First, we have Liam Neeson jumping over a fence in Taken 3, with a total of 15 cuts in a moment that lasts seconds. (I hope the link to this Tweet works. I could not track down the Gif anywhere else although it made the rounds a bit last year, with everyone making fun of the number of cuts.)
better or worse than liam neeson hopping a fence in taken 3 pic.twitter.com/w1HA8LWVwt
— Quinton Buxton (@QBComics) March 17, 2017
I guess, okay, sure, that’s a way to go with it. Do all those cuts make the scene better? Make the moment more exciting? I find such film-making lazy to the point of insulting, revealing a total lack of trust in the moment, the audience, the actor, the scenario … I mean, literally every single element. What this looks like to me is the director/editor/producer shouting in my ear (with insecurity not excitement): “Oooh. This looks SUPER COOL. Doesn’t it?? You don’t even have time to BREATHE!” No shit, and I’m bored out of my mind and unimpressed. If you HOLD a moment longer than half a second, then your audience will get bored and check their phones, apparently. Maybe that’s true? But it’s not true for me, and when someone like me – who has a healthy attention span – is forced to watch something like that, my brain goes into a flat-line of boredom at the pure unreality. Besides: Liam Neeson is a fine and impressive physical actor. I want to see him jump over that fence all on his own. You know he can do it. It would look amazing!
And now compare: an identical scene. Jensen Ackles jumping over an identical fence in Supernatural. One shot. No cuts. Just him and his physical brilliance, up to and including twisting his body around backwards while in mid-air.
That second moment is far more thrilling and satisfying. It grounds us in reality because we can see that that is an actual human man actually climbing up that fence, actually doing that stunt. Your brain also doesn’t fuzz to a blank trying to comprehend the action broken up into 15 separate teensy chunks.
If I were teaching a film-class to young directors, I’d show them both these clips. And ask them what they see. And ask them to describe the effect both had on them. I’d try not to ask leading questions. Just show the two clips. And let the conversation start. It would be very interesting, I think.
I cannot stop watching. And it’s not just Ackles’ physicality (and, ahem, belly!), it’s the natural pace of the scene. Even without sound, you can feel the rhythm, it’s an actual human rhythm, you can breathe with him.
Right! If an actor can do that, let him do it!
An editor friend of mine on Facebook made an interesting point too – let’s say Neeson had some trouble getting over the fence. That could work beautifully too! The human tension. Will he make it? Plus the audience pleasure of seeing an actor actually do something.
It’s like car chases. Give me a 1970s car chase – with actual stunt drivers – over the quick-cut CGI fests nowadays. The car chase in To Live and Die in LA – with the one car driving the wrong way on a freeway in LA – is one of the most hair-raising thing I’ve ever seen because there are people – drivers – actually pulling it off. Same with the famous car-chasing-elevated train in French Connection. That’s actually happening. No tricks. It’s exhilarating!!
and yes, the belly facing the sky. It’s just so human – and so exciting!
// let’s say Neeson had some trouble getting over the fence. That could work beautifully too! The human tension. //
So true!
//and yes, the belly facing the sky. It’s just so human//
Right. He’s being super badass jumping over the fence like it’s nothing, and at the same time it exposes one of the most vulnerable part of his body. Great!
Along the same lines (including the unfavorable Taken reference) did you happen to see this: http://www.avclub.com/article/raid-movies-are-masterclasses-action-filmmaking-252401 ?
Dan – Ooh, no, I missed this! Thank you – I’ll watch that video essay later when I’m not on my phone – right up my alley!
One of the things that is great about the John Wick movies is that it’s real honest to God fight choreography going on – and it’s clearly not supposed to be real – but it’s a dance of bodies, who are really learning all these moves and committing to them and it’s awe-inspiring.
Have you seen the sequel?
There’s one sequence involving two stunt guys – or, who knows, maybe one of them is Keanu, I wouldn’t put it past him – rolling down an enormous flight of stairs which is unbelievable.
And nothing like that Taken 3 shot. You actually can watch these guys move their own bodies through space – and there’s something really satisfying about that!
I haven’t seen the sequel, but I loved the first one.
If you enjoyed John Wick you should check out the The Raid. There’s some clips in the video essay, but it’s along the lines of John Wick (which I think it predates) in that it’s full of old school fight choreography.
I’ve been meaning to check it out. I will!
I love good fight choreography and talented actors/stunt-people who can pull it off.
And I agree with you re: 1970s car chases. A few years ago I did that thing where I seek out and binge a bunch of movies with one thing in common, which in that instance pre-CGI car chases of note.
The best!
