Carrying Home In Your Pocket, Essay 3

 

Carrying Home In Your Pocket

While globalization leads us to new directions in thinking and ideology of our own methods employed, we must take on certain sources to broaden our horizons.  Timur Bekmambetov, Russian film director, took on the Hollywood scene by directing the film Wanted (2008).  His experience with directing films in his home country has been an application to the films he has/will produce in Hollywood.  What I want to analyze is how his local production, Night Watch (2004), is very similar/different in styles with Wanted on the basis of background/plot structure, editing/cinematography, and mise-en- scene.  By analyzing these elements, drawing conclusions can be possible to the relation of the director’s influence taken from his local cinema to the Hollywood stage.

 

Night Watch is an Action-Thriller, Supernatural-Thriller, that takes place in Moscow, Russia, Timur Bekmambetov’s native country.  Wanted is an Action-Thriller that takes place in New York City, New York.  Both films have highly acclaimed actors, in Night Watch, Konstantin Khabensky and Vladimir Menshov are very respected actors in Russian Cinema have forty plus movies accredited to their name, with many global nominations.  Wanted stars Angelina Jolie and Morgan Freeman, very respected actors in Hollywood cinema who have dozens of movies accredited to their name as well.  The plot structure of Night Watch cannot fit into one film, but an epic trilogy.  Night Watch is, “truce between Light and Dark that allows the world to continue, the two sides have organized themselves into competing, mutually policing safety patrols called the Night Watch and the Day Watch” (NY Times).  As the story follows, there is a telling about a person, who would end this truce, disrupt the balance, and measure out entirely who would control the world, good or evil.  Wanted is a movie about a regular white collar worker, finding out he’s an assassin, and goes out to train with a “fraternity” of assassins to unlock his true power.  What we can see is the action-thriller scenario in play.  Both movies take place in cities, involve characters who seem to have destined purposes from the start of the movie, go against what is threatening them/their organization, and contain a great concluding destiny for the main characters.  Timur Bekmambetov took the epic elements of Night Watch, and placed the same elements described into Wanted, to give the same feel that the characters go through a large struggle throughout the film, and in the end, receive their greatest achievement.  It is typical in Russian Literature that the stories involve unlikely heroes coming from the farthest reaches of innocence to take on the present oppression.  Timur captured this same image when he was creating the plot to Wanted.  The characters were also tough to capture to the audience in both films.  Night Watch had really shady, quiet, violent characters who were tough to get in touch with by the “main” character.  Anton, the main character in Night Watch, being shady himself, had a tough time with the other, quieter yet intriguing characters to get along with.  In Wanted, Wesley is the white collar worker who had a tough time adapting and getting along with the fraternity of assassins he joined.   The only difference in the plot structure, is that unlike Wanted, Night Watch is an epic trilogy that really does need to be told in three stories as Wanted has no sequel to succeed.  Wanted was \by a comic, as Night Watch was made from a series of graphic novels.

         

Timur Bekmambetov has been known in his previous films, to bring out incredible cinematography/editing techniques in which he has received many awards toward.  “"Night Watch"… its visually saucy director, Timur Bekmambetov, who wrote the screenplay… akin to Russia's answer to the Ridley Scott of "Blade Runner." Many of its visual effects… are snazzy and original.” (Ny Times)  Timur applied his local approach to Night Watch, and placed it into Wanted, “"Wanted" devilishly ups the ante to a new level in adapting violent graphic comics to the big screen… high-tech new ways to kill people onto traditional dramatic themes involving professional assassins and family revenge, Kazakhstan-born Timur Bekmambetov assures himself the distinction of becoming the first modern director to emerge from Russia” (Variety).  What viewers of Wanted will not see however, is the cinematic elements Timur uses in Night Watch, Night Watch uses more fantasy elements, “magic” so to say, as compared to in Wanted, he uses real life objects and dials in on the relativity around them.  But really, he did the same thing, just elevate the presence of the objects   Medium-shot angles were a huge characteristic in Night Watch.  Timur wanted to express the thoughts and emotions of the characters visually because the characters never really expressed their feelings vocally.  Anton, and the people he must protect in Night Watch, were always so gloomy, hard to understand, so Timur emphasized the visuals to help the audience better adapt to the film.  In Wanted, this was the same application as well, Timur’s characters do not express their thought or their emotion so he took the visual approach and made a lot of the movie with Medium-shot angles, while editing in other surprising visuals.  A key to Timur’s visual effects were the tiny pieces of what was going on in the scene.  In Night Watch, when a large battle was going on, Timur put that as the back drop, and instead, focused his camera on a falling screw.  In Wanted, when Wesley hits one of his co-workers with a keyboard, the camera doesn’t view the hit as a whole, but watches as it zooms in on the little keys fly off the keyboard, and close up right where the camera can also capture the letters.

