The Lists Project

[Cold Bishop]

Action! Action! Action!

It's the perfect counterpoint to the Musical list.

[YnEoS]

I would be interested in an action film list, though I think I'd end up voting for a lot of awful but hilarious action films rather than the good ones.

[Murdoch]

I know American Ninja 4 would make mine. I don't know why more action movies don't color-code their good guys and bad guys during fighting sequences.

[zedz]

Action! Action! Action!

It's the perfect counterpoint to the Musical list.

But that's a genre that's almost impossible to define. I could envisage a top ten that included The General, Jeanne Dielman, A Man Escapes, Ritual in Transfigured Time, The Turin Horse, Come into My World, Pas de deux and Le Trou, but I don't think that's what you had in mind.

[knives]

Listing some of those is clearly just trying to shotput your favorites. If you're being honest about what an action film entails there's no way that Jeanna Dielman fits. I would think one of the pre-requisites is a few action scenes (i.e. two or more people fighting) though The General is pretty clearly an action movie (and I thought always has been considered such).

[domino harvey]

With so many genre possibilities, I think members should rank three genres 1-3 in order of preference via PM (and yes, you could only vote for one genre once if you so wish) and I will weigh all submissions and discover the most "popular" or consensus genre for our next list-- I don't think a single poll is going to do the job, there's too many possibilities and this will prevent some unnecessary vote-spliting that would result of a poll. Thoughts?

EDIT: Example ballot:

01 War films -- 3 points
02 Romances -- 2 points
03 Documentaries -- 1 point

[matrixschmatrix]

Makes sense to me, at least there's some kind of formality to it.

[swo17]

Fine by me, if only because this will enable domino to be working up to three projects ahead of the rest of us.

[zedz]

Listing some of those is clearly just trying to shotput your favorites. If you're being honest about what an action film entails there's no way that Jeanna Dielman fits. I would think one of the pre-requisites is a few action scenes (i.e. two or more people fighting) though The General is pretty clearly an action movie (and I thought always has been considered such).

Jeanne Dielman is nothing but action.

My problem is that limiting the so-called 'action' genre to its narrowest form (e.g. films with lots of guys fighting other guys in them) also limits it to a whole lot of films that aren't particularly interesting to me cinematically. Defining it in a more general as films that are predicated on the human body (and other bodies) in motion, or on set-pieces of physical activity, opens up the genre to such an extent that it sort of dissolves (which was the point I was trying to make). Why should we privilege a physical-action set-piece that involves one person punching another person in the face over one that involves somebody climbing over a moving train, or staggering around an unfinished skyscraper, or digging a hole, or wandering in the desert, or dancing, or fucking, or peeling potatoes? What's the threshold for defining an activity as 'action'?

[knives]

It can also have lots of girls fighting lots of guys. We shouldn't ignore Cheng Pei-pei. As to your hypothetical, isn't that just flying in the face of the intention of the list. I hate to do this, but it really comes across to me as equivalent to Nothing's whining about Deadwood. If the action's fucking than it's porn and if it's fighting it's an action movie. You're willfully ignoring the history of the term's usage (it's actual etymology means nothing) which is born out of the adventure film (are you likewise going to debate a literal reading of that term?). You're asking basically the equivalent to wanting to vote for Do the Right Thing on the film noir list.

[matrixschmatrix]

Well, insofar as Zedz's argument is 'I don't like that definition of action because that means I wouldn't be interested in the genre', that seems kind of silly. We're not privileging fighting as an action except insofar as that is what makes action a genre, because this is the genre project. 'Action' here is just a euphemism for hurting/killing, really.

[Noiradelic]

And, I would add, extended chases, particularly car chases.

[knives]

Though there are action movies made during times when cars didn't exist. The only fear I could imagine someone coming up with for an action list is the amount of overlap with the Westerns.

