Predator

Recently, 'The Predator' (2018) has been showing in the cinemas, leading to a renewed interest in this iconic monster from the cinema. The whole story of 'Predator' started with John McTiernen's 1987 film, starring Arnold Schwarzenegger in one of his most famous roles. Now is the brilliant opportunity to look at the iconic film that starts it all!

As you may have noticed, the name 'Arnold' has already been mentioned a number of times in my previous articles. Well, I would always admit that Arnold Schwarzenegger is my favorite actor of all time. Ever since I have started watching most of his key films in my teenage years, Arnold has always been a sort of cinematic superego (in the Freudian sense) for me. True, I will never be as muscular as him - though I do go to gym often - I want to be someone as humorous, open-minded and charismatic as him. Personally, I think Arnold is an underrated actor - because people tends to focus on what he cannot do as an actor instead of what he has achieved. While I will never compare his performance to the greatest actors in cinema, there is no doubt that Arnold has chosen and starred in some of the most iconic films in the 20th century  - The Terminator series, Total Recall, Predator, True Lies, Conan the Barbarian, Commando, even comedy like Kindergarten Cop and Junior. Not only these films have shaped the way we look at modern action cinema, they have buried so deep into the culture of our generation. Arnold is the god of 'cheesy one liners', and I definitely love them! If you think they are silly, then just observe how many time you hear quotes like 'I'll be back', 'Let off some steam' and the joke 'Phased Plasma Rifle in the 40 watt range' recurs in so many comments on the web. If you still need one more example of Arnold's intelligence, dodge this - when he was in politics, in one occasion a commoner threw an egg onto his face, expecting him to be embarrassed. 'Now you owe me bacon', that was Arnold's response. With such a simple and improvised 'cheesy one liner', Arnold defused the whole situation with a sense of humor. He will always be remembered as someone significant in the history of cinema.

Indeed, 'Predator' (1987) turned out to be one of Arnold's most iconic films. In the film, he had to fight with something beyond human - an extra-terrestrial organism known as 'Predator'. I believe some of you may already have heard of this alien before, but I will give the most important info about this species. The predators are advanced organisms with a high intelligence, and they possessed a number of advanced technologies, have camouflage ability, and are comfortable with space travel. They have advanced visions, based on infrared and detect the thermal signature of other species. One of their most sophisticated equipment is a bio-mask which helps them to visualize things with a higher resolution and aids their mission. It also serves as a portal to relay data back to the Predator clan, to the head quarter’s server so they can analyze the information and experience of the individual members - that kind of cloud computing.

Their most signature aspect, however, is their innate aggression and the strong will to fight. The predators have pride in their ability to hunt other organisms, and they are even proud of the fact that they can hunt down those they believe are worthy opponents. I wonder that if there is a UFC in the universe, the predators would probably be like the Gracie family in this universe MMA championship. In fact, for many young predators, a successful hunt is a rite of passage for them, their way to show to the others they have grown up. Believing in a strong sense of honor, if a predator failed in a hunting mission, or was severely wounded by their enemies, they would commit a honorable suicide by activating the self-destruction program on their portable computers, an idea quite similar to seppuku in the culture of Bushido. Able to travel around space in their spaceships, predators have come to various parts of the universe for hunting trips, to hunt down various kinds of species they find challenging. Humans, unfortunately, have always been one of their targets, and the story of the 1987 film is about Jungle Hunter, a predator who attempted to kill a number of soldiers and military officers.

When the story commenced, a spaceship was seen travelling close to Earth and ejected an object through the atmosphere. That was not a mere dot - it was Jungle Hunter, a predator who planned to conduct some hunting trips on our planet. Finding a paradise in a tropical Central American forest for his violent rampage, Jungle Hunter has haunted many villagers around that area, because of both his brutality and the added advantage he could render invisible to human vision during his hunting attempts, making him an unseen and threatening enemy. Soon after, a military rescue team, led by a veteran major Dutch (Schwarzenegger), arrived there for a rescue mission. It turned out that Dutch's supervisor, Dillon, has further intentions than using them as a rescue team - they are used as instruments to carry out assassinations on a number insurgent fighters around that area. After learning the truth of their mission, Dutch was really upset because he could not believe Dillon, an old friend of his, has such a nefarious purpose. But that's not the end of the story. Because an invisible enemy - the Jungle Hunter - has already set his sight on this team of worthy opponents and started stalking on them. Very soon, the platoon was aware that they have been followed by some unknown enemy. The jungle became an arena for a game of elimination, and eventually who could become the equal match to this warrior from another universe?

Predator is certainly a film about plenty of action, yet people often overlook the cleverness of the plot. John McTiernen's heroes are not only strong, but they are also very intelligent when they deal with crisis, especially when they are alone. The more you look at a film like 'Predator', you start to see the intelligence behind the film. Dutch is not only a muscular man with brawn, he also possessed leadership skills, problem-solving skills, and a tremendous ability of resilience. These aspects are what I will concentrate on here (sorry, not the muscle!).

As I have pointed out before, while individualism is often celebrated in McTiernen's films, the filmmaker does not undermine the effectiveness of team work. The hero will often have to blend in nicely to the team to bring the action forward. At the point an unknown enemy was identified, Dutch called into the action an organized hunt to find out their enemy. It was clear that Dutch's team worked as an effective one, because they have successfully killed all the insurgent in a very short span of time. Thus, when the body count started to increase in Dutch's side, it was not necessarily their incompetency. At the starting part of their encounter, the Predator had a number of advantages against Dutch's team. First, he was rendered invisible during their first encounters, and the Jungle Hunter has successfully killed two members in the platoon before a massive fire fight broke out between the 2 parties. By hiding and jumping effectively through trees, he successfully sniped a number of Dutch's men with his advanced plasma weapon. True, someone can argue this is an unsportsmanlike behavior (see later), yet from a military and pragmatic point of view, the Jungle Hunter won this round because he would let the environment become his advantage, and Dutch's men was stranded by Jungle Hunter's control of the situation.  The heavy gun fire wounded the Predator on his arm, and he bled with some luminescent green blood. Later when the team investigate this weird material, Dutch uttered the one of the most iconic one-liners in all of the Schwarzenegger cinema:

DUTCH

If it bleeds, we can kill it.