 

            Turning from the editing and cinematography, the camera notices the backdrop, the mise-en-scene of the movies.  When Timur wanted to do Night Watch, a novel about a war going on in Moscow, Russia, he did just that, “It's also the first apocalypse-minded franchise that's earned its downbeat mood. The action, for starters, is post-Cold War, post-Chernobyl, post-perestroika. Darkness is so much a part of the Russian psyche.” (Boston Globe).  The snow, darkness, gloomy side streets all brought out the characteristic of Moscow, Russia as it is today.  All of Timur’s editing and cinematography boasting really came down to the fact that his emphasis on Mise-en-scene was important as well.  In Wanted, Timur emphasized New York City as busy, wrecked, crazy, just like the dangers the characters and assassins faced throughout the film.  It was this keynote, that helped Timur hit a hard ball every time with his critics.  When Wesley was working at his desk job, the scene pictured him strangled, approached and hate by many, uneasy, and that’s exactly the kind of setting Wesley had himself into.

 

            Wanted and Night Watch became two incredibly successful movies to their respective countries.  Night Watch, which is the first movie to Day Watch, and upcoming Twilight Watch, set a global standard for Russian cinema.  Russian cinema has had a tough time in cinematic competition against other nations after the Cold War, but Timur broke the barrier to that frustration, and was able to make a success with his production company.  Knowing his success, Timur worked on Wanted just as he did in Night Watch.  And when he did this, producing the same elements of plot, mise-en-scene, and editing/cinematography as he did prior, he was able to turn out another successful film, in Hollywood territory.

Mark Patterson
English 1102
Professor Manuel Perez Tejada
April 21, 2009
The Pang Brothers and “Bangkok Dangerous”: Lost in Translation?

The Pang brothers, Danny Pang Fat and Oxide Pang Chun, are twin brother film writer-directors from Hong Kong. Born in 1965, the pair entered the movie industry separately at first. Oxide began his film career as a color grader, working on films in Thailand as Danny began as an editor in Hong Kong. Soon thereafter, Oxide directed his first major film, “Who is Running,” in 1997 in Thailand. At the Academy Awards in 1998, “Who is Running” was Thailand’s entry for the category of “Academy Award for the Best Foreign Film.” The two first came together as a directorial team for 1999’s “Bangkok Dangerous,” which was Danny’s first crack at directing on a large scale. The two did not disappoint, as “Bangkok Dangerous” was a hit and was nominated for “Best Film” and “Best Editing” at the 2000 Thailand National Film Association Awards, along with winning the International Film Critics’ award at the 2000 Toronto International Film Festival. Soon thereafter, the rights to a remake were purchased by Saturn Films, a production company owned by Nicolas Cage, and the remake was produced to a wide release on September 5, 2008.

The original “Bangkok Dangerous” was released in Thailand on November 1, 1999 and was initially shown in the United States on March 31, 2001. It is the story of a gunman known only as “Kong” who is an assassin-for-hire who happens to be deaf and mute. While this would seem to be an obstacle for a hit man, it actually partially serves in Kong’s favor as he neither speaks to his victims nor hears their cries for mercy before he ends their lives. His disability also allows him to avoid reacting to the sounds of gunshots around him, as he cannot hear them. Kong is friends with a girl named Aom, who is a stripper for the mob boss that Kong works for as a hit man. Aom’s ex-boyfriend, Joe, is Kong’s best friend, and also the hit man who initially trained Kong in the art of shooting in the first place. Kong meets and eventually falls in love with a girl named Fon, who works as a pharmacist in a drugstore and is inherently extremely innocent. Kong begins to question his lifestyle upon his initial romantic thoughts about Fon as they bring about emotions inside him that he didn’t know even existed. Joe is eventually murdered, and Kong takes out his full wrath on the mob that once employed him.
The American remake of “Bangkok Dangerous” is highly similar to the original on the surface. There is a main character who is a deaf mute, there are acquaintances who are named Kong and Joe, and the basic plotline is intact. This is where the similarities end. In the remake, Nicolas Cage plays the lead as an assassin named Joe, who is white and is assumed to be American. He recruits a young street thug in Bangkok by the name of Kong to be his errand-boy while he is in the city carrying out four assassinations as a hired gun of a gang lord named Surat. Kong’s relationship with Joe only exists due to Joe’s reluctance to meet with the mob himself, as he does not want his face to be seen by Surat or any of his henchmen. Joe carries out the initial three assassinations with relatively few problems, and in the meantime begins to train Kong to be an assassin himself.
Meanwhile, Kong begins to take become attracted to Surat’s messenger to Joe, Aom, who is a stripper at a club that Surat owns. Also, Joe begins to have a romantic interest in a deaf mute pharmacist named Fon. Joe then gets ready to execute his last assassination in the country, which happens to be the Prime Minister of Thailand. Joe has second thoughts and does not kill him. Surat responds by kidnapping Aom and Kong, and Joe eventually raids Surat’s compound, killing all of his henchmen and eventually killing Surat and himself with a single bullet, committing suicide and rescuing Kong and Aom.

