'Taken' and 'Chocolate' and the state of the art of the action film in 2009
Drew McWeeny reviews two films and discusses where we are with action in the 21st century
Liam Neeson is not f'ing around
Luc Besson's got a nice little business going for himself in France. And Prachya Pinkaew's got a fairly sweet deal going in Thailand, too. Both of them have set up these action-movie factories that crank out a dependable stream of similar product, and both of them have strong signatures on all of their films. Right now, I'd say there's no one out there who is consistently better at making pure action movies than these two guys.
But why?
And what do their latest movies, "Taken" and "Chocolate," have to say about the state of action movies in 2009?
[more after the jump]
Luc Besson is interesting. As a director, he has no fixed identity, and I'd argue even he doesn't know what "a Luc Besson film" is. His first two movies are very rough, exercises in style more than anything, but with his third film, "The Big Blue," he probably came the closest to doing something biographical, personal. His parents were professional divers, and most of his early life was spent in or around the ocean. He even considered becoming a professional until an injury meant that he was out of the water for life. Besson says he didn't grow up with an interest in film, which makes his flawless eye for composition doubly-impressive. It was really with "Nikita" and "Leon" that he made the jump into the world of action, and he's never looked back. Both of them are slick, impeccably-shot and rigorously staged, action movies with soul. Besson always seems enamored of his actors, and not just because he keeps marrying them. He seemed to really love discovering new actors and capturing these raw, vital performances before they got bogged down with technique. Anne Parrilaud in "Nikita" is a wild thing, and young Natalie Portman in "Leon" is better and more natural than she's ever been as an adult. Both of them were shot in a way that made their performances almost feel accidental, like they just happened. And he would always surround these new females faces with the same basic reperatory company of rock-solid character actors. Tcheky Karyo. Jean Reno. Jean-Hughes Anglade. Gary freakin' Oldman.
His right turns as a director into films like "The Messenger" and "The Fifth Element" seemed to confuse not only his audience but himself. I like both those movies, but they're far messier, far more unfinished than his earlier action films. And now, as he diddles around with those Minimoys books and films, it all just feels impersonal to me, disconnected from what made Besson relevant in the first place. Even "Angel-A" may be stylish and offer some pleasures, but it's even less cooked, less complete, continuing his slide away from the focused, efficient action filmmaker it looked like he was going to become.
That energy didn't disappear, though. Instead, he chanelled it into becoming a producer of modestly-budgeted action films that all seem to reflect the same basic aesthetic as "Nikita" and "Leon." For a while, the "Taxi" films were his signature. But once he hooked up with Robert Mark Kamen (screenwriter of "The Karate Kid") and the two of them realized they shared a deep affection for kung-fu films, one of them must have looked at the other and said, "So why aren't there more French kung-fu movies?" And then lightbulb over the head and they got into the kung-fu movie business in a huge way. They typically write the scripts for the films together, with Besson producing. "Taken" is, if I'm not mistaken, the 873rd film they've made together since 1997.
With "Chocolate," Prachya Pinkaew continues to refine the style he's been developing, and he's actually growing as a director from film to film. I don't think Scorsese's gotta start sweating yet, but Pinkaew seems aware of his own limitations and he seems determined to deliver more than "just" action scenes. There was a jump from "Ong Bak" to "Tom Yum Goong," and there's a big jump from that film to "Chocolate," which is just as much a melodrama about star-crossed lovers and their autistic child as it is a bone-crunching martial arts film.
Obviously, Besson works with a radically different per-film budget than Pinkaew does, but even so, neither of these films can compare, cost-wise, with a typical Hollywood production. This is a town where even a middle-of-the-road romantic comedy can cost $75 million and no one seems ruffled. When Hollywood does action these days, they think of Michael Bay or "The Bourne Identity" or the reinvented Bond. Shaky-cam. Lots of CGI. The philosophy of escalation. Everything's always got to be bigger and bigger. Crazier and crazier, no matter what. Story? Barely matters. Character? Who'd notice? Spectacle is king in mainstream action these days.
But there's something to be said for the simple virtues of crazy stuntment willing to get permanently fucked up on camera for our entertainment, and no amount of money or CGI can top it. The main visceral kick to any great action movie is the knowledge that we're watching someone do something dangerous. The more you make it obvious to an audience that the danger isn't real, the harder you have to tapdance to keep them engaged at all. That's why so many giant budget action films seem so frantic... they're making up for the lack of reality. When I saw "The Road Warrior" the first time, what hooked me was that feeling that no one could have possibly walked away alive. I was sure George Miller had killed a couple dozen crazy Aussies to get those car stunts on film. The spaghetti Western mythology is what's great on top of and it makes the film feel mythic, but the stunts... oh, those beautiful stunts.