This line has become an iconic line and it has been parodied or distorted by many. To me, we don't need to over-analyze this, because the meaning is plain and simple. Dutch was showing his neat problem-solving skill. The only way to crack a problem is to identify the key point that leads to the solution. Isn't that the way we are often taught when dealing with exams? There is a certain point that you have to identify the keywords and the implications behind that. Then comes the Eureka moment that will lead you to the direction for the solution. This is not simplistic or silly, indeed Arnold has used such a simple and memorable statement to show us the golden rule of solving problems. If bleeding is the key, then just make him bleed more! Yes I know it sounds like a trash talking line from John Travolta's character in 'Broken Arrow', but that's the case.

After this realization, the team played with their next strategy - setting traps around the forest to catch their enemy out. Not only the attempt led to the demise of a wild pig, more characters were injured or eventually killed. Dutch soon found himself alone in this ordeal, and he also came to the recognition that his enemy only picked worthy men as opponents, hence the girl they have captured have never been targeted throughout the process. Soon after the Jungle Hunter got his hands on Dutch and wounded him. Desperately Dutch asked the girl to 'gettttt to the CHOPPERRRRR!!' and he had to face this other-worldly enemy alone.  While in the hot pursuit, Dutch accidentally fell into a river and the mud has covered Dutch. Because that reduced his thermal signature, the Predator could not see Dutch clearly through his infrared vision with the bio-mask. Escaping the Predator, Dutch immediately picked up this knowledge and knew the mud would be useful for him against the Predator.

Now utterly alone, Dutch has already learnt a lot from his experience. He understood that the firearms the team has got was not effective enough to deal with the Jungle Hunter, and he had to play the game with stealth because that was a strategy the Predator has been using a lot during the encounter - a face to face encounter would not give humanity any advantage in this case. Dutch started to get prepared for the final showdown and he made a lot of traps and more primitive weapons to deal with this situation. Knowing the mud would provide camouflage, he covered himself with mud. He went as far to set fire and give a war cry - a signal of challenge. Yes that might sound a bit corny but at least the Predator liked it that way.  

The final showdown broke out between the two and that was as intense as any skirmish. Dutch has successfully disabled Jungle Hunter's portable device, but to the Predator, Dutch was just a piece of cake. Soon the alien gained an upper hand and cornered Dutch - literally nowhere to run. Seeing the whole situation as a matter of honor, Jungle Hunter decided to give Dutch one last final round. He took off all the weapons that could give him advantages and engaged Dutch in a hand-to-hand combat (that's why I mention UFC before). Clearly Dutch was no match for this alien and he was knocked around by the Jungle Hunter. The affirmative thing, though, was that even facing with such an unsurmountable rival, Dutch had plenty of perseverance and resilience to come back, and he was calm enough to see that the Jungle Hunter might step into the trap. With a sense of ego and hubris, the Predator certainly thought he could squash Dutch like a grapefruit, and he started to be over-confident and made careless mistakes. Indeed, Jungle Hunter could have easily defeated Dutch using his advanced weapons and sniping skills, yet the inflated ego of the alien meant that he saw all these unsportsmanlike, and he wanted to beat Dutch in a fair fight. From these, Jungle Hunter underestimated humanity’s potential and led to his own downfall. Dutch eventually saw an opportunity and released a counterweight onto Jungle Hunter, and that completely destroyed him! Bleeding profusely and dying on the floor, Dutch inquired 'What the hell are you' to this ugly motherfxxker (that's a fair statement sadly), but Jungle Hunter refused to comply. Displaying a final sense of honor, he activated his self-destruction device and committed suicide - yet he decided to die with Dutch together. Sensing an out-of-proportion explosion was brewing through the Predator's creepy laughter, Dutch dashed away the faster he could manage and escaped from the mushroom cloud that resulted from this massive explosion.   

Humanity has affirmed themselves by defeating such a formidable opponent from another universe. This feat has then inspired more Predators to try their luck on the Earth, yet we know that humanity will be up for the challenge!

by Ed Law

Film Analysis

Otto Preminger

This gentleman from Austria boarded on a ship, and arrived in the United States in the mid-1930s. Here, he worked his way into the Hollywood system, directing a number of iconic films from the 1940s into the late 1950s. His work, for his era, was seen as ‘provocative’ - only because he was willing to expose ideas which were too controversial for the conservative epoch he found himself in. He fought for his right to make the films he wanted to show the public, and he often clashed with the committee which was more than happy to accept ‘feel-good’ and ‘escapist’ movies in an era of conformity and McCarthyism. He was rumored to be mean and a tyrant, which he believed it was due to his occasional casting as Nazi Officers, and, in one occasion, Mr. Freeze in the Batman Series. Yet, he was cherished as a man of integrity and his films would have influenced the French New Wave and many other directors. His name is Otto Preminger, the director I will talk about this time!

Recently, Preminger’s masterpiece, ‘Anatomy of a Murder’, is released again in cinemas in Hong Kong. This is a great opportunity to explore his unique style, and how his preferences shape the themes he has explored in his films. As I have stressed before in previous articles, the greatest filmmakers do not feel there is a need for compromise between style and content – the style often reflects the content they want to express.

Preminger’s background might have influenced his worldview and style. His father was a lawyer, and Preminger studied law at university, yet it was only a compromise as his real passion has always been in drama and acting. Nevertheless, these experiences have certainly impacted his way of looking at the world, and he has always believed that an objective and unsentimental viewpoint was the best tool to understand the world through cinema. Thus, Preminger can be seen as a realist, and many of his techniques were committed to enhance the realism in his film. For example, he favored the use of long take in many of his work, and he has made attempts to minimize the number of editing cuts in his films. The fluid camera movement and long takes he preferred were also curiously similar to many other filmmakers of his era – Renoir, Welles, Hitchcock, Mizoguchi and Ophüls. When a change of character perspective was required, Preminger would tend to use a zoom, a suitable camera movement, or having the character moving closer to the camera, because he felt that an abrupt cut would compromise the realism he has cherished so much. Preminger’s use of deep focus photography, like that of Welles, Renoir and Wyler, also enhanced the impartiality and realism of his films. This classical approach to cinematography has also be championed by later critics such as Bazin. His style can be labeled as impartial and impersonal, and he has committed to an emotional detachment to the themes he has portrayed in his work. He encouraged the viewers to observe, not to actively participate nor to get too close to the action. And, he wanted to divert the audience from those easily-accepted perspectives, which were the intentions behind the authorities and the powerful ones.

