Action genre and character (cont’d)

We begin with this post in which GITS reader justwrite7 posed a question about how to balance character and plot in action movies. I went into some detail providing an analysis of Tony Stark’s character (Robert Downey, Jr.) in Iron Man to show that it is possible to craft an action movie that has a complex Protagonist involved in a compelling emotional journey to accompany the main Plotline.

I followed that up with this post about Die Hard, spotlighting the marital discord between John McClane (Bruce Willis) and his estranged wife Holly (Bonnie Bedalia), demonstrating that it’s also possible to have a compelling dynamic in the interior lives of primary characters that is not terribly complex.

In comments, GITS reader Viewers Like You said:

please continue this thread. if not this week, then soon.
Action film characters so often don’t feel well written, this is really fascinating reading to me.

“Action film characters so often don’t feel well written.” I think that’s a pretty fair statement, but not necessarily an indictment. After all the genre is focused on… well, action. My sense is that Hwood conventional wisdom re action movies is they just don’t need that much character depth.

This perspective was elucidated very well in comments from GITS reader James:

I actually think you can get away with not having to fully develop the reality of the situation between characters in an action film. You just need the initial setup of the internal problem.

There’s no real wrap up between Holly and John in DIE HARD in terms of some tear jerking reunion.

John saves everyone (including his wife) from terrorists — thus Holly and John are reunited at the end, and everyone is happy.

We, the audience see all the turmoil John goes through to save his wife, and that translates into “brownie” points to the lengths people would go to for a loved one.

While many would say, nothing has really changed in the relationship between the two characters (which it really hasn’t. They still have all their previous problems) I think the action genre itself is a big bandaid in terms of that type of logic. The action genre is a metaphor for the lengths one would go for their loved ones. As such, it gets to take some liberties with reality.

Likewise, in TRUE LIES, Helen finds out Harry has been a spy as they are captured by the bad guys, immediately followed by an interrogation scene where Harry can’t lie (he’s been drugged). Helen finds out all the dirt about her hubby.

The marriage has been on the rocks for the past hour+ of movie we have been watching, to the point Helen is on the path to cheating on Harry.

But when their lives are put in danger, and Harry saves the day in a big action-packed manner, all is forgiven. They kiss in front of a mushroom cloud, the happy family once again reunited.

That is — until word comes that Harry’s daughter has been kidnapped. Oops, that straggling little thread of plot (and family) that needs to be dealt with. And once again, when Harry saves his daughter in action-packed harrier flying fashion, he is the hero and all past sins of neglectful fatherhood are forgiven.

I know it sounds trite. Perhaps even too simple.

But I believe that to be the magic of the action genre.

It rests more on wish fulfillment than reality when it comes to the final character outcome.

In fact, there is a resolution to the John McClane-Holly conflict: If the set-up of their conflict is symbolically centered around the fact that she is using her maiden name (Gennaro) at job in L.A., during the denouement when she and John have reunited, there’s this moment when McClane introduces her to Powell:

MCCLANE
Hey, this is my wife…
Holly Gennaro.

HOLLY
(taking Powell’s hand,
correcting)
Holly McClane.

Hearing this, McClane grins, pulls her close.

It’s a small bit of business, I grant you, but nevertheless it reflects a change in Holly’s attitude. However I’m intrigued by James’ assertion that it’s the set-up of whatever the Protagonist’s internal conflict is that is important. No matter how simple or minor the conflict is, it’s necessary to create some sort of sympathy / emotional connection on the part of the script reader to an action story’s leading character. While a resolution to that internal conflict is nice, if the story pays off with grand pyrotechnics at the end of the Plotline, maybe the typical action moviegoer would care less about a tie-up to the story’s emotional throughline.

So that’s one thing: Can action movies fudge things like set-up and payoff of emotional arcs?

But to the original point: Does the nature of the action genre somehow make it acceptable to create less “well written” characters?

Is it fair to use the quality of a Protagonist and their character’s depth as a determining factor as to the difference between a good action movie and a great one?

And if so, what is it about a Protagonist in an action movie that makes them compelling?

Those of you who are fans of action films or write them, what’s your take on this issue of the depth — or lack thereof — re characters, especially Protagonists?

Comment Archive