One of the reasons the Fast and Furious series is so fun is you can tell there is a lot of real-life stunt driving going on. It makes it that much more exciting when you can actually SEE a car careening around a corner, facing the wrong way, and then having to right itself, etc.
I had to review Taken 3, and there’s a scene where he is driving on the freeway, going the wrong way, into oncoming traffic. All I could think of was To Live and Die in LA. Same scene – one is good, one is bad. Because the one that’s good … you can tell there really is some dude driving at full speed into what looks like regular freeway traffic. It looks so so dangerous!
Great.
I have to check out the F & F movies. As I get older (and maybe crankier) I find I prefer ‘real’ effects – it adds to the sense of movie magic. And it doesn’t even have to be chases and explosions – I’m thinking of that scene in Children of Men that leaves you wondering how they filmed that in a real car…
I know just the scene you mean. Incredible.
F&F has much more unreality – but the car stunts are very cool and you actually feel like a lot of it is happening before your eyes.
Hi Dan,
if you wouldn’t mind sharing a list of the best of those, I’d be very, very grateful this summer when I binge watch them, stuck to my AC.:)
Lyries, I’d be happy to, and hopefully others will chime in. My list would include:
Thunder Road
Bullit
The Seven-Ups
The French Connection
Smokey and the Bandit
The Driver
Mad Max
Two-Lane Blacktop*
Dirty Mary Crazy Larry
To Live and Die in LA
Ronin
Mad Max: Fury Road
I have yet to see the original Gone in 60 Seconds or Vanishing Point, but both might be worth your while.
*ok, technically a car race, not a car chase, movie, but too awesome not to list here.
Thanks so much, Dan!
Great list, Dan!
Two-Lane Blacktop! Yes! One of the greatest car movies ever made, for sure – but a great movie in general.
Fury Road is great too for the reasons we’ve been discussing.
Then of course there’s Duel!
Defenitely Duel! How did I forget that one?
Like Two Lane Blacktop this is more a race than a chase scene, but if you will permit me to be a massive dork for a moment, The Black Stallion ends on a superb, thrilling, cathartic race with some of the best sound editing ever put on film. I know you like cars though Lyrie! But it’s just phenomenal, I had to mention it.
I LOVE that race, Jessie.
Jessie, I added it to my list, thanks!
My purest hope in this world is that gay marriage is legalised so we can get on with sliding down that slippery slope to perversity and I can finally marry my one true love The Black Stallion (1979 dir. Carroll Bollard).
I have such a vivid memory of my mother taking us to see that movie when we were kids. That opening sequence is a masterpiece. Or, really, the whole first half on the island. It still blows me away.
oh, what a memory for you! It’s such a special thing. This movie one of the big ones between me and my mum as well. I think she sat me down to watch it before I knew what movies were. Taped off the telly only though! I’d die to see it on the big screen.
There’s a 6 second clip of Liam jumping the fence in 15 cuts on YouTube here. Looks pretty crappy and it’s no fun to watch.
Somewhere David Mamet writes about deciding not to show the hands of an actor playing the piano even tho the actor was actually playing the piece because he didn’t want the audience going, ‘Whoa! Joe Montegna can really play the piano!” And I get that, there are some kinds of movies where it would yank you out of the story, but generally that kind of thing adds to the pleasure.
And “Joe Montegna can really play the piano!” is a much happier thought than “I can’t tell what the hell is going on with that guy on the fence.”
(I don’t think Joe Montegna was the guy who can really play the piano, but I think it was somebody Joe Montegna-esque).
Jeff Gee – Interesting!
I feel the same way sometimes about really explicit sex scenes. I’m not against them in principle – but sometimes a suggestion of it is far sexier than seeing everything and thinking, “Wow … did they use body doubles?” or whatever – which can pull you out of it.
// And “Joe Montegna can really play the piano!” is a much happier thought than “I can’t tell what the hell is going on with that guy on the fence.” //
hahahaha
I mean, it’s a 2 second moment – look at how confusing it is!
This is all Olivier Megaton’s doing. Just look at his previous works. For example look at what Tsui Hark and Louis Letterrier did on the first two Transporter films. They were solid action films where you could clearly see and make sense of the action. Then compare those films with Megaton directing Transporter 3. It’s like Megaton saw all of Paul Greengrass’ filmography one day and decided to try and copy his style the next morning with no practice or any sort of plan, and with an extra gritty muted colour grading on top.
P.S. Here’s the direct link to the Take 3 GIF in case the tweet in your article ever stops working: http://gif.co/G2VQ.gif
Thanks for the direct link!