To me, an analogy to describe Preminger’s style is a circle – yet one that does not close itself up. Through the well-defined and carefully planned scenes, the characters play out their roles and reveal their contentions, yet Preminger’s eyes did not pass any value judgment or sentimental feelings on any of them. He was like an impartial judge, showing us the world as-it-is.

  

Obsession is a significant theme in Preminger’s work, which is a key theme in many of the Film Noirs. Take ‘Laura’, Preminger’s iconic film noir of the 1940s. The whole film is about the mystery of a beautiful woman known as ‘Laura’, and how the different male characters are obsessed to her through different degrees and means. While the photographic style was highly stylized, the composition of the various scenes also addressed the theme of obsession. One thing that comes up to my mind is related to Hitchcock’s ‘Vertigo’, where James Stewart’s character is spying on Kim Novak’s character, who she is looking at a portrait in a gallery. The portrait, in turn, is looking at the audience! Thus this leads to a cyclical connection between the characters and viewers, reality and fiction! This is also evident in Preminger’s ‘Laura’:  when Dana Andrew’s detective character is looking at Laura’s portrait, the seductive image of Laura is looking at the audience, bluffing the viewer to look closer. We can easily identify with Andrew’s character, because we are just as obsessed with Laura as he did in the film. Preminger understood our psychological design, and exposed our unconscious through connecting us with the characters.

  

In Preminger’s films, the feminine characters are often significant for the plot and motivations of the male characters. Preminger portrayed his male characters in a very realistic manner. Rather than showing these characters as heroic, they are often portrayed as underdogs and desperate men, much like the style of Nicholas Ray and Anthony Mann from the same era. Thus, many of these were film noirs, or at least other genre films with a heavy noir element. The male characters, for whatever causes, possessed greed and fought for their aims ruthlessly. ‘Anatomy of a Murder’ is the prime example, and I believe it is highly recommendable because it provides an extremely realistic look at the justice system. Rather than pursuing for the so-called ‘justice’ as in many of those sentimental films, ‘Anatomy’ provides an objective look at the process of the legal system, and how ruthless one can be to twist facts in order to fit into one’s purpose. ‘Twelve Angry Men’ may be an inspiring film, but it is not a realistic film because the director wants to instill a moral message behind the movie, so Henry Fonda’s Mr. Nice Guy will win at the end no matter how. ‘Anatomy’, on the other hand, challenges the viewer – is justice always granted in the legal system? Is that possible that there will be a ‘wrong judgment’, so the ‘bad’ guy will walk away free? This black-and-white film emerged at an age when color films were getting popular, and it was black-and-white for a good reason, because the style had a film-noir sensibility. If you want to understand what the legal system is about through cinema, ‘Anatomy of a Murder’ is the real deal.

  

Preminger was not afraid to present thorny and controversial issues to the public, as he believed that an impartial portrayal of these issues would lead to a fairer judgment from his audience. His films dealt with many provocative themes – drugs, sexual violence, legal system, homosexuality, mental problems and the controversial historical matters. His films concerned many of the alienated characters who suffered from all the above misfortunes, and he provided an impartial look of how the mainstream society interacted with these outcasts. ‘The Man With the Golden Arm’ was a famous one from Frank Sinatra, regarding heroin addiction (which was super controversial at the time of release). Mr. Sinatra has delivered a smashing performance, and his realistic portrayal of a ‘cold turkey’ was sort of a pinnacle. Other less known, yet worthwhile examples include ‘Fallen Angel’, ‘Whirlpool’, ‘Exodus’ and ‘Advise & Consent’.

  

Mr. Preminger’s controversial image appeared to come from some subjective and personal feelings from certain personalities around the film industry of his time, yet, looking at what he has left for us, I can see him as an honest gentleman with confidence and integrity, and has possessed a mastery of film techniques. His films were ahead of his time, and are still highly relevant today.

by Ed Law

Film Analysis

The Other Side of the Wind

How far are you willing to go to realize a dream, because you are certain that what you do will benefit and inspire the future generations to come? Orson Welles, the director of 'Citizen Kane', has a new film to show the audience this year. Wait a minute - didn't Welles pass away long ago, back in 1985? No, this is not a joke nor the prelude to a ghost story. Because Welles' unfinished final film, 'The Other Side of the Wind', is coming to the lovers of cinema this year. It has already had a premiere in the Venice Film Festival, and it has received a positive and enthusiastic response from the audience and critics so far. The Welles film will be shown on Netflix and selected cinemas in November this year, and that will give our generation a chance to experience the mighty power of the 'Wellesian' style. I will definitely write an article on this final Welles film after I have watched it, because as you may see, I have already written a few articles to celebrate Welles' unmatched genius. The story of Orson Welles will never finish if we have not considered 'The Other Side of the Wind'. Now, let me share with you my enthusiasm on this new film from Welles.

Why would I be so happy about a new film by a dated filmmaker? Let me put it this way - if you can see an unrealized and impossible dream finally comes true, just how much gratifications you can get from that? I suppose this is also a sentiment shared by so many film lovers who admire Orson Welles and cinema as an art in general. 'The Other Side of the Wind' has almost become a myth throughout the 50 years of so since its inception. Welles started filming his final feature film at around the early 1970s, and he was committed to make it his comeback film, because he has been marginalized by the Hollywood System since the 1940s. Most of the greatest films from him were heavily edited or altered without his consent, and they often suffered severe criticism because of these alterations. For the second half of his life, Orson Welles has always wanted to make so many movies, yet every single one was a painful experience for him - due to the termination of funding and studio interference. Either the film was not in his realized form, or he had to abandon projects during production. I suppose one of the reasons why Welles can become such a legend is because he was both a genius and a sympathetic figure. Welles revolutionized the way of filmmaking through all his greatest films, yet the institutions of film production prevented many of his genius moments from happening at all.

