Eric Lichtenfeld, Introduction: A Little Violence Never Hurt Anyone and Prelude: 1971

(In Action Speaks Louder)

This is looking to be a very good book - Lichtenfeld seems to share many of my own views on genre and on action cinema, not to mention film scholarship in general. In particular, he espouses an integrated approach to Hollywood cinema, including textual/formal analysis, cultural reception studies and industry/marketing concerns but not limited to any one type of study. I think this kind of approach is incredibly effective, and some of my favourite books and authors employ similar tactics (Justin Wyatt in particular).

Further proving that we're on the same page, Lichtenfeld articulates an argument about the genesis of action movies which is similar to my musings in earlier posts. He suggests that action films (as a genre) do not really emerge until the early 1970s, and represent a convergence of several other genres: the western, the film noir, the police procedural and the gangster film. Additionally, the intensified representation of violence in counterculture films like Bonnie and Clyde is reconfigured as pleasurable spectacle as opposed to jarring political statement.

Lichtenfeld apparently avoids discussing James Bond in too much detail throughout the book, arguing that although the influence of Bond is important, the franchise must be seen as a parallel phenomenon, rather than as part of the generic development of the action film. I'm not sure if I fully agree with that (the James Bond films are about as British as the Jason Bourne films are German), but it occured to me that martial arts movies - which are certainly action films in a broad sense - can be viewed in a similar way, as a parallel genre emerging earlier from different industrial and cultural conditions, but having an undeniable influence on the American action movie genre. Essentially, this formulation avoids problems of taxomomy, by attributing divergences between kung fu movies and American action movies to generic difference as opposed to attempting to articulate a definition of "action film" which includes both forms.

In discussing proto-action vigilante films from the year 1971 - a watershed year for the emerging genre - he notes that although spectacular action sequences begin to appear in films such as Bullitt and The French Connection, it is not until later that these sequences become the focus in films, driving the narrative forward as opposed to interrupting it. The famous car chases in those two films are perfect examples of this narrative divergence.

An important aspect of high concept action movies in the 1980s is the physicality of the hero, and his ability to withstand pain and opposing force in order to save the day - especially in the Rambo and Die Hard franchises, but also in the Indiana Jones and The Terminator Lichtenfeld makes the logical suggestion that this comes from film noir, in which the private dick is often beaten or tortured in the course of his investigation, but doesn't crack or back down. In action films, this threshold for pain becomes a weapon unto itself, an active, agressive way of asserting power, as opposed to a passive resistance as in film noir.

Another interesting idea that crossed my mind, while reading about Shaft in the Prelude, is that the blaxploitation hero's status as a "super spade" who is beyond reproach and virtually invunerable, while often seen as a compensatory way of promoting the black hero to black audiences, can also be situated as an important predecessor to the archetypal action hero, who is similarly unflappable and unstoppable.

The length of this post should indicate how potentially useful and fascinating this book is. It looks like Lichtenfeld has a Blogspot blog of his own, and has posted about some of my primary texts, in addition to writing journalistic articles about them. I'll have to check some of this stuff out later on.