I reviewed Taken 3 for Rogerebert.com – and didn’t mention the fence moment – I did bring up one of the car chases, which had similar issues – mentioned elsewhere in this thread – but yeah, the whole thing was so busy – and NERVOUS – and unfocused (“keep it movin’ people, keep it movin’ all the time!”) – that it’s basically unwatchable.
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/taken-3-2015
As Ash mentioned, Greengrass has a lot to do with this. I have called it the Greengrassdartazation of cinema. Greengrass is very talented and makes the excessive cutting work in his films to their advantage. In movies like Captain Phillips or United 93 it serves to create a palpable sense of confusion and disorientation on the part of the audience, mirroring what the characters’ are going through.
The problem is that far too many directors who don’t know what they are doing are trying to mimic this style. I wonder sometimes if they are doing it for any reason other than they think it’s cool. Or they can’t get the shots they need in longer takes.
Interesting point on watching an actor “really” do something. I always want to see that. Once a film has been playing for a bit if it’s any good the audience should forget that they are watching the particular actor. I mean half-way through The Conversation, you’re watching Harry Caul, not Gene Hackman. It’s not like you completely forget it’s Hackman, but on some level of consciousness you do. So if the CHARACTER is doing something the character should do, I want to see it done well. (Unless the character can’t do it well).
One example that comes to mind is White Men Can’t Jump. Woody Harrelson could ball a little bit, and Wesley Snipes really couldn’t. The shots of Woody playing are so much more satisfying than those of Snipes because you can see them play out in actual time, where many of the shots of Snipes are cut to death to try to make it look like he can play. Watching that, my only thought was that Billy Hoyle can ball. I think if the movie is good that authenticity only helps, but it’s an interesting discussion.
Todd – you and I have discussed Greengrass before in this regard!
// Or they can’t get the shots they need in longer takes. //
This is what I suspect. I watch that fence moment and all I really see is poor planning and lack of imagination.
It’s really great to see an actor who can really do something really do it. It sounds so simple but it’s not! Sports movies are real litmus tests. Or dance movies! Once upon a time, people could actually dance – so most of, say, Astaire and Rogers were filmed in long continuous takes, the camera moving around following them. Now, everyone’s broken up like a music video to hide the lack of skill in the dancers – Flashdance did this, but it continues. Any time a dance movie actually allows the dancers to go – show their stuff – it’s thrilling. Magic Mike may not be a dance movie – or, sort of – but the dance scenes are shot in such a way that you really can see these real guys moving – their bodies moving through space – no body doubles or dance doubles.
It’s one of the main reasons who those movies work so well.
Yeah, we’ve kicked around the Greengrass theory!
Re: physical acting, sports movies are the perfect example of why this is important. If you don’t “buy” the athlete it’s hard to sell the movie. Look at Ray Allen and what he did for He Got Game. Non-actor athletes can be a good choice sometimes.
And for actors trying to sell something physical, I personally LOVE hearing stories of how so and so took guitar lessons for 9 months, or went to a real Military Boot camp, or spent months going on ride-arounds with real police to get into a role and SELL it. That to me (as a non-actor unfamiliar with the various “methods” or “process” that may be considered the norm) seems a crucial part of the job.
Yeah, I’ve decided I want to really see the actor doing the character’s “thing”. Take Inside LLewyn Davis, would that have even been a good movie, let alone the masterpiece it is, if Oscar Isaac hadn’t played and sung himself?
I love Bull Durham but I wince every time Tim Robbins “winds up” on the mound. My whole spirit/mind/soul rejects it.
I’m fine with some of that Boot Camp stuff, and I also love to see people who have devoted themselves to the character’s world to such a degree that you believe that they are the character with the character’s skills and gifts – I just wish actors didn’t go on and on and ON about it, to show how hard they “worked.”
I don’t care about your Boot Camp. That doesn’t automatically mean it’s a good performance. Just do your work and shut up about it!
Spencer Tracy didn’t do no Boot Camp and he can act all those young whippersnappers off the screen. With one hand tied behind his back.
/petpeeve
I didn’t mean I like hearing the actors tell their own stories about the rigors they went through. Yeah Leo, it was fucking cold during the shoot for The Revenant, I get it. And your take downs of Vera Farmiga for bragging about losing 10 lbs is pretty hilarious.
I just mean I like the result if an actor puts the work into selling the characters “skill” so that it seems authentic. A guy like Spencer Tracy may not have had to approach that role the way another actor might have. I don’t care. Just get the job done, whatever it takes. So when the actor DOESN’T sell the role, like Tim Robbins in Bull Durham, it’s pretty noticeable and really hurts the movie (as opposed to Costner, whose swing made you believe Crash could be the all-time minor league home run champ).
