The Film Studies Dictionary defines action films as: “fast-paced narratives which feature a lot of violence and physical action such as chases, fights, stunts, crashes and explosions, and where action dominates over dialogue and character (Barry Grant, 2001). The action film has existed in America since the beginnings of cinema and truly has enjoyed a robust career over the decades.

However, the action film truly became a genre of its own during the 1980s. Gone were the days of the character driven art film that came to define cinema in the 1970s. The 1980s were a new decade and thus needed an invigorated identity. As a result, the action film became the symbol of a new United States of America.

Film in the 1970s

Society had undergone tremendous change during the 1960s. Revolutions, the struggle for equality and war dominated the landscape and altered society in an un-American way. Society was growing weary of the conflicting nature of government officials and, as a result, rebellion and violence against government formed establishments escalated. As times grew bleaker and solutions seemed unreachable, society seemed to be on the verge of complete annihilation.

Then the 1970s arrived. Vietnam was still a reality and scandals (Watergate) and the threat of impeachment ran rampant throughout the White House resulting in the eventual demise of President Richard Nixon. Society was continuing on in its tailspin and there appeared to be no escaping the reality that the country was falling apart.

Thus films began to take on an identity of their own. Gone were the days of the Utopian-oozing Hollywood extravaganzas (My Fair Lady-1964, The Sound of Music-1965, etc.). Society wanted reality and the films prominent during this decade attempted to mirror the confusion, angst and disillusionment that came to define Americana in the 1970s.

Rarely were there any forms of hope in these films. Films such as Five Easy Pieces (1970) and Taxi Driver (1976) were all about the loss of self in an ever changing world. There was no longer a defined ideology to lean on. These were now the days of the ‘every man for himself’ mentality. The establishments that society had placed their trust in had collapsed and civilization neared the brink of all out anarchy.

Film in the 1980s

The 1960s and 70s had been strenuous on the fabric of American society, so what better way to go about creating change than to elect a former Hollywood actor as President.

The 1980s needed revitalization.

Ronald Reagan did bring great change to America. In fact, Reagan pursued policies that reflected his personal belief in individual freedom and the United States economy. He wanted to aid in the restructuring of the once heralded nation and reinvigorate the individual as a necessary part of that change. Thus Reagan went about expanding the military while simultaneously telling people to feel good about themselves again.

Being a former actor, Reagan had been inspired by the simplistic mythology of movies: good triumphs evil, might is right and true love lasts forever (The Movies of the Eighties, Base, 1990). Regan was smart. He understood the importance of American cinema and how it could be used as an inspirational tool.

In the 1970s, two films went about changing the landscape of cinema forever. Jaws (1975) and Star Wars (1977) ushered in a new form of entertainment. As the 1970s character driven films declined in appeal, the blockbuster film emerged as a powerhouse (which is still prominent today). Films began to stress the importance of the individual and his crucial role in the world. As is the case with Star Wars, a young farm boy, Luke Skywalker, uncertain of his place in the galaxy desires to be something more. Through uncertainty and eventual acceptance, Luke becomes the savior of the universe.

The individual taking control of his destiny was an inspiring message for society. They were not just faceless human beings. They all served a purpose and if they chose to follow their aspirations, great things would ensue.

Rambo and Commando

The American morale was now reinvigorated, but the question was how to continually convey it.

There was a solution, though.

Through the means of film, the importance of the individual and what he could do for his country were consistently reinforced. As a result, an extremely right wing mentality began to form within the mindset of the heroic individuals in film. If one wanted something then one had the power to achieve it.

Characters such as Sylvester Stallone’s John Rambo, Arnold Schwarzenegger’s John Matrix (Commando-1985) and Bruce Willis’s John McClane (Die Hard-1988) all became idealized heroes who overcame their inabilities as individuals and persevered as American heroes (of note, it is interesting that all three names represent the All-American, everyman name of John).

During the 1980s, most American action films were about the destruction of enemies threatening American soil. In a theoretical sense, these films were an expression of American ideology regarding politics and gender. It was about the reassertion of male power and privilege during and after the Reagan administration (Film Studies Dictionary, 2001).

Thus one could understand the character of John Rambo more as a product of political undertakings than as an individual in his own right. In Rambo: First Blood Part 2 (1985), the character of John Rambo was a product of the Reagan years and actually served as a substitute for U.S. victory in the Vietnam War (Base, 1990). By wrapping himself in the American flag (and destroying an Island of Vietnamese single-handedly), Rambo became a symbol of hope and understanding for Americans.

The 1980s action films are not great (there are exceptions) but they serve a political purpose. They helped to re-establish the American identity (Fascist as it may be in this case) and to create hope for the individual. Through the strengths of the everyman, freedom and peace re-emerged through the use of the machine gun.

Heath Ledger as The Joker

From the moment it appeared on screen, a tantalizing amount of contemplation and anticipation began to mount. It was simply a card but yet it was a statement that resonated deep within millions of avid fans. In most card decks, this is the card that is usually omitted from play, of course, unless it is meant to be wild.