So when Liam Neeson wades into a fight like a furious Scottish bear or when Jeeja Yanin wades into a fight against an entire slaughterhouse full of knife-wielding thugs, it's exciting because there is a reality to it. In both films, the leads are playing against expectation, making it even more enjoyable when bones start breaking. Liam Neeson, for example, is a huge surprise in "Taken," and he gives the movie an unexpected kick. When you see Jason Statham or Jet Li as the lead in one of these movies, you know what sort of ass-kickery you're going to get. When one of these films stars the dude who invented parkour, it's a pretty safe bet you're going to see some parkour. But Liam Neeson brings a sincerity and an emotional credibility to the film first, and then delivers on the action with brutal efficiency. He's huge (I think he stands around eight and a half feet tall), and director Pierre Morel makes exceptional use of that size. When Neeson puts a hurting on something, you believe they're not getting up again. And in keeping with the trend since Bond rebooted and Bourne started searching for his identity, Neeson plays a human-scale superhero, a guy who has exceptional skills but who never seems to push the impossible. And when you first see Jeeja Yanin, it's sort of the opposite. She's a little whisper of a girl, cute and slight and completely non-threatening. But unlike many of the little Hollywood post-Whedon girls who kick ass (practically a cliche at this point), Yanin doesn't look like she's running through a routine she memorized at Bally's Total Fitness. This is no cardio workout. You watch the last giant fight scene in this film... and watch the way she hurls herself at one opponent after another, up and down the outside of a building, and you tell me she looks like she's faking it, or like it's all just for show.
Both of these producers benefit from having stunt teams who realize that it's not about being bigger and more ridiculous each time, but instead is about making sure you sell every beat of every fight. It's about taking full advantage of each space, each performer, each idea. These films engage us because the filmmakers are actively engaged from scene to scene, from moment to moment. They don't feel phoned in or perfunctory. They feel alive, and that pulse is what makes an action film great.
Neither of the films is perfect. "Taken" trades on a certain flavor of paranoid xenophobia that I'm not completely in tune with, but the crude set-up allows for a few fantastic payoffs, where action meets emotion in all the right ways. And "Chocolate" does play things fairly broad. There's not a word for "subtle" in Thai, evidently. That's okay. Once you go with it, "Chocolate" becomes a very particular kind of pleasure. This is why I got hooked on watching kung-fu movies in the first place, the idea of watching someone slowly but surely fight their way through insane physical odds to right some wrong. It's a structure that the gaming industry absorbed and implemented in the way levels and bosses work. "Chocolate" is structured very, very well, and so the melodrama works, the engine that puts Zen in those situations, each one a greater test, until she finally has to burn the whole damn world down at the end.
As symbols of the industry right now, I am glad to see "Taken" do so well, and I hope "Chocolate" gets rented like crazy. And I hope the current economic climate forces studios to aim for more solid singles and doubles like this instead of always chasing the empty home run. Real action films. Human beings doing crazy things. Danger. Bliss.
Can't get enough of Motion/Captured? Don't miss a post with daily HitFix Blog Alerts. Sign up now.
Don't miss out. Add Motion/Captured to your iGoogle, My Yahoo or My MSN experience by clicking here.
Not part of the HitFix Nation yet? Take 90 seconds and sign up today.
News From Our Partners
-
'Dark Knight Rises' TV Spots: A Lighter Side Of Batman
Emma Stone Nabs First 'MTV Trailblazer Award'
Charlize Theron Gives Dirty Details About Michael Fassbender
-
Pamela Newton: My 'Downton Abbey' Fantasy Life
Remy M. Maisel: It Turns Out, We Can Indeed Haz Super PAC: Part I
WATCH: Reporter Fakes Sandstorm On Live TV
-
Total Recall: Will Smith's Best Movies
Cannes 2012: Critics Scorecard
24 Frames: The Films of Wes Anderson
-
Gateways To Geekery: There’s more to Russ Meyer’s films than breasts, though those are pretty important
Interview: Men In Black 3 director Barry Sonnenfeld on creating character and managing 3-D
The Walkthrough: 30 Rock showrunner Robert Carlock walks us through some recent series highlights
-
The Telefile - Modern Family: Best Lines of the Season 3 Finale
The Telefile - Today's TWoP News: Wednesday, May 23, 2012
The Telefile - Today's TWoP News: Tuesday, May 22, 2012
-
TV ratings: 'American Idol' finale way down from 2011 but FOX still dominates Wednesday
Neil Diamond and Fantasia plus Reba McEntire rock the 'American Idol' finale stage
'Duets': Watch Kelly Clarkson and Jordan Meredith on 'Stronger,' plus other clips
-
Russell Crowe, Elvis Costello, Sing Elvis Presley And Johnny Cash In London
Zero Dark Thirty: Kathryn Bigelow, Mark Boal, Given Secret Access By CIA For bin Laden Film
'Transformers 3' Extra Receives $18.5 Million Settlement For Injury
About This Blog
Los Angeles has changed since 1990, and Drew McWeeny, all-around Chauncey Gardner of movie fandom, has seen it all as an industry insider and screenwriter who wrote for 12 years as "Moriarty" for Ain't It Cool News.