// Yeah Leo, it was fucking cold during the shoot for The Revenant, I get it. //
Yeah, that’s the kind of thing I mean.
Let the work speak for itself.
A director working with Spencer Tracy told him he wanted him to have five o’clock shadow for one scene. Tracy said No. But that he’d “act” like he had it. The director was like “and dammit if he didn’t pull it off.”
I think there is a real intolerance for make-believe in the business right now – with actors being over-congratulated for gaining 200 pounds instead of just wearing a fat suit and not ruining your metabolism for life. “Look how hard you worked. You’re so fat.” (Or, as with Vera – whom I actually like but it took me a while – it was The Conjuring that did it!! – “I had to gain 10 pounds and on me that’s a lot.” SHUT. UP. VERA.)
And totally agree about Costner being totally believable as a baseball player.
But point totally taken.
You have to make me believe you ARE that thing. Whatever it is. Do what you need to do to believe it.
John Garfield didn’t play a damn note in Humoresque and another violin player crouched below him putting his hands up into the frame to play the violin crooked in Garfield’s neck – !!!! – and it is seamless, totally believable – because GARFIELD believed it, Garfield FELT that music.
I watch it and I know it’s not Garfield playing but I FORGET because the make-believe is so real.
And David Mamet, who for sure is a mercurial talent who has written and directed some terrific films, also has some really bizarre and out-of-the box ideas on acting and film-making. His book On Directing Film is a fascinating read, if only to show that there are Myriad ways to approach acting and film-making, and it’s NOT a one way is the RIGHT way type of art.
I haven’t seen Taken 3 but if this is the OH MY GOD CHECK THIS CRAZY SHIT OUT treatment a fence-jump gets how do they manage intensity levels for the rest of the film? Does the big final shootout cut every other frame?
Love the Supernatural approach of couching its look-what-we-got-up-our-sleeve showing off in an almost casual no big deal shrug.
// how do they manage intensity levels for the rest of the film? //
hahahaha They do all these dumb things with camera angles – peeking up underneath tables during a regular old conversation at home – like, there’s never an establishing shot, there’s never any confidence in the SCENE happening – the camera is busy, peeking, and bobbing and swerving … It was so distracting!
// in an almost casual no big deal shrug. //
Right?
It’s not made into a big bit. That’s the character solving a problem. He can’t get in any other way. So yeah – it’s casual – but no less inspiring. Look at how he climbs up that fence – maybe the most impressive part, even more so than the belly to the sky flip. He’s WALKING in a vertical direction. Fast.
and yet, yeah, it’s presented like: “He’s gotta get over that fence, so here he goes, and … onward …”
So much more effective. Would love to know the decision in re: shooting it in one. I can see JA being like, “No, I can do it.” And Guy Bee being no dummy, decides: Okay, if you can make it over in one go, then I sure as shit can FILM it in one go.
I’m not an editor so I’m always hesitant to speak on the subject with any assumption of authority but as a film lover it seems to me that every cut in a scene about physical action should ENHANCE the physical action. There should be a strong illusion of physical reality that is made to feel more solid through the editing.
The editing in that scene from Taken 3 does the opposite, it destroys any illusion of physicality. It removes the sense of the physical presence of the scene’s elements: the man, the fence, the dirt, the dog. There is no weight, no flesh, no bone, no effort.
Scenes like flashbacks are slightly different and should in certain cases have a more ethereal, intangible quality, but scenes of action need a grounded physical presence to be conveyed, and the editing should serve that.
(I probably could have found synonyms instead of writing the word “physical” four thousand times but I’m being lazy right now.)
Ed – hi!
// The editing in that scene from Taken 3 does the opposite, it destroys any illusion of physicality //
I really agree with this observation. You know that the attempt is meant to somehow make the physicality more visceral – or something like that – but the result has the opposite effect. It becomes almost totally conceptual. As well as a mess.
Editing is such an interesting field. I have a couple of friends who do it and I love to hear them weigh in.
Here’s a more recent example of how to cut / how not to cut. I haven’t been part of the active viewership for the Netflix / Marvel armageddon, but I found this side-by-side of Daredevil’s brutal hallway-fight-oner to Iron Fist’s 56 cuts in < 30-seconds fascinating (http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/iron-fist-season-1-fight-scene-video-edit-cuts-a7640966.html). I don't like to make blanket statements, but I feel like laziness has a mammoth role to play in the disjointed style employed in these sequences. The cuts end up being so jarring that the movement has no credibility, and when we move on to further conflict- why does it even matter? When media focuses on movement, spends more time on a subject in motion, that's where it earns a cut. It's all about verisimilitude. It always has been. That's why Spielberg was able to use the CGI Rex for his wide shots. Because we'd already seen it. Inches away. Flesh and blood.