Going back to his final film, the production went reasonably well between 1970-1976, until a lack of funding stopped the production process. By that time, Welles has already edited more than 40% of the footage, yet he could not continue to work on the film. The things became even more complicated because of the conflicting legal rights to the film. This controversy continued all the way after Welles' death oin1985. There are many committed filmmakers, including Peter Bogdanovich and Frank Marshall, to name a few, who want to put together the film to realize Welles' dream project, yet they all understand there are loads of issues to settle - from the whereabout of the footages to the legal rights of the final  film. That is why most people think that the film is a pipe dream and predict it will never be shown. Fate and Netflix have proven us all wrong. Because the footages were discovered in 2017, and Netflix is willing to support and fund the project, so that the filmmakers can assemble and complete the film, by reference to Welles' script. And now, the film is all ready and the film genius is back!

A great thing about the film is that it is a historical collaboration between two of America's greatest filmmakers - Orson Welles and John Huston. Welles casted the director of films like 'The Maltese Falcon' and 'The Treasures of Sierra Madre' as his protagonist, who was an aging filmmaker wishing for a comeback. Many critics have already pointed out that Huston’s character reflects Welles’ life experience, and indeed the larger-than-life temperament of the character also resembles that of Huston and Welles, whom the former has been acclaimed as the ‘Ernest Hemingway of cinema’. The realization of this film leads to the Huston-Welles collaboration, which is something the audience from their era will never even imagine or be able to see. 

That is why any lovers of cinema will find blessed by this film. The ultimate irony about the whole thing is that the film, which is supposed to be a film of the 1970s, actually crash-lands to the cinema world in 2018 – our era. We turn out to be the ones who has first-hand experience by a film from a number of cinematic legends who appear to come from another century. Isn’t it deeply ironic that Welles, Huston, or their contemporaries, actually do not have a chance to watch this film because it has taken half a century to complete the work? I suppose the reason why everyone is fighting so hard for ‘The Other Side of the Wind’ to finish is because of their admiration and gratitude to Welles, an inspiring genius who has shaped the way we look at film as an art form.

If you love cinema, or want to know more about film art, you should definitely go and watch ‘The Other Side of the Wind’ - because if there is one more Orson Welles film out there, humanity deserves one more chance.   

Film Analysis

The Hunt for Red October

As I was writing about John McTiernan's 'Die Hard', I could not stop thinking about his 1990 film, 'The Hunt for Red October'. Originally I just wanted to say a few words about this Sean Connery-Alec Baldwin gem, yet I finally decided that it deserves an article of its own. This espionage thriller does bring back a lot of childhood memories for me, because we have a laserdisc version of this film at home. In fact, I have always been a big fan of submarine films. Though I think Wolfgang Petersen's 'Das Boot' will always be the number one submarine film, 'Red October' is also a memorable one for me. I have a great respect for the military officers who work inside the submarine. To work in such a claustrophobic and stressful area, one certainly needs commitment, courage, skills and a positive outlook to take in the pressure - both physically and mentally!

As a famous adaptation from Tom Clancy's 'Jack Ryan' series, 'Red October' is a spy thriller with quite a lot of action and suspense. The fact that the story takes place in the Cold War era makes it even more thrilling , because if anyone on both sides of the ideological camp send out a wrong message, it can lead to catastrophic consequences for the whole world. Indeed, the film was first released in 1990, the time that marked the end of the Soviet Union. The appeal to the audience from the 1990s probably led to the film's box office success and popularity. Even if we watch 'Red October' nowadays, that is still interesting as a comparison to the current US-Russia relations, though I do not aim to go too far into the political questions here.

The tense story took place in 1984, and it was about the Russian Captain Marko Ramius (Sean Connery). He was the captain of 'Red October', which was a fictionalized version of a type of Soviet submarine. The name of the submarine really symbolized the Soviet Union nicely. Ramius, due to some unspecified reasons, directed his submarine towards the US territory. People on both sides of the Cold War were really nervous, because they had absolutely no idea what Ramius' motivation was. Could that be his desire to start World War III ?! Jack Ryan (Alec Baldwin), who was a CIA analyst, suggested otherwise: he hypothesized that Ramius' reason was because he wanted to defect to the US. Hence, Ryan's superior decided to give him an opportunity to prove that. Ryan had to brave himself onto a US submarine, and tried his best to contact Ramius . Time was running out, because the Soviet Union has declared Ramius a regenade and requested the US side to stop his submarine or destoryed that if the situation called for it. On the other hand, another Soviet submarine was on the way to intercept and possibly destoryed the 'Red October'. What would eventually come out of this under-water thrill ride, and after all what was Ramius' true motivation?

Jack Ryan is probably Tom Clancy's masterstroke as an author of fiction. This character has a career trajectory crazier than President Trump's, all the way from marine officer to investment broker to CIA officer to the President of United States! Jack Ryan has been portrayed by a number of great actors throughout the many films that chronicle his adventure - Alec Baldwin, Harrison Ford, Ben Affleck, Chris Pine and many more in the future. I don't know why, but I always find Baldwin to be a better Jack Ryan than Ford, though I suppose many will first think of Ford when they hear about Jack Ryan. Harrison Ford can give cool and restrained performance like Han Solo and Rick Deckard, resourceful and analytical at the same time, yet I think Alec Baldwin seems to portray the mindset of Jack Ryan better here - who uses insight, intelligence and interpersonal skills to solve problems rather than sheer force. It is a shame Baldwin has only starred in one Jack Ryan film because that is quite an iconic role for him. I think Ryan's power originates from the fact that he can effectively connect with and convince others, to address the common interests even if the two parties are seen as adversaries to each other. In the scene when Ryan demonstrated that he understood and could speak Russian, he stated that one should understand more about their enemies by getting closer, which was clearly a military wisdom advocated by Sun Tzu. Ryan clearly has contributed a lot to the successful escape by the crew members on 'Red October' and also eliminated the undercover agent, who exposed the whereabout of 'Red October' and then attempted to conduct a counterattack on US with a missile.   