Hollywood’s influence on the remake is obvious. The lead character being able to speak in the remake takes away a lot of the character from the first movie. Most of the plot was built around his disability and this lacking inherently retracts from the movie, rather than adding to it. Changes like these take much of the local character away from the movie, as the directors were obviously forced to change a lot of their script from the original, and therefore are simply catering to the Hollywood executives rather than attempting to create the film that they originally intended. While Hollywood’s increased budgets may increase the quality of the filmmaking, the storytelling from local films is inherently unmatched due to the writers having the ability to fine-tune the narrative to be whatever their creative vision wants it to be.
The increased budget of the film also allows for much better sets than the original. As stated in The Times Online, “The Pang brothers take full advantage of their Hollywood budget to paint Bangkok skyscrapers in shimmering midnight blues” (Christopher 1). The original “Bangkok Dangerous,” while having decent sets and colors, simply cannot hold a candle to the remake in this area of focus. Where the remake has vibrant colors to represent the streetlights of the Bangkok nightlife and very deep hues to represent the dark nature of the protagonist’s profession, the original has very dull coloring and is not nearly as beautiful. This is almost certainly due to the massively increased budget of the Hollywood version.
However, the cinematographic feel and mise-en-scene, as opposed to the quality of the actual colors themselves, takes a stark move in the opposite direction. Where in the original “Bangkok Dangerous” the movements of the cameras and actors seemed like they were purposeful and suspenseful, the remake seems methodical and easily predictable. As stated in The New Yorker, “It would be heartening to report that the Pangs inject new blood into the action movie, a noble genre now verging on the anemic. But Hollywood and the television industry have long since sucked what they require from the tropes and rhythms of Asian films, and parts of “Bangkok Dangerous,” far from seeming unfamiliar or freshly stylized, offer nothing that you couldn’t catch in an episode of “CSI” (Lane 1). Simply put, the Pang brothers seemingly did not put as much effort into the remake as they put into the original. Their choices in lighting in the remake were extremely dark and at points so dim that they were almost non-existent, and the feel of the original is far superior due to the increased effort to make every shot appear as best as it possibly could. In reference to the original, one critic states, “The Pangs have the eye of born filmmakers: Bangkok Dangerous is stylishly shot” (Johanson 1). This concerted effort to be stylish and cutting-edge caused the original to flow better as a movie, rather than seeming choppy and forceful as the remake tends to do. Also hindering the newer version was the presence of Nicolas Cage. Inserted among a plethora of Asian actors of a lesser pedigree, Cage’s performance nonetheless seemed to hinder the performances of his co-stars throughout the film. As stated in The New York Times, “Little [acting] is asked of Mr. Cage in “Bangkok Dangerous,” which finds him furrowing his brow, speaking in low, dispirited tones and watching his stunt double zip around killing people on a motorcycle” (Lee 1).