[Cold Bishop]

I don't think it's that simple. zedz is right to pinpoint the focus on the human body (or its mechanized appendages) in motion to be central to the Action film, but with many qualifiers. Every Action film is rooted in the "quest", with a clearly defined goal at the end, and different feats of endurance blocking the way. On the other hand, I think the Action film is closely related to two "defined" genres which many people pretend are on the opposite end of the spectrum: the Musical and the Melodrama. To me (and this becomes most clear in the highly specialized and codified Hong Kong Kung-fu film), the modern action film is an inversion of the musical. If the impulse of the Musical is one towards harmony (narratively, thematically, aesthetically), Action cinema is towards disharmony. The spectacle of the human body in motion is shared, with similar bursts of spectacle interrupting the dramatic narrative, but the Action film is focused on the straining of the human body, the body pushed to its extreme limits. Likewise, every Action film is Melodrama. But it's hyper-masculinized, the extreme emotions still sublimated into mise-en-scene and spectacle, but where catharsis often comes in varying forms of physical violence (and I consider Keatonesque feats of daring to be acts of violence).

Which brings us to the problem of Action cinema and why I'm sure zedz is wary of tackling it: every Action film is at the very least proto-fascist, anti-social, sado-masochistic. Yet, it nonetheless remains one of the most consistently popular of all genres, and despite it's unpleasant undertones, they often remain the most seductive and thrilling of all films. To me, this complexity and ambiguity often gets shortshrifted when critics wholesale denigrate the genre (and there is much to denigrate). To me, the fact that the critical study of Action as a genre is still mostly virgin territory is all the more reason to do the Project.

[knives]

Not every action film is that and it's absurd to blanket the genre in any of those buzz words. I agree that it is highly related to the musical and that's a good spot to judge the films on, but there is a variety of philosophies possible from action films let alone not having one. That's akin to saying that horror is at the very least misogynistic.

[Cold Bishop]

One major correction: I meant proto-fascist not crypto-fascist (and certainly not toto-fascism, the unwavering belief in the absolute power of Toto IV). I think there can definitely be an argument made that the male gaze puts every horror film (if not all cinema) into a proto-sexist position, but I find this boring at the moment.

Which is to say that just because a film starts in a proto-fascist position doesn't mean it ends there. A film like Seven Samurai becomes a humanist action film precisely in the way it overcomes that initial starting point.

[matrixschmatrix]

I think if you mean proto-fascist in the sense that it shares elements of a fascist aesthetic, that's broadly true, and that the best and most interesting entries in the genre resist that. It's certainly not hard to think of deeply, deeply fascist action movies.

[knives]

I don't see how that's the starting point though. Your beginning point doesn't make sense to me. As for the male gaze nonsense, what of films directed by women or homosexual men or those without female characters?

[zedz]

My post was a little flippant, I'll admit, but it did have a point to it, as Cold Bishop picked up on. Sure, Jeanne Dielman is a provocative suggestion, but what about A Man Escapes or Le Trou? I'd strongly defend those as action films, even in the absence of fight scenes. If you rule those films out, how do you distinguish them from other 'prison break' movies? Not enough explosions? Not dumb enough? Does "action" really mean "violence"? Does a car / train / plane / bicycle / skateboard chase = "violence"?

It seems to me that a whole lot of films from a range of genres could be considered "action films," but what's the distinction? Are all westerns or war movies "action films," or only some of them? Is what makes them "action films" quantifiable, or is it just a variation on "I thought it was cool"?

EDIT: Hey dom, should we just PM you when it's over?

[domino harvey]

EDIT: Hey dom, should we just PM you when it's over?

For everyone: Think over what genres you'd realistically like to tackle and shoot me a PM with your list of a maximum three genres ranked by preference by the end of the month. No rush, after all

[knives]

I wouldn't consider most prison escape film to be action films on account of lack of action in the typical maiming sense. Oddly enough A Man Escaped is one of the few that I would consider as such if my memory of it holds up (the only other one that comes to mind is fellow war movie The Great Escape). You seem to be working from the place that action films must be in the blockbuster vein when as far as I see it it can have as much variety as anything else. Just going off of IMDB for a second I'd think it's acceptable to say

Now obviously not all Western or War movies are action movies. There can be war dramas or westerns with not a single gun drawn. there will always be overlap between genres, but that doesn't mean they're all inclusive of each other (it would take a lot of bullshitting to call Wagon Master an action movie for instance). Unless your goal is to pick hairs it's fairly obvious what is part of the genre versus not. An action film can be 'uncool' of course just the same as it can be kinetic. I don't think you're granting the intelligence of the board enough credit.