Sean Connery, who starred as Captain Ramius, was just as smashing as Baldwin. Sir Connery has always been an actor with charisma, no wonder he was the first ever James Bond! He has made a bit of a come back in the late 1980s, by starring in films like 'The Untouchables' , 'Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade' and 'Red October'. Ramius is the embodiment of military genius. While he has possessed a strategic mind and loads of experience, he was also calm and assertive even at the face of extreme adversity. The sequence when the 'Red October' attempted to escape from a torpedo serves as a great example, and that is a scene I really like. The sequence illustrated the excellent craftsmanship from McTiernen when the filmmaker was creating exicting and suspenseful sequences. With a series of fast cuts, the shots were fragmented and focused on both the interior - with all the different members in the submarine - and the exterior. When the camera focused on Ramius, he was staged in the foreground with a shallow depth of field, and the camera was held very tight and static on his face, signifying his authority and control of the situation. The other characters were often showed with more mobile dolly shots, which illustrated their fear and anxiety regarding the potential collision by the torpedo. The stark contrast was also complemented by the aural effects of the sonar - a reminder of high school physics - which sent out the warning about the approach of the torpedo. McTiernen was able to use all these techniques to put the audience members on the edge, and it also further painted the image the battle-hardened Ramius.

It turned out that Ramius was not the bad guy, he just wanted to defect to US because he embraced the liberal values provided by the spirit. Ramius had idealistic beliefs regarding his country and he could see the negatives implications for the new type of submarine he was leading. As a man who has worked for many decades in the submarine, he was also disillusioned about the political aspect of the Cold War, and could not see any ideal future provided by his country. I guess Captain Ramius is indeed quite a positive character, because not only he possesses intelligence and power, he also shares an universal outlook regarding humanity. He finds contradiction in a blind patriotism and a desire for liberty, and he eventually makes his decision and arrives at USA with Jack Ryan. 

So, welcome to the New World, Sir!    

Film Analysis

Die Hard

I have recently written a lot of articles about a number of films which explore serious and rather dark themes. This darkness is still lurking around in more entertaining films like 'Wall E', 'Akira', and 'Full Metal Jacket'. As the great psychologist Carl Jung has illustrated, the co-existence of light and shadow is the ultimate reality that governs human experience. Therefore if I have made you aware of the dark sides of human nature, I am also committed to show you the positive sides of humanity - our courage, intelligence, creativity in solving problems and resilience. Since now it is summer I decide to introduce a number of entertaining films that I enjoyed at a young age. This time I will start with an action classic I really love - John McTiernan's 'Die Hard' (1988)!

Though you may have the impression that I have always been fascinated by art films and more serious films, I am just as much a big fan in commercial cinema, especially the action and adventure genre (never a big fan in rom-com). After all, Arnold Schwarzenegger is my favorite actor of all time and I have tremendous respect for his many work and achievements. I am a really fanatic of the films from the 1980s and early 1990s, because that is the era I came from. From that 15 years or so I can find numerous classic films I can come back to watch again and again without any diminishment in terms of pleasure. There are loads of action films from around the world, be it John Woo, Ringo Lam, James Cameron, Paul Verhoeven, John McTiernan and so on, they are all filmmakers I admire. Speaking of John McTiernan, I would definitely recommend his trio from 1987 to 1990 - 'Predator', 'Die Hard' and 'The Hunt For Red October'. All 3 are classics in the action genre and you will derive tremendous pleasure from watching them, yet it is more than simple entertainment. A thing in common for the 3 films is that they are all intelligent films, in terms of the plot and also the execution of the film sequences. While I do not think Mr. McTiernan will be seen as being in the same group as Bergman or Tarkovsky, his achievement and talent as a filmmaker will be remembered for many years to come, and I am sure his greatest films will be celebrated by both film buffs and common audience alike. I will deal with the Arnold classic 'Predator' next time; here I will first talk about the Bruce Willis classic 'Die Hard'.

I believe most of you have definitely heard of 'Die Hard' before, as it has inspired many sequels over the years. Indeed, the very first installment of Die Hard came out in 1988, and it has established itself as a classic in the action and adventure genre. It has become a standard example of a great action film and also a technically proficient work, which received 4 technical Oscar nominations. 'Die Hard' is cinematic a dynamite loaded with thrill, suspense, and excitement, and there are quite a number of bumps throughout the thrill ride! The claustrophobic environment from the skyscraper only added fuel to the showdown between good and evil. Bruce Willis, who is the cop John McClane in the film, becomes an iconic character and probably the actor's most memorable role in cinema.

If you are not enough with the action films, let me give you some further recommendations. Other than 'Predator' and 'The Hunt for Red October', another film I quite enjoy is Steven Seagel's ‘Under Siege' (1992), famously coined as 'Die Hard on a battleship'. Again the claustrophobic environment coupled with a loose cannon starring Tommy Lee Jones should give plenty of pleasure for the viewers. I am also a big fan of Paul Verhoeven, and I love his great film with Arnold, 'Total Recall', which is crazy and violent; and of course the original 'Robocop' in 1987. For military fans I recommend Arnold's 'Commando', which has become a cult classic, and 'Rambo'  1 and 2 - the filmmaker George S. Cosmatos was quite a great director for action films. Rambo 3 is a bit corny really.

The classic film is based on a simple scenario. John McClane (Bruce Willis) is heading to meet his ex-wife at a party in a skyscraper during Christmas. Unfortunately, a team of experienced terrorists, led by Hans Gruber (Alan Rickman's most famous role other than Prof. Snape), took hostage of the building and demanded a hefty ransom. McClane, who is just in the bathroom at that point, becomes alone and he is committed to save the day from this evil guys. All the odds are against him, including the fact that he is barefoot, wearing a white singlet that the image will become imprinted in the audience's psyche, and no ammunition, that is exactly the way he likes that! Will this one-man-team defeat the bad guys?

'Die Hard' is such a fun and straight-forward film that no one needs to be pretentious to philosophize about the deeper meanings of the film, so I will just randomly share my thoughts and give some cultural references to it. Other than the simplistic 'good versus evil' theme, I believe McTiernan wants the audience to explore the dynamics between individual and group. First off, that is an intelligent show down between McClane and Gruber, the embodiment of 'good' and 'evil', because both are resourceful and intelligent characters, and watching them battle it out is a bit witnessing a game of chess between 2 master players. Both sides want to trap the opponent into miscalculations, and both can fall down and suffer minor losses at certain moments throughout the lock up. McClane is obvious - throughout the film he is the symbol of individualism, because he is forced into a situation. Though we can argue that a cop from other the building is helping him out a bit in terms of communication, most of the times he is fighting first hand and alone, and he has to face 10 or so terrorists who are professional in the use of firearms, strategy and psychological techniques. McClane is indeed very intelligent and organized as a fighter for goodness. He sneaks through and observes the dynamics of the working of the terrorist team, and eliminated them one by one, also giving taunting remarks to perturb the team spirit of these terrorists. He did get himself into trouble - for example the famous glass in feet situation, when Gruber discovered that McClane was barefoot, which is certainly nasty for the audience to think of (good job, Mr. McTiernan). Yet, what is great about McClane is his resilience and perseverance to achieve his aim. Despite the pain and stress all the way, he kept coming back and fought harder against the bad guys. We don't need a philosopher to convince us that McClane is a hero. McTiernan has painted the other characters - the head of the corporation, the boyfriend who wanted to cooperate with the terrorists, the chief police officers, and media - as incompetent, because I think he wants to celebrate the individualism one can really find from McClane.