The Pang Brothers’ initial thoughts when offered the opportunity to remake this movie could not possibly have drifted in the direction of what the newer version actually became. While Danny and Oxide certainly wanted to be able to update their first feature film together with all of the tools and toys that Hollywood dollars can offer, they ended up completely butchering their prized film in the process. Michael Ordona of The Los Angeles Times states, “The two movies share a title, directors, character names – and little else” (Ordona 1). While all of the aforementioned Hollywood amenities could easily have turned “Bangkok Dangerous” into something extremely special, the fact that Nicolas Cage was inserted into the lead role, which caused the character to not be deaf or mute, completely killed any semblance of similarity that the remake had to the original. This one change, simply used in order to try and attract more viewers around the globe, caused the “remake” to take a total swan dive and turn into something different altogether.
Overall, the original “Bangkok Dangerous” came off as an extremely well-made crime thriller which, despite its faults, still came across the way it was intended and was very thought-provoking and entertaining to watch. The Hollywood remake was, simply put, a lackadaisical attempt to improve upon something that simply didn’t need any sort of improvement, as it was fine the way it was. Also, there is so much in the new version of “Bangkok Dangerous” that was changed from the original that it is almost egregious to fathom. In The Times Online, writer James Christopher says, “It’s a completely different film” (Christopher 1). It truly is. From the changing of the disability from the main character to his love interest to the switch of the lead role’s name from Kong to Joe, along with everything under the sun in between, the two movies are as distinguishable as a cat and a dog. To be blunt, movies created in local cinemas are lost in the shuffle when they are adapted to fit in Hollywood. The big explosions, famous actors, and all-too-predictable plotlines completely cripple the original film and take away from the intention of the original writers. It’s as clear-cut as that.
Works Cited
Christopher, James. “Bangkok Dangerous.” The Times Online. 4 September 2008. 13 April 2009. <http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/film_reviews/article4668495.ece>
Johanson, MaryAnn. “Bangkok Dangerous.” FlickFilosopher. 26 November 2001. 13 April 2009. < http://www.flickfilosopher.com/blog/2001/11/bangkok_dangerous_review.html>
Lane, Anthony. “View to a Kill.” The New Yorker. 8 September 2008. 13 April 2009. < http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/cinema/2008/09/08/080908crci_cinema_lane>
Lee, Nathan. “Bangkok Dangerous.” The New York Times Online. 6 September 2008. 13 April 2009. <http://movies.nytimes.com/2008/09/06/movies/06dang.html>
Ordona, Michael. “Bangkok Dangerous: Nicolas Cage Hasn’t Left Las Vegas.” The LA Times. 8 September 2008. 13 April 2009. < http://articles.latimes.com/2008/sep/08/entertainment/et-bangkok8>

Eric Martin
4/14/08
English 1102
Dr. Tejada
Tracing Cultural Development Through Guillermo del Toro

Guillermo del Toro is an Academy Award-winning and world-renowned director. He has directed many horror and fantasy epics ranging from small local Mexican films such as Cronos and Pan’s Labyrinth to international blockbusters such as Blade 2, Hellboy and Hellboy 2: The Golden Army. His films regularly feature fantastic and unreal creatures such as tooth-eating fairies, skin-shedding vampires, trolls, faceless angels, and human-like fawns. Guillermo del Toro brings these monsters to life with his rich cinematography, vivid colors, and special effects, but these monsters were also created by global influences. The monsters and the gothic ambiance in del Toro’s film were influenced by his earliest childhood memories of watching horror films produced by Universal and Hammer Studios on Sunday morning television. By analyzing the similarities between the classic horror films of Terrance Fisher and James’s Whales and one of del Toro’s first local films Cronos, one can gain insight on how American cinema influenced del Toro’s movies. Furthermore, by analyzing the origins of the cinematic elements and the fantastical monsters in Hellboy 2: The Golden Army one can understand how Guillermo del Toro is redefining the fantasy and action genres of Hollywood cinema.

Guillermo del Toro’s Latin horror film Cronos tells the story of an old antique dealer Jesus Gris who accidentally discovers an ancient insect-like device that gives the bearer eternal life by slowly transforming them into a vampire. The movie is not the typical evil vampire movie. Jesus Gris is a loving man and has a close relationship with his granddaughter Aurora who accepts her grandfather despite his sinister appearance. The movie centers it themes on the relationship between the Jesus Gris and Aurora as they defend the Cronos device from the film’s antagonist de La Guardia and hide Jesus from the real world: “Cronos is not a movie about plot. It is about character” (Ebert).



When questioned about the inspiration and the character development of Cronos, Guillermo del Toro responded, “Both James Whales and Terrance Fisher are to me the two great fathers of horror cinema” (Cronos). Cronos borrows many cinematic elements and character traits from Terence Fisher’s 1958 film Dracula and James Whale’s 1931 film Frankenstein. For example, there are many similarities between Dracula and Jesus Gris. Both Count Dracula and Jesus Gris have pale white faces, and the cinematography in the films uses high-key lighting to produce unnaturally light color tones for these characters. Their light skin contrasts with the dark, gothic colors of the setting to heighten the frightening nature of their appearances. In addition to Dracula, James Whale’s portrayal of Frankenstein being an unconscious monster provides the basic character traits for the Del Toro’s angelic character Aurora in Cronos: “The marvelous thing about Frankenstein’s monster is the absence of consciousness… The girl cannot distinguish between life and death” (Cronos). One of the main ideas behind Cronos is the meaning of immortality. All the characters are marked by mortality in different ways. For example, despite having the Cronos device, Jesus Gris’ appearance becomes gaunt and discolored. Despite his palpable desire to obtain the Cronos, the villain De La Guardia shuts himself away from the world afraid to interact with others until his salvation is guaranteed. Aurora, however, is too pure and young to recognize a different between the living and the dead. She is “unconscious” of their existence, and in consequence she cannot fear death. For example, she does not realize that her parents are dead, nor is she able to recognize that her grandfather is a vampire. Aurora is Del Toro’s antithesis to James Whale’s Frankenstein; through her Del Toro provides a twist on the “unconscious and unstoppable” force behind a classic horror character.



