer than a few seconds. In general, the pace quickens as we move through the sequence. In the first scene, the average shot is just under 4 seconds. In the last scene, the average shot is just under 5 seconds. In between, however, the pace varies between just under 2 seconds to just over 1 second. In the second scene, when Jones has reached the truck and is struggling to capture it, the scene has 31 shots in 45 seconds. In the next scene, his struggle with the half-truck and the motorbike, the pace is maintained with 48 shots in 80 seconds. This pace eases only slightly as the soldiers who have been guarding the Ark try to take the truck from Jones. Here, there are 38 shots in 65 seconds. The greatest personal threat to Jones occurs when he is literally thrown out of the truck by the German commander. This more personal combat takes longer and is more complex. The scene has 57 shots in 2 minutes, and it is the climax of the sequence. Once Jones's personal safety is no longer at risk, the pace shifts into a more relaxed final scene. Pace plays a very critical role in the effectiveness of this action sequence.

In the entire sequence, Spielberg used 210 shots in 7½ minutes. He included all of the elements necessary to get us to identify with Indiana Jones, to understand his conflict, and to struggle with him for the resolution of that conflict. Spielberg succeeded with this sequence in terms of entertainment and identification. It represents the exciting possibilities of the action sequence.

What can be learned from comparing the Keaton sequence and the Spielberg sequence? At every point of both action sequences, the filmmaker's goal is narrative clarity. The audience must know where they are in the story. Confusion does not complement excitement. Good directors know how the action sequence helps the story and positions the audience. Is the sequence intended for entertainment, as both of these sequences are, or is it meant solely for identification, like Frankenheimer's action sequences in Black Sunday and the assassination sequence that ends The Manchurian Candidate? The filmmaker's goal is critical.

Another element that seems similar in both sequences is the role of moving vehicles. Both filmmakers were fascinated with these symbols of technology and how they act as both barriers and facilitators for humans. Both filmmakers demonstrated a positive attitude about technology—unlike Stanley Kubrick in Dr. Strangelove (1964) and 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)—and their approach to the trains and trucks is rather joyful. This attitude infuses both sequences.

Perhaps the greatest differences between the two approaches are in how manipulative the filmmaker wanted to be in making the action sequence more exciting and the identification more important. Spielberg clearly valued pace, the close-up, and the importance of subjective camera placement to a far greater degree than did Keaton. This is the recent pattern for action sequences: to use all of the elements of film to make them as exciting as possible. The interesting question is not so much why Spielberg needed to resort to these manipulative techniques, but rather why Keaton didn't feel the same way.

Both sequences are very exciting despite the 50 or so years between the two productions, but their approaches differ considerably. It is here that the artistic personality of the director comes into play. It also suggests that the modern conventions of the action sequence, albeit strongly skewed in the direction of Spielberg's approach, may be wider than we thought.

   NOTES/REFERENCES