Hans Gruber, beautifully portrayed by Alan Rickman, is the antithesis of McClane. While being as resourceful and strong-willed as his nemesis, Gruber represented the face of corporate approach, or like the corporate business the terrorists are targeting. While no one should endorse the criminal activities of the terrorists, it is quite obvious that Gruber's team is very professional, and they work really 'great' in a criminal way. Gruber believes in a strong organization for his terrorist activities. Indeed, the memorable scene where the whole team of terrorists arrive in an elevator is a great representation of that spirit. He knows that all the members in the team have to co-ordinate well together in order to succeed for their criminal deeds. Someone to hold up the guests at gun point; someone to intercept the signals of communication; someone to distract the police; and someone to negotiate for the ransom. Gruber clearly is experienced and have carefully planned for the whole hostage-taking situation in detail beforehand. If McClane is not in the equation, these terrorists would likely succeed. Indeed, I think McTiernan has portrayed Gruber rather accurately as a terrorist of the 1970s and 1980s, which the aim is often money-oriented. The terrorists and aircraft hijackers usually had a clear objective - often a ransom or political aim - and they are less likely to kill hostages if their demands can be met or delayed through some form of ongoing negotiation. It is very different from the lone-wolf terrorism nowadays, because in this case the attacker has already written his ending for the story - his own death (or 'sacrifice' he would prefer to say) and maximum carnage to those around him. In a twisted sense of morality and psychology, the terrorist is ready to give up his life, and he believes this sacrifice will justify his killing of further hostages. I believe some of the sequels of 'Die Hard', and the terrorist films in the past 10 years or so are often exploring this change in the face of terrorism.

In fact, the interaction between McClane and Gruber not only increases the tension of the narrative, it also further explores the point I talk about in the last paragraph. It is great to see that McTiernan did not leave their encounter until the climax, and the director has given the characters a continuing conversation regarding heroism throughout the film. Gruber, as a believer for the teamwork of his group, mocked McClane many times regarding his individualism by referring to Western films, coining McClane 'Mr. Cowboy' and some sort of security guard who is looking for trouble. McClane retorted and was quite proud of his gumption against all these terrorists, and often taunted the terrorists when he has scored points against them (not only the Double Jeopardy, but also killing them), like writing 'I have got a gun hohoho' over a dead body. Gruber and McClane did meet once face to face after the final showdown. At that point, Gruber pretended to be a guest who has been lost somehow, yet McClane certainly knew better than that from his experience as a cop. Acting in an absent-mindedly manner, McClane handed Gruber a gun for protection, and when Gruber attempted to gun McClane down from the back, there are no bullets inside. That shows McClane's cunningness, and clearly his act of handing the gun is deliberate. It is a test to see if his own hypothesis regarding Gruber's identity is true or not. Gruber was lucky at that point, because one of his henchman, Karl, rushed in and engaged a shootout with McClane, where Gruber could escape and soon after detonate a bomb, leading to the famous scene of McClane jumping down the exploding building in a bungee jump style - simply the most wonderful moment in the whole film!

Speaking of Karl, he is also an interesting character in his own right, because he also challenged the notion of team-playing for the terrorists. As a great marksman, he was very good at the firearms and it was very clear that he was capable to work alone. He seemed to be a bit of a loose cannon, because he had a strong hatred for cops and he also wanted revenge and hence took the situation very personal. Karl's lone warrior persona has generated some tension between himself and Gruber, because Gruber has the feelings this hot head might go out of control and screwed up the master plan. In a rather dark way, I think McTiernan also 'celebrated' Karl's individualism, because not only he was probably the only character who could cause some damage to McClane, the director also gave him the last laugh (spoilers). In a twist, he survived even after the Gruber the big boss has died, and shot his way out of the building, only to be gunned down by McClane and his comrade.

I would like to comment on the final showdown between McClane and Gruber, as that is an interesting cultural reference that enhances the theme of the film. Award of the fact that McClane's ex-wife was among the hostages, Gruber knows that the only way to lead to a checkmate is by holding her at gunpoint and lure McClane to come out. In the trash-talking phase of this encounter (this is a Hollywood film after all), Gruber surmised that, 'Looks like John Wayne will not ride into the sunset with Grace Kelly'. As if getting pissed by Gruber’s lapse in cinematic facts, McClane angrily pointed out that the guy is ‘Gary Cooper’, not John Wayne. It is an interesting cultural reference that I think is more than a mere tribute, and interestingly, Kubrick also used ‘John Wayne’ as a satirical term a lot in ‘Full Metal Jacket’, which was released a year before ‘Die Hard’. The reference to the old cowboy scenario is fascinating because that reminds us of Fred Zinnemann’s ‘High Noon’, which starred Gary Cooper and Grace Kelly. ‘High Noon’ and ‘Die Hard’ shared a similar theme of individualism against adversity. In ‘High Noon’, the sheriff starred by Cooper is fighting alone against a group of professional bandits, who are coming back in town to exact revenge on him. No one was willing to help because they did not want to get involved in any dirty business, which at that time was a critique on the indifference towards McCarthyism and the conformist attitude advocated by the Eisenhower presidency. Some will even go further to celebrate Cooper’s sheriff as an existential hero, which kind of remind us of Sartre’s ideas, for example. The way John Wayne came into the picture was that he and his filmmaker friend, Howard Hawks, were never a big fan of ‘High Noon’, though the Zinnemann film has won a number of Academy Awards. The duo did not agree to the fact that the hero was so incompatible and could not find any kind of assistance around the place, because they firmly believed in the importance of team work and professionalism. That was why they made ‘Rio Bravo’ as a response to ‘High Noon’. Anyway, McClane’s situation was very similar to the cowboy film, because McTiernan was celebrating the courage and individualistic will from this protagonist. John McClane’s wife was also very clever because she was brave enough to distract Gruber, giving enough time for McClane to kill him with a concealed gun. In ‘High Noon’, that was also Grace Kelly’s ‘Quaker wife’ character who turned out to be the most helpful character to help the sheriff to defeat the bandits. Well, that runs in the family, right?