Hellboy 2: The Golden Army is one of Guillermo del Toro’s latest Hollywood films. The movie is an epic adventure filled with creatures ranging from small fairies, trolls, and elves to gigantic forest gods and mechanical armies. These creatures add to the great cultural collection of images in American cinema, but most of these fantastic creatures’ origins lie in Guillermo Del Toro’s earlier and more local films such as Cronos and Pan’s Labyrinth: “This movie comes from a different place. It ‘s the first one of those big movies that belongs to the same world as Pan’s Labyrinth” (Variety). For example, the villain elf in Hellboy 2: The Golden Army possesses the exact same skin and tone color as Jesus Gris in Cronos. Furthermore, the tooth fairies that attack Hellboy and his group of paranormal sidekicks at the beginning of the movie have the exact same body structure as the fairies in Pan’s Labyrinth who aid the main character Ofelia. Another prominent character in Hellboy 2: The Golden Army whose origins exist in Pan’s Labyrinth is the Grim Reaper. The Grim Reaper has a tall, imposing figure and a flat ivory crown resembling horns adorning its head. Furthermore, its eyes lie on its wings and not his face. The characters the Faun and the Pale Man possess very similar characteristics. The Faun has a tall stature with curl ivory horns and the Pan Man wears his eyes on the end of his hands. The differing plot structures of both movies also allow Guillermo Del Toro to explore the conflicts that exist between the real world and humanities imagination. One of the main themes in Hellboy 2: The Golden Army is the isolation Hellboy experiences from the normal human world. His superiors do not allow him out in public, and most people fear him even while he tries to save them from the darker paranormal world humanity is unaware of. This isolation fosters Hellboy’s aggressive and rebellious attitude towards life and is a source of much conflict in the Hellboy series. In Pan’s Labyrinth, the protagonist Ofelia struggles with the rules the imaginative and real world place on her: “The coexistence of these two worlds is the scariest element of the film; they both impose a set of rules that can get an 11-year-old killed” (Ebert).



Guillermo Del Toro is truly an international director. The horror movies he watched from Universal and Hammer Studios as a child filled his head with terrifying images he wanted to bring alive on film: “It was a steady diet of sensibility horror films… I just knew that this was the type of film I wanted to do from the start” (Guillermo Del Toro). The cinematography and ideas he inherited from Western cinema gave birth to his definitions for vampires and fantasy. He ultimately created an entire new collection of monsters and fantasy creatures for the whole world to enjoy.

Work Cited

Cronos. Dir. Guillermo Del Toro. Federico Luppi, Ron Pearlman, Claudio Brook,

Margarita Isabel. Fondo de Fomento Cinematografico, 1993.

Ebert, Roger. “Cronos.” www.rogerebert.suntime.com. 6 May 1994.



Ebert, Roger. “Pan’s Labyrinth.” www.rogerebert.suntime.com. 25 August 2006.



Hellboy 2: The Golden Army. Dir. Guillermo del Toro. Perf. Ron Pearlman, Selma

Blair, Doug Jones. Universal Pictures, 2008.

“Hellboy 2: The Golden Army Closes LAFF.” www.variety.com. 2008.

< query="Hellboy+2%3A+The+Golden+Army+">

John Woo’s Cinematic Trademarks; From Hong Kong to Hollywood

John Woo, Hong Kong's premiere action film director, whose films go through more ammunition than a war, is one of the most influential movie directors to date. By creating a collection of blood-bath action films and non-stop ballistic shoot-outs, John Woo Yu-Sen, has turned his name into an international commodity. Raised in a Christian school and watching Western movies for free at the theatre with his mother, Woo’s poverty stricken childhood has influenced his style of violent action cinema. Creating his own unique genre of Hong Kong action cinema, Woo is best known for his action sequences and “gangster” genre. Determined to globalize and show the world different aspects of his native tongue, Woo broadens Chinese culture to the West by bringing in more characteristics than the typical kung fu movie. This essay is concentrated on the early Western influences of Woo’s style and cinematography seen in his local film, The Killer, and how his trademarks are reflected in his later Hollywood creation, Face/Off. By analyzing his local and Western films, one can note John Woo’s consistent film-making style and his established trademarks in cinema through globalization.

