Comments on: Writing the Action-Adventure Film

By: Jay Bones

Jay Bones — Fri, 10 Jan 2020 01:47:15 +0000

With regards to Tombstone (1993), for all its weaknesses, leaving out the famous shootout was not one of them (their confrontation walk is on the movie poster). Historically, the incident itself was more of a turning point or midpoint, thus at a structural level it simply couldn’t serve as the film’s climax. The dramatic conflict is still ultimately resolved, just not at the O.K. Corral. I don’t believe this means the narrative trajectory was skewed in any way, and in fact plays out like the author simply changed the channel halfway through. Imagine trying to write a movie wherein the shootout in question becomes the climax, only to be followed by a text of epilogue that simply states everything else that actually happened. Granted, what qualifies as a film’s climax may be entirely subjective, but by that token it could be argued that Cameron should have ended his movie 5 minutes after the “dramatic conflict” was resolved with that iceberg.

By: story

story — Wed, 21 May 2014 13:18:42 +0000

Hicks is wrong and McQueen was right: Bullitt was a hit because of the car chase scene (the rest of the movie is a dull, ugly mess). Le mans failed not because the plot was thin, but because it was about car racing–not a broad enough subject to interest a large audience. Good action movies are strong on plot and minimalist on character (James Bond, for example, never changes and has no character arc).

By: Jack Brislee

Jack Brislee — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 05:49:50 +0000

In reply to Todd. I don't think Hicks called Tombstone a failure. In fact he praised its historic accuracy. His point was that it did not build up to the famous gunfight, and that to him (and me) is a structural weakness. Jack

By: Jack Brislee

Jack Brislee — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 05:46:39 +0000

In reply to Richard Hyde.

You are right, Richard. I checked the screenplay and watched the scene on DVD, and my memory of a really pithy comment is unfortunately wrong. There is a lesson there somewhere.

I guess my point is that the modern hero is different to the old hero (who would never have shot an unarmed man) but in this case Will Munny had a good reason to act as he did.

Jack

By: Todd

Todd — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 01:47:08 +0000

Thanks for the review. My quibble: I don’t know that I’d call Tombstone a failure, at least not in retrospect.

By: Richard Hyde

Richard Hyde — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 16:30:33 +0000

The two lines from Unforgiven are incomplete, out of context and skew the meaning of the exchange.

Little Bill Daggett: Well, sir, you are a cowardly son of a bitch! You just shot an unarmed man!
Will Munny: Well, he should have armed himself if he’s going to decorate his saloon with my friend.

The critical absence of ” … if he’s going to decorate his saloon with my friend” makes this seem a black and white exchange between an innocent “bystander” (actually the Gene Hackman character!) and a callous gunman.

Instead, the “friend” (Ned played by Morgan Freeman) has been tortured and killed by Little Bill and is outside the saloon in an open coffin with a sign warning “… this is what happens to assassins around here.”

The fact that Greely (the unarmed man) has allowed his saloon to be adorned with Ned is a direct provocation and complicit act. In this case making Little Bill and Greely the “bad guys”. Munny shows complete loyalty to his friend Ned even though the method of his revenge is brutal.