So, channel out a bit of your gumption, get yourself a few cheesy one-linear, have your ‘yippie-ki-yay’ moment and go for it!

Die Hard - 30th Anniversary

Film Analysis

Akira

Does enlightenment lead to a brighter future, or just another round of darkness from hell? Can the prosperity of the cityscape contain the rawest, most psychopathic energy in all of us? Is it fair for any of us to suspect about conspiracy, as we cannot even battle the desire and greed so familiar to humanity? In the 1980s, a comic series has successfully captured and explored all these stingy little questions that have always hidden in the darkest corners of humanity. The author of the series went as far to direct an animated feature from that in 1988, and that has become a modern classic in animation, cyberpunk and sci-fi in general. That film is one of my favorite animated features of all time - Katsuhiro Otomo’s ‘AKIRA’ (1988)!

‘Akira’ is the most famous work from the Japanese comic artist and filmmaker Katsuhiro Otomo. Being a big fan in both comic and cinema since a young age, Otomo started working in comic in the 1970s. He devised the cyberpunk comic series of ‘Akira’ in around 1980, and eventually he decided to make a cinematic version of his masterpiece. It is noteworthy to see that the animated feature is quite different in terms of plot to the comic, so that is definitely a good reason to watch the film because that will not be repetitive in any sense. In fact, this is a visual spectacle I recommend to anyone who enjoys cinema and comic alike. Though dealing with the darker aspect of humanity, the film is very beautiful and stylized, though there are so pretty crazy and violent (I mean R-Rated ones, not those petty PG-13 ones) moments. That is the sort of ‘cinematic LSD’ that will heighten you up to another realm. I do remember vividly the first viewing of this visual dynamite on Laser Disc – there was a long, long time ago. The images in the film have made a very lasting impression on me, as if they have been imprinted onto my mind. I suppose this type of cinematic education really contributes to my passion for cinema afterwards! Visual spectacles apart, the messages behind ‘Akira’ are also very thought-provoking and totally relevant to the issues of the modern condition. Technology versus superstition, rationality versus psychopathy, as you will see the success of ‘Akira’ plays on these yin-yang relationships. Maybe my only complaint about this film is the way Tokyo is destroyed – that expanding hemispheric energy kind of recall integral calculus and that is a bit corny. Nevertheless, I have to admit that is still a pretty memorable opening scene.

‘It’s Disney on PCP, mean, rotten, psychotic, but incredibly vivid.’  - Stephen Hunter, Baltimore Sun.

Let’s get into a bit of background regarding the inspirations and influence of ‘Akira’, as we can then appreciate its place in the cinematic universe. As stated before, Otomo is well-versed in the knowledge of comics as well as cinema, as one can easily see the creation of ‘Akira’ was based on many inspirations he has come to be aware of. For example, Otomo is known to be a big fan of the Japanese robot comic ‘Tetsujin-28 Go’. Not only the names of the characters in Akira are homages to the robot comic, the number ‘28’ also serves an important purpose in both manga. Indeed, even the storyline has parallels – which is about the destruction of an old world and the emergence of new powers and the wave of struggle between good and evil that follows. In terms of the Western culture, Otomo has cited the French comic artist, Moebius, as an influence; and he also enjoys a number of New Hollywood era films such as ‘Bonnie and Clyde’ and ‘Easy Rider’, where they have anti-establishment tones. In fact, Otomo seems to have a love for stories regarding conspiracy, as ‘Akira’ and ‘Steamboy’ – kind of a period version of ‘Akira’ – both involve corrupted politics and controversial use of science. But there is one particular influence I would like to elaborate on – that is the influence from American filmmaker Nicholas Ray, and one of his most famous films, ‘Rebel Without  A Cause’. Otomo has admired Ray’s work and if we really look into both films, there are indeed quite a lot of similarities in terms of style and also content. In the second part of this article series I will compare ‘Akira’ and ‘Rebel Without A Cause’ side-by-side.

Not only ‘Akira’ has a lot of connections with many famous and iconic films and comics, it is also an iconic film which has influenced many subsequent films from the science fiction genre. A film immediately comes to mind is Shinya Tsukamoto’s ‘Tetsuo’, where it deals with the theme of transformation and the protagonist serves the name with one of the key characters in ‘Akira’. Filmmakers of ‘Ghost in the Shell’, ‘The Matrix’, ‘Dark City’ and others have cited inspirations from ‘Akira’. Indeed, just like ‘Blade Runner’ and ‘The Terminator’, ‘Akira’ is among the key films that have shaped the way we look at the sub-genre of cyberpunk nowadays.

The story of Akira took place in an alternative universe, where Tokyo was destroyed spectacularly by a massive, spherical and expanding explosion in 1988. While the scenario did recall nightmares back in the time of studying differential equations, that was indeed a shocking way to start a movie. After surviving the ordeal of a World War III, a city known as Neo-Tokyo emerged from the ruins and clutters. Considering a sightseeing trip? Not for me. This place was indeed pretty fxxked up, because it was rampant with crime, teenager gang problems, pollution and worse still, a corrupt government consisting of greedy politicians and scientists. The year is 2019. Kaneda, who is a teenager and leads a biker gang, associates with Tetsuo, his childhood friend. While the gang is doing battle with a rival gang during the night, Tetsuo's motorcycle accidentally crashed onto a kid called Takashi. This kid was abducted by some members of a resistant organization, because he possessed a special psychic power, and was used for secret experiment by the government. As a result Tetsuo was also captured by the Colonel, Japan Self-Defense Forces (JSDF) , back to the government for potential experimentation. Soon after, Kaneda met Kei, a member of the resistant group, and they became friends.