In 1989, John Woo’s The Killer assisted in redefining Hong Kong cinema by creating the ‘Heroic Bloodshed’ era of action cinema. Directly translated as Bloodshed of Two Heroes, this story follows the professional assassin, Ah Jong, also referred to as Jeffery (Chow Yun-Fat), who incidentally blinds a singer, Jennie (Sally Yeh) during a hit job in a nightclub. Determined to help Jennie, who is nearly blind and in need of a costly surgery, Jeffrey finds himself pursuing one last hit, to enable him to assist her with a corneal transplant. As a top assassin, Fat’s character finds himself being pursued by cop, Eagle Lee, who is as determined as Jeffery is in achieving a mission. Alongside this sub-genre of Heroic Bloodshed practiced in Hong Kong are his big-budget blockbuster films in Hollywood. Reflecting similar directing styles and techniques over to the West, Woo is consistent with his thematic blood operas overseas, seen in films such as Face/Off, starring John Travolta and Nicolas Cage. Praised as Woo's first Hollywood film accredited by audiences and critics, this story of a terrorist Castor Troy and FBI agent Sean Archer exemplifies the gun fu action sequenced film Woo is most credited for.

In the late 1980’s, editor Rick Baker of the magazine Eastern Heroes coined the term, ‘Heroic Bloodshed’, created in reference to John Woo’s style of film directing. Referring to a genre of Hong Kong action cinema, ‘Heroic Bloodshed’, also acknowledged as Hong Kong Blood Opera (HKBO), revolves about stylized action sequences and dramatic themes of violence. Before this time, there were only two primary genres of Hong Kong Cinema: martial arts and comedy film. At this time, gunplay was considered boring and ungraceful in comparison to the swift and elegant swordplay of the wu shu epics (Leong 2). Merging American gangster tales of the Western Hollywood culture with the transformed swordplay into gun play of traditional Chinese opera, John Woo’s films are a cultural blend of cinematic styles (Kehr 2). Woo found a new way to present gunplay in a skillful and acrobatic manner that graced traditional martial arts. Creating this one of a kind intimacy in gunplay, he is famous for his Chinese stand-offs where the protagonist and antagonist of the storyline meet face to face. This tool is seen throughout confrontations of Jeffrey and the investigative cop in The Killer; in addition to the two diametrically opposed characters, Sean Archer and Castor Troy, in Face/Off.

Gracefully choreographing his action sequences, John Woo’s films are filled with flying bullets, explosions, and falling bodies. All edited to be viewed in slow motion, Woo’s cinematography skills create suspense and stress a moment in time. Woo’s trademark shoot-outs have an invariable sense of orchestral movement (Sandell 1). His signature slow motion amplification of violence and dramatization of movements such as the doves in his church scenes and the dawdling motion of shattered glass, can be spotted throughout his films (Marshall 15). Ballistic shoot-outs are another key trademark of John Woo, where this ubiquitous motion of overcranking takes place. Integrated throughout both films, Woo centers a lot of the focal points of his movies inside church settings. Branded as a trademark of his work, Woo’s camera skills effectively capture the allusive presence of doves that seem to fly off on-screen as a symbol of hope for his characters. In addition, the characters swiftly move in their gun plays like an armed ballet (14). Appearing as a choreographed play, his shoot-em-up scenes look like his two forefront nemesis’s are dancing; ducking and swaying, jumping from bullets and discharging their weapons. Exploiting all the visual techniques obtainable such as tracking shots, dolly-ins and slow motion, Woo creates surrealistic action sequences originally deployed in his Hong Kong film and latter reflected upon in Hollywood.

As a romantic Christian idealist who loves guns and explosions, Woo also intertwines a distinct way of putting beats together in his gun scenes. Analyzing the sound quality of his two films, the firing of ammunition and the drum beats create music of its own. The art of sound effects and music hype up the visual components in his movies (15). Tuning out the background noise, one can notice the different gunshots assigned for the “hero” and the “villain” in The Killer and Face/Off. Being able to recognize the difference in tone of each characters’ weapon allows the audience to determine the gunshots of the characters when they are off-screen. Setting pleasant music in the background is another musical trademark of Woo. In Face/Off Woo plays the music from the view of the Castor Troy’s son, Adam, during the shootout at Dietrich’s apartment. During this ballistic gun battle, the soft sound of “Over the Rainbow” is played, in place of the sound effects of the weaponry. Paralleled in The Killer, he takes advantage of Jennie’s musical talents and overlaps her singing with suspenseful action scenes about to take place at the club.