[Mr Sausage]

I'd like to know how we're defining "facist" in this context. It seems strange to me that someone can go from linking the action film to quest myth, with its revolving structure of travel punctuated by heroic incident, to defining the genre as always beginning (and often ending) as proto-fascist. It seems that by the time you've ferreted out the genre's archetype like that, a term like fascist becomes too narrow to be useful. Unless of course you think quest myth is a fascist structure, although it's hard to see how. Archetypal structure is pretty neutral in this regard, not to mention that otherwise heterogeneous stuff from Morte Darthur, to the Chinese romance Journey to the West, to The Odyssey, to Jason and the Argonauts, to the poems of Shelley, to Lord of the Rings earns a reductionist and not terribly descriptive lable.

Maybe it depends on how we're defining fascist. Who knows, maybe the idea of individual heroism as manifest in a solitary agent who restores a fallen world by combating error through violence could be argued to be fascist. But A. that's rather general, and B. I think just about every political position has at some point made prominent use of that theme. It's rather in our blood; it's the origin of narrative.

Interesting argument, anyway. And I am aware that any number of specific action films are fascist.

As a side note, cinema has evolved its own odd form of the action narrative that inverts quest myth: the containment narrative, where a single heroic individual is prevented from movement by evil forces, and ends up disrupting their own attempt at completing a quest (most of the efforts towards which have occurred before the narrative proper has begun). Die Hard and its clones are the obvious example.

[Gregory]

Would season 1 of Deadwood count as an Action movie?

[knives]

As a side note, cinema has evolved its own odd form of the action narrative that inverts quest myth: the containment narrative, where a single heroic individual is prevented from movement by evil forces, and ends up disrupting their own attempt at completing a quest (most of the efforts towards which have occurred before the narrative proper has begun). Die Hard and its clones are the obvious example.

Another good counter example is something like Manic Cop where the quest is being searched for by the villain of the piece while the hero tries to end that quest. To be honest how he's defined the action genre seems more reminiscent of it's predecessor the adventure film.

[YnEoS]

My post was a little flippant, I'll admit, but it did have a point to it, as Cold Bishop picked up on. Sure, Jeanne Dielman is a provocative suggestion, but what about A Man Escapes or Le Trou? I'd strongly defend those as action films, even in the absence of fight scenes. If you rule those films out, how do you distinguish them from other 'prison break' movies? Not enough explosions? Not dumb enough? Does "action" really mean "violence"? Does a car / train / plane / bicycle / skateboard chase = "violence"?

It seems to me that a whole lot of films from a range of genres could be considered "action films," but what's the distinction? Are all westerns or war movies "action films," or only some of them? Is what makes them "action films" quantifiable, or is it just a variation on "I thought it was cool"?

I think if you try to think about in terms of "what is or isn't an action film" you're already setting yourself up with an unanswerable question, because obviously it will be impossible to draw a line in the sand saying "these films are, and these films aren't". I really think when making a list like this you have to think of not as "what are 50 of my favorite films that could be classified as action?", but "What are my 50 favorite action films". That way it doesn't become a question of "well you need 33% of the movie to be action or it doesn't count", but rather you might look at a film, that has a bit of action but not a whole lot of action, and say "I like this film quite a bit, and it sort of counts as action, but I don't think I'd call it one of my top 50 action films".

Now I don't think this is limiting either in the sense that you have to judge films purely on their action scenes. But I think basing criticism around the action scenes could provoke some interesting and thought provoking discussions. I'm sure the discussion could go much deeper, but just some surface examples, do you like highlu choreographed stylized action sequences like in 1970s kung fu movies, or more messy realistic fights? Is it more about the physical conflict, or the character development leading up to that moment. Maybe one person's ideal action film, is all character and story buildup to one beautiful 10 second long action scene. Not to mention the different kinds of action personas, IE: should the protagonist be a super-human who makes amazing things look easy (Arnold Schwarzanegger, Bruce Lee, Douglas Fairbanks) or someone who shows the struggle and effort that goes into achieving those physical acts of strength (Sylvester Stallone, Jackie Chan, Silent Samurai films).

I think there's a lot of room for interesting argument of what constitutes a good action film, that allows room for some unconventional choices that wouldn't feel totally out of place. But I think the argument needs to be focused on why these films are good action films, and not why these good films could be considered action films.