It turned out that Tetsuo is just as strong as his name implies (that means 'iron male' literally), and he possesses his fair share of psychic abilities. Indeed, his power is so strong that it can be compared to 'Akira', designated as sample number 28, the esper responsible for the 1988 destruction. After a failed attempt to escape, Tetsuo found himself in the custody and stranded in the hospital, yet his hallucinations started to get the better of him and Tetsuo started to unleash his power, injuring some of the guards and fighting off the fellow espers who attempted to stop him. While Tetsuo's power escalated, he decided to go to the construction site of the Olympic Stadium, which is the place where the remains of Akira were stored cryogenically. Wishing to harness the power from Akira, Tetsuo acquired the alpha killer status and caused major destruction all the way through Neo-Tokyo. Kaneda, joining force with Kei and the other espers, decides that they all have to work together to battle against Tetsuo, and the Colonel, recognizing his sense of responsibility, also rebels against the government and assembles his troops to stop Tetsuo, and that involves the use of a laser satellite (!!). The final showdown in the Stadium is inevitable, and as I will assure the readers, pretty crazy and out of this world. Will Kaneda and the others be able to stop the telepathic Iron-Man? 

What really strikes me about 'Akira' is the technical accomplishment it has achieved given that it is not even a live-action film. When watching at a young age, I was already in awe of how stunning and beautiful this anime could be, even I still have not yet developed a serious interest in cinema or film criticism. As I come back to this film throughout the years, I start to appreciate the style so unique to this cyberpunk classic. 'Akira' is such a cinematic film - the style is comparable to those found in classic cinema, and Otomo's approach is so dynamic and almost poetic - he was literally composing poetry out of movement in 'Akira'. The making of the film was actually even more ambitious, as the original intention was to film it on 70mm film gauge. That was comparable to a scope often found in the epic film genre.

'Akira' is considered as a 'Tech Noir', which is a hybrid between sci-fi and film noir. Our old friends, 'Blade Runner' and 'The Terminator', are 2 further classic examples of this category. Another great word is of course 'cyberpunk', which, in a nutshell, is 'high tech versus low life'. As can be inferred from these categorizations, the most successful aspect about 'Akira' is the stark contrast it has demonstrated throughout the whole film. I guess this approach is quite essential for the content of the film, because to me the central theme of 'Akira' can be summarized in a phrase : power and its control. The whole film is defined by various type of power struggles, and they tend in come in pairs. Science / superstition, individual / institution, psychic power / technology, ethics / corruption, and also the conflicts between various characters and parties. Everyone in the film was fighting for power in one way or another, and the tension was enhanced by the unique style in the film. The central theme of the film will be discussed in the second article, now let's focus on the style.

The high contrast style in 'Akira' represents a delicate balance between 2 styles: Expressionism and Realism. This approach is often found in the genre of Film Noir, and the sensibility of 'Akira' is pretty close to that. While 'Akira' is a colored film, the color tone can be considered expressionistic, and there is a lot of emphasis on shadows and backlighting to expose the underbelly of neo-Tokyo. The artificial colored light emphasized the man-made environment of the cityscape and somehow heightened the danger inherent in this future world. Very much like, or I guess as an inspiration from, Nicholas Ray's 'Rebel without A Cause', 'Akira' is dominated by the color red. From Kaneda's clothing to the reddish haze and color tone throughout the film, the red color signifies urgency, energy and passion. It enhances the desperation which is faced by the characters regarding yet another possible apocalypse. Furthermore, the cultural style also represents a juxtaposition of future and retro, just like 'Blade Runner'.  While abound with all sorts of cutting-edge technology, the world in 'Akira' is just as obsessed with issues beyond rationality - telekinetic powers, superstitions and so on. The interaction of the future with the past gives 'Akira' a postmodern touch.

A lot of cinematic techniques have been employed, in many cases they are used to portray the more dynamic and violent moments. Fast cuts, use of slow motion, point-of-view shots, angular shots, and tracking shots can be found in the film and they enhance the dynamic feel and energy in this cinematic dynamite. One of my favorite scenes in the film is the one when Kaneda and Kei tried to escape from the sewer facility with the hijacking of a hovering bike. With the extremely mobile scenes and also the fast cut, that emphasized the dynamic action through a claustrophobic area. The splattering water, coupled with the loudness and brightness of the machine gun fire, constructed a cinematic poiesis which is much more than the average action films.

Another memorable scene is the one when Tetsuo attempted to escape from the hospital. Due to hallucinations, he experienced a fast montage of all sort of weird images, and this expressionistic feel is something one may expect from psychological films like 'The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari'. Tetsuo becomes more emotionally unstable, due to the hallucinations, and his paranoia and egomania reached a crescendo. While the origins might be slightly different, this scenario seemed to recall the scenario in another of Nicholas Ray's film, 'Bigger Than Life’, where the protagonist, played by James Mason, had reached a psychotic status after he has used a novel drug. In Ray's case, he was suggesting that the drug was merely a catalyst that led to the final breakdown, because he was critiquing how the establishment and the conformist attitude has shaped and impacted the male identity. Thus, we cannot blame the drug as the major reason for the psychosis, it only brings out the repressed feelings that are always been in the psyche. Maybe we can agree this is the case with Tetsuo, because he is sort of a beta male in the group, a personality similar to Plato in 'Rebel without a Cause'. Tetsuo's newfound psychic power, much like Plato's aggression with his pistol, would turn the table on the others. The problem was that Tetsuo could not control the power, and the lack of self-control was what made him an unsuccessful, yet sympathetic character in his world. 

With a proper combination of expressionism and realism, Otomo offers the audience an imaginary world which is both fascinating and thrilling. While one can be easily in awe of the imaginations in terms of technology and concepts, he will also be disturbed that this imaginary world is one that can possibly take place in reality, because many of the social, political and biotechnological issues in the film have relevance in our real world. 'Akira' is in no way a pipe dream; it is a cautionary tale we should prevent from becoming a reality. Indeed, while the world in 'Akira' is considered a high-tech one, most of the story takes place in the more depraved areas of the city, or under area of construction (which will then be destroyed regretfully). The apparent bright holographic neon advertisements lights cannot light up the darkness and decadence hidden within the city.

by Ed Law

Film Analysis