Hong Kong cinema is known for its dazzling visuals, incredible energy, and its sense of humore and inventive action plots. Specializing in the juxtaposition of corny romantic melodramas blended with hyperbolic violence, John Woo has globalized cinema by taking Western conventions and altering them to suit and fuse together with Asian cultural conventions (Leong 2). Globalizing the corny comedic side action side of Hong Kong cinema with the gangster-tales of Western culture, Woo integrates themes of friendship, loyalty, and honor as an underlying premise within his characters. Early influenced by Jean-Pierre Melville’s menacing characters and Sam Peckinpah’s themes of brotherhood and male bonding, Woo’s films are filled with fallible heroes, strong and colorful villains, and other extreme leading roles (Marshall 5). A typical John Woo movie grasps the visual of a man, dressed in a sleek suit and sunglasses, associated with women, blending in elements of a romantic drama and corny love shots. Then suddenly, the slow motion editing come into play and the music pauses, allowing the protagonist “hero” to draw his guns in each hand, and have hundreds of bullets shot and dead bodies flying in the air.

After globalizing his trademarks and tactical action techniques through cinema, Woo developed a third-person video game available in countries such as North America, Britain, France, Germany, Spain, Australia, and Japan. Played as an attempt to translate the gun ballet aesthetic popularized by Woo, Stranglehold was developed by Midway Games in 2007 for: Windows, Playstation 3, and Xbox 360. This interactive media format has been compared as a mixture of Remedy Entertainment’s Max Payne, and Woo’s earlier blockbuster film, Hard Boiled. Tracing Woo’s concepts of lengthy, balletic shootouts, this interactive game throws in the same sounds, weaponry, and novelty factor as a typical John Woo film. Holding similar characteristics to his films, his style of filmmaking has carried over to the gaming world. Comparing Stranglehold to his films such as The Killer and Face/Off it is easily seen how he incorporates his trademark “Mexican standoffs” and bloody action ballets in his game. Globalizing through media by cinema and gaming, Woo’s trademarks and screenplay have certainly impacted entertainment worldwide.

Director John Woo has established himself in Eastern and Western cultures by integrating Chinese and Western ideals as one through globalization. Known as the father of the Heroic Bloodshed drama, Woo’s choreography and pyrotechnics of violent action influenced in his Hong Kong films, later were reflected in the same manner, technically and visually in his Hollywood pictures. In order to enter and leave Hollywood as successful a director as he is in Hong Kong, Woo needed to bring to the West a new kind of male protagonist that combines physical violence and emotional intensity. As usual, Woo's “hero” and “villain” display the finest weaponry, and the sleekest suits; however, the director also shows that the only difference between the hunter and the prey is a badge, represented in "The Killer" and Face/Off (Hanke 1). Creating new types of protagonists that had been intangible to Hollywood directors prior to his era, global cinema has transformed to a more open and culturally hybridized production. Analyzing the films of John Woo, it becomes obvious why he is known for his trademark cinematic camera techniques that are consistently seen throughout his films produced from Hong Kong to across the seas in America.

Hen Pauker
Dr. Manuel A. Pérez Tejada
English 1102 D2
02/05/09

What a Beautiful Combination

A phenomenon that has caught on in Hollywood lately is that a lot of foreign directors move to Hollywood to produce American films. Those kinds of directors usually bring to Hollywood a combination of characteristics from America and their native country. I chose one of those foreign directors, Luc Besson and his movie Leon. In one of the biggest cities in America--New York City--he created Leon as a Hollywood movie. In my essay I will write about the life of Luc Besson briefly, discuss Leon’s plot and then explain how through the movie we can see characteristics of Hollywood action films and at the same time characteristics from the French Cinema. I will also show how Besson’s native roots contribute to the brighter and happier part of the movie.

Luc Besson was born in Paris on March 18, 1959 and because of his mom’s and dad’s jobs (they were diving instructors), he grew up traveling around the world (including Italy, Yugoslavia, and Greece). The love for cinema in Besson’s heart was found when he studied for his first degree in Paris. Besson created his own film company- “films du loup”, finished his degree and went to work in Hollywood as a studio hand. Then he decided that he wanted to create his own movies. He started to work as assistant director and after a few films, he made his first movie when he was just 20 years old (1980); the name of the movie was L’avant-dernier and thanks to this movie, Besson won a lot of prizes and this success encouraged him to make more and more movies.

The movie Leon was made in 1994 and it had great success around the world. The movie is about Leon, a hit man that has a good heart and about Leon’s neighbor, Mathilda, a 12 year old girl that spent her life with an unstable family. Her father got involved with one of the stronger and more dangerous men in town, Norman Stansfield – a drugged, corrupt agent who is also the head of the drug enforcement administration. One day Norman came to Mathilda’s house with his gangsters and just killed all of her family while Mathilda was out to buy milk. The only place that she could think of going to hide from Norman and his guys was Leon’s apartment. Mathilda asked Leon to teach her how to use a gun for just one goal - to avenge her little brother’s death. In return she will do all of the housekeeping work and teach Leon how to read and write. From that point, Besson shows us the relationship and the adventures that Mathilda and Leon go through together.