Ian – Welcome! :)
great link, thanks!
I don’t watch either show – but that second one really impressed me. I loved the long slow opening shot. the tense breather before the confrontation. Good sense of pacing (and beautiful lighting!) The Iron Fist – UGH.
I agree totally: This represents laziness, in my eyes – there’s the lack of trust in the attention span of the audience which is a part of it – but having two actors who can pull off extensive real-looking fight choreography (as well as having good fight choreography) – takes real time and commitment and skill. (Supernatural, again, is a great example of how GOOD that show is – on so many levels, but on the physical level too. Both leads are superb in their fight scenes, rarely use doubles, and you always get the sense that their bodies are fallible – that punches hurt – being punched and punching someone else – and it just requires a lot of WORK to put together a fight scene, even with really talented people.) By breaking up that not-so-interesting fight in Iron Fist – neither actor has to work all that hard since it’s such tiny chunks, and everyone involved can relax knowing it’ll be fixed in the editing room. It drives me crazy. I so appreciate skill and CARE.
// That’s why Spielberg was able to use the CGI Rex for his wide shots. Because we’d already seen it. Inches away. Flesh and blood. //
Interesting point – I see what you mean!
While we’re at it, what about those long takes (or whatever they’re called) in the old musicals, where you got to see Astaire dance for five minutes straight with no cuts? I hate hate hate all the cuts in modern musicals.
Jincy – YES.
I despise all the cuts in modern musicals too. I want to see the dancers in their entirety. And if they don’t have the skill to pull it off then maybe … don’t pretend they do? Or cut away from their feet? The “tap dancing” Richard Gere did in Chicago and how often they cut away from whole body shots is a perfect example. Compare to THIS gloriousness:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54iR0xFkEfQ
You know? You just can’t even compare the two.
and it’s so much more pleasing to watch the latter.
I want to write a long and witty response but all I can come up with is:
OMG, so much this!
YES! And thanks for the reminder. So I went and watched the Fatboy Slim video too, because it’s that sort of day. This man makes me very happy.
God, yes!!
Speaking of jumping over fences: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqBInhDxVBQ
Of course, Edgar Wright loves his repeated image/cuts, but he uses them rarely for movement. Usually there’s a visual joke attached.
Ha!!! Barb, that is so great. I love the big lug of a guy PULLING on the fence in frustration.
Great!
There are few things that irritate me more in an action sequence than jump cuts. When I watch an action scene I want it to flow; it needs a pulse and a rhythm. The visuals need to engage me and take me flowing with it, and as soon as the jump cut happens that rhythm is broken. I still maintain that a long take is far more effective than a shot with multiple cuts. We are blessed with our directors and DP’s because they understand what our boys can do and don’t try to disguise inabilities or false momentum in jumpcuts.
And in a purely shallow sidenote, I could (and do) watch Jensen Ackles perform stunts and physical movements like blade twirling and gunhandling for hours. Someone informed me I have what’s called a “Competence Kink”.
I refuse to be ashamed of this ;o)
Competence Kink!! I love that way of putting it! Hilarious!
Yes: if someone can do something, let’s see them do it.
and then there’s how he pulls himself up out of the crypt in the episode whose title escapes me. But I’m sure someone here will chime in with it in T-minus ….
JUMP THE SHARK!
Holy shit, SPN fans blow my mind.
It was literally minutes.
Thank you for coming through Jessie. Y’all never let me down!!
I don’t always have perfect timing, but when I do, it’s Supernatural-trivia related. ha ha!
I mean, I just tossed it out there and BOOM you came through. In all caps!!
Hilarious!!
Wow, what an interesting contrast. I forgot how impressive those fence acrobatics were! Particularly with the added suspense of “Is he going to get one of those layers caught on the top of the fence??” I know he doesn’t, but I still hold my breath every time! And now that I’ve watched that gif play 20+ times…what is Sam doing with his hands?? Haha. It’s like he’s about to give Dean a boost up, and then remembers he’s on the other side of the fence. :)
Sam’s like, “Here let me help y— Oh. Okay, you got it.”
Geez, my eyes hurt just looking at that gif. I have no issue with cuts although I’d rather have none like Jensen but what really “irritates” me is that it took them 15 shots when it should have Taken 3. It’s like they wanted to do a parody of an action movie. There’s this natural flow when Jensen jumped over that fence, it feels real.
// It’s like they wanted to do a parody of an action movie. There’s this natural flow when Jensen jumped over that fence, it feels real. //
Totally agree with this!