Get Instant Alerts on Motion/Captured
Latest Posts
-
Our review of the best film at this year's Cannes Film FestivalWednesday, May 23, 2012
-
Long-rumored Kerouac adaptation mostly gets it rightWednesday, May 23, 2012
-
His second film with Andrew Dominik is dark, cynical, and fairly greatTuesday, May 22, 2012
-
We take a little time with one of Hollywood's living legendsTuesday, May 22, 2012

Comments
Option 1
Comment instantly as a guest GuestOption 2
Option 3
Login or create a HitFix account Login Signuplujho
February 14, 2009 at 11:15AM EST Reply to CommentYeah, I just saw Chocolate last night. Tremendous fun. I have a very strong Vern-like dislike of the current trend for Western action movies to have shaky cameras, too-fast editing and too-close framing.
And when I see these Thai and French films with their protagonists doing the most amazing Batman-like stuff it makes me weep to think of what someone could be doing in a Batman movie with this type of action.
Sam Can
February 14, 2009 at 4:18PM EST Reply to CommentDrew always gets it right. The intimacy of moments that have emotional meaning as well as physical honesty, such as martial artist Bruce Lee or dancer Fred Astaire or action director William Witney understood, is what sells an action scene with human movement no matter how fantastic or wild. Anything else that hints of being fakery takes us out of those moments. The best in action films meld story, character and THE ACTION with equal respect and planning.
Vern
February 14, 2009 at 4:42PM EST Reply to CommentNice piece McWeeny. I enjoyed both movies and also thought if them in connection to each other, though I came to a different conclusion. I have a lujho-like aversion to shakycams and I thought TAKEN represented Besson taking a detour into the modern American style of action. While CHOCOLATE and Pierre Morel's previous movie were about showcasing incredible human feats and photographing clearly what's going on, TAKEN is more like the Bourne movies, shaking things around and disorienting you into thinking that maybe there was an extraordinary human feat somewhere in there just off camera that would've been awesome if you had seen it. In CHOCOLATE I can be forgiving of the seemingly unintentional silliness of the character because the fights are so incredible, in TAKEN I can forgive that the fights aren't as incredible as they could be because I like the character so much. But I would love to see a modern movie with a melding of the two - a character as cool as Liam Neeson with action as incredible as that fight on the side of the building. (Not that I can picture Liam Neeson doing any of that, but still.)
drew
February 14, 2009 at 6:36PM EST Reply to CommentVern, I'd agree that Morel adapted his style to a closer-to-Bourne feel for this one, but it still seemed to me to be a movie about stuntmen and tight spaces and skin-on-skin fights instead of giant CGI gags, and that pleases me, especially when it's successful.
psychedelicMF
February 14, 2009 at 7:24PM EST Reply to CommentI don’t think the silliness of Chocolate is unintentional. They know how ridiculous it is for an autistic girl to pick up fighting styles just by watching, but the filmmakers like the goofy fun and go with it. Yes, certainly the broad strokes of the story are melodramatic. But the acting is not. When the Mother goes through chemotherapy it’s no joke. As a result, there’s a sweetness that mixes well with the fantastic action that I enjoyed even more upon a second viewing. Jeeja Yanin doesn’t have the physical flare or dexterity of Tony Jaa, but I look forward to her second movie. In the bonus features (I got my Blu-Ray player last week and I’m totally stoked) her face lights up when she smiles and I’d like to see that charisma in her next outing. I haven’t seen Taken yet.