The entire plot takes place in New York City in a place that called “Little Italy”, a small neighborhood in Manhattan. The name “Little Italy” came from the fact that most of the neighborhood’s population came from Italia. The combination of New York City, one of the biggest and significant cities in America and a place like “Little Italy” indicates that Besson has some affection to Europe- his home land. At the beginning of the movie we can see the narrow streets, with a crane shot that gives us the feeling of the crowding neighborhood like those exist in Europe. It is hard to say that Leon has a direct contact to France – the place Besson was born. The fact that Besson grew up in so many different places in Europe, gives us, the audience, feeling that there is more connection to Europe in general and not particularly to France (for example, we can see in the movie a strong relationship to Italy, one of the places where Besson grew up).

The second place that Besson takes us through his movie is to Leon’s Boss’s restaurant. The restaurant’s location is in “Little Italy” and over there Tonny (Leon’s boss) gives Leon the extermination list (list/pictures of the people Tonny wants to be killed by Leon. Tonny is also Leon’s Bank (according to his words he is better than the banks); he saved Leon’s money instead of giving it to him directly. His restaurant is furnished with chairs and tables and there are red-white maps on top of the tables. Italian food is served to the people and the entire atmosphere in the restaurant scenes had a European style. Right after this scene Besson presents to us one of the fanciest hotels in New York City where Leon needs to do his next mission. Here we can see the contradiction between the atmospheres in the restaurant and the one in the hotel. This opposition implies the difference between the places Leon hangs out usually to where he going to do his job. Until now, we saw the characteristics of a foreign film in the restaurant and over the streets of “Little Italy”, but here in the hotel all the Hollywood characteristics are starting to be revealed- the guns, the intense music and Leon’s clever acts.

For the role of Leon, Besson chose a French actor-Jean Reno (another example of showing his affection to the homeland). In contradiction to the noise that exists in New York City’s streets, hotels and public places, Leon’s apartment is simple and quiet. Actually, the world outside Leon’s apartment and the world inside his apartment are totally two different places. Before I will give examples for this opposition I want to explain first why I this contradiction exist. The world outside his apartment helps the movie to be what it is-a Hollywood movie. On the other hand, the atmosphere in Leon’s apartment is more convenient, calm and peaceful that takes us – the audience--to another movie, a kind of world cinema movie.

On the streets, Leon is following after people with a threatening figure and a suspicious look. He is walking with deliberate steps and does not speak too much, but above all of that, the most frightening fact is that he is really a murderer. At the beginning of the movie, in the hotel scene, we can barely see him; he is hiding, jumping and surprising his targets in a way that surprises us too; we can only see the consequences of his acts and the terrifying faces of his victims. In the last scene when Leon and Mathilda are trying to get away from the cups, the lighting is gray which gives us the gloomy and sad feeling that we had each time when Leon wasn’t inside the apartment with Mathilda.

In his apartment, we can see a brighter light, a kind of yellow that gives us a happier and more comfortable feeling. He has a small wood table with three matching chairs and his tiny and not fancy TV. The white curtains are very long and thin, which gives you a feeling of freedom. The most important item in the apartment is Leon’s plant. He takes care of it like it was his son and even after he is leaving his small and nice apartment he is not leaving his plant behind. He feeds him and even says that it is his best friend. The plant shows us the other side of Leon-sweet, gentle, innocent and simply a person that know how to enjoy small things. The things that he is doing in the house- ironing his shirt, taking care of his plant, and drinking his milk with a peaceful look gives us the audience peaceful moments with classical music in the background. The games that he is playing with Mathilda and the writing-reading lessons that she is giving him makes the new apartment even warmer.

In the last scene everything is mixing together--the cups, his destroyed apartment and Mathilda’s. It seems like the two worlds of crime and peace are combined together and trying to destroy each other. Usually, Leon was always sent by Tonny to kill people, but now people have been sent to kill him in his own place. The fact that this is the first time in the movie that we saw fights in Leon’s place give us an unsecure feeling, but also a suspicious feeling that something bad is going to happen.

Through the movie, Jean Reno as a French actor takes those two different worlds of crime and peace and presents them to us as the difference between the Hollywood cinema and his “French world”. His accent while he speaks with Mathilda gives us the atmosphere of a dramatic French movie, while his speechless acts with guns reminds us of the action in a Hollywood film. The combination between those two worlds made this movie a special and fascinating one.