Vern
February 14, 2009 at 9:43PM EST Reply to CommentI can agree with that, psychedelicMF. But the way it starts out with the dedication to special needs children, and at the end cuts directly from 20 minutes of non-stop jawdropping action to the poor autistic girl bawling at the side of her dead mother... I think it's a cultural difference but some of these melodramatic touches make me feel like the movie is meant to be taken a little more seriously than I'm able to take it. But if so I don't mind that. I felt the same way about BORN TO FIGHT which I think is even better than CHOCOLATE.
and Drew, I see what you're saying. I'm not anti-CG and I think some people are too picky about it, but movies like this really remind you of the simple pleasures of actual people standing on actual streets or in actual cars. I think reality is making a comeback actually. Even Paul W.S. Anderson used authentic metal cars in DEATH RACE.
lazygarfield
February 15, 2009 at 9:15AM EST Reply to CommentI have heard that the stunts in Monsters vs. Aliens were performed by real actors, can't wait.
Luckybestwash
February 16, 2009 at 2:38PM EST Reply to CommentHaven't seen Chocolate yet, but I've seen just about every Thai action film in the last couple of years.
I've been studying Martial Arts for half my life, and for me a huge difference in the films like this versus action movies of the past is as much in the type of martial arts that are being used. I grew up on Kung Fu movies as well. But there is a big difference in the kind of Kung Fu from the Peking Opera School tradition than with what we have seen created in the west. Those guys new what it was to hit and be hit, and that makes all the difference in the world.
Western movie fight scenes tend to concentrate more on how good the lead looks when performing a technique, whereas with old school kung fu movies (pre-Shaw Brothers) the focus was on what the technique did to another guy. Also, Kung Fu as a whole has been watered down to something akin to a rhythmic dance than actual combat, and I say this as a Black Sash in a Southern Shaolin style. These days, you can become an "expert" in Kung Fu and never actually have been punched in the face, and that's pretty sad.
Thai boxing, conversely, sort of mandates a full contact experience. If you know full well what a round kick to the thigh, or a flying knee actually feels like, this informs your performance. We're seeing a transition of fight choreography now that I am very excited about. As much as I loved wire-fu growing up, it jumped the shark for me when Cameron Diaz kicked Crispin Glover's dignity out of him. Now, we're finally seeing thai boxing (Ong Bak) Escrima and Silat (Troy, 300) and some BASIC Mixed Martial Arts (Redbelt, Bourne) in mainstream films, and this can only make the action movie bette for it.
psychedelicMF
February 16, 2009 at 10:27PM EST Reply to CommentThere's an excellent film from Chile called MirageMan starring Marko Zaror. Unfortunately, it has no distribution in the U.S. of which I know. :( It just played the European Film Market so maybe that's changed. Anyway, many of the fights aren't choregraphed. They just rolled camera and kicked each other's asses full contact. You can feel it, the total opposite of Cameron Diaz whopping Crispin Glover. There won't be many movies like this, but certainly it's an exciting indicator where things might go.
starnarcosis
February 17, 2009 at 2:24PM EST Reply to CommentLiam Neeson's Irish, not Scottish.
Mr. Dark
February 18, 2009 at 4:22PM EST Reply to CommentYou've missed one element of what makes Taken effective, and why I think it resonated with audiences and still continues to make money. It's a thoroughly politically incorrect film. The hero doesn't fight fair, he simply eliminates anything in his way. He is unapologetic in his violence, in a way we really haven't seen since Clint Eastwood's prime. His cause is just, and it truly is a case of 'if you aren't for me, you're not just against me...you're fucking DEAD.' Note what he does to his 'friend's' -innocent- wife. Also, the villains here are who they are. They aren't explained away as rich industrialist caucasian Europeans in an attempt to avoid the world around us. We have a white guy killing the hell out of several non-white guys. That's been a no-no for awhile, but Taken doesn't give a crap. Who takes women? The kind of cats who take his daughter. Who sells women? The kind of dude that sells his daughter. Who buys women? You see where I'm going. Besson and his team are true to their own story, and audiences can -tell-. Not just the action is realistic and believable, the rest of the story is as well. I guarantee you that if this was made via the Hollywood studio system, we'd have Vin Diesel fighting to get his daughter back from some white, European industrialists who rape the environment and subjugate native populations in small countries.
hike
August 4, 2009 at 2:28PM EST Reply to Commenthave never thought about it like that before. Thanks so much for the depth and understanding at which you covered the topic. it's a useful piece of information not only for me but for many others. have read a lot on the topic at different blogs and books (download mainly from http://www.picktorrent.com but this piece really gives food for thought