Heath Ledger vs. Jack Nicholson

Batman Begins (2005) ended with an insurmountable bang that shook the foundation of mythic comic book films. When Lieutenant Gordon reveals to Batman the presence of a new and dangerous entity named simply as The Joker, audiences around the world let out a collective gasp of excitement while maintaining a simultaneous sense of uncertainty. You see, many people have grown up with Tim Burton’s 1989 classic Batman, and to them the presence of Jack Nicholson’s Joker is the epitome of what the character is and shall ever be remembered as. So, after the card is revealed during the closing minutes of Batman Begins, one’s initial hesitation to jump for joy was clearly an understood reaction. Nicholson had done such a tremendous job with the character that, in a sense, it would seem blasphemous to ever want to try and confront it again.

When it was announced that Heath Ledger was to take on the role made famous by Nicholson, many eye brows must have ascended in height. The rumored idea that Sean Penn may portray him or even Nicholson himself returning to the role seemed more of an obvious choice then the participation of Heath Ledger. This writer’s first thought was of the Australian’s performance in the 1999 film 10 Things I Hate About You, and how he seemed too innocent and sincere to ever take on a role as challenging and multi-layered as the enigmatic Joker.

However, after initial trailers began to pop up during the end of 2007, this writer knew that the filmmakers had chosen the right thespian for the job. His performance was going to be nothing like the (slightly) campy, over the top buy yet highly entertaining Joker inBurton’s comic book contained Batman. Instead, The Joker seemed to be an unrelenting, manipulative psychopath with no compassion for understanding the simple needs of others. Whereas Burton’s and Joel Schumacher’s Batman films eventually became camp parodies of themselves, Christopher Nolan (the director of Batman Begins and The Dark Knight) took the character of Batman and gave him true origins and meaning. The film was serious in tone, and realism seemed to be a viable commodity sought by the director. In the end, it worked and thus rejuvenated the stale Batman franchise.

Creating a New Joker

The Dark Knight goes to even further lengths to express a sense of realism. Yes it is a comic book film, but yet it strives to rid itself of its comic book origins in order to convey an understanding that this could happen anywhere in present day society.  Thus, in order to maintain a sense of realism, the characters have to appear authentic. Batman is an alter ego to the highly conflicted Bruce Wayne because he finds solace in the form of a creature that frightened him as a child. His motives and intentions are genuine and sincere which thus allows him to be understood as a real human being.

So, there was definitely a challenge for Heath Ledger in taking on this role. He had to be able to embody the over-the-top antics of this troubled individual, but yet make his actions seem sensible enough to seem plausible to discerning audiences. Ledger knew that Nicholson had basically made The Joker his own in 1989, so the character had to become something completely different.

Heath Ledger’s Performance

To sum it up, Ledger does overcome this seemingly insurmountable challenge by truly making the character his own. There is no comparison between his Joker and Nicholson’s. Nicholson’s was memorable but one never felt a true sense of fear when he appeared on screen. When Ledger is on screen, he is magnetic. He steals the film. He is unpredictable but yet compelling. He is amusing but yet frightening. There is such a tremendous amount of diversity conveyed through his acting talent that the character of The Joker can be read in many alternate ways. He is so fully dimensional that to try and define him one way would be a mistake. He is who he is and, as a result, it becomes one of the most memorable screen performances of all time.

It is not simply the way the dialogue is delivered, either. To truly gain a sense of Ledger’s acting capabilities is to watch his mannerisms. The darting, unfocused eyes, the constant licking of the lips, the hypnotic but yet eerie bellow of laughter that resonates from his soul. His tangled and greasy hair defines him as a man unconcerned with appearance, but rather as an individual obsessed with undermining the social structure of balance and superficiality. He is unashamed with who he is because he refuses to allow codes and rules to define him as a human being. He lives to disrupt meaning and to create tension within a structurally obsessed culture.

The Joker has always been one of the most reviled and yet admired characters in fiction. In a sense, The Joker is a contradiction. He finds humor and laughter in the face of death and suffering. He is psychotic but yet Ledger never allows him to simply become read as a one-note psychopath. To create such psychological depths within the mind of a vile entity such as The Joker is a testament to the acting talent of Heath Ledger. Ledger’s performance is larger then life and, as a result, becomes the most memorable interpretation ever of this tragic and sadistic clown.

A Quentin Tarantino film is an experience. It is not simply a film or a piece of entertainment but rather an event to be embraced and cherished. Some may call him self-indulgent or even overrated but to fully understand his contribution to the cinematic movement is to fully comprehend his love for the art form. He is not merely a filmmaker but rather an innovative technician who is capable of deconstructing the systematic process that is filmmaking.

The Importance of Character

He is not a filmmaker concerned with action and physical movement. Rather, he is an auteur who fully realizes the importance of character and its development. Characters exist in his filmic environments by acting and reacting to the chaotic situations that they have created for themselves. Violence is not simply in a Tarantino film for its alluring nature but rather as a statement indicating the constrictive situation his characters have found themselves in.

The Importance of Dialogue

What Tarantino may be most renowned for, however, is his focus on highly stylized modes of speech. Greatly influenced by the likes of film noir/pulp fiction writers Dashiell Hammond, Raymond Chandler and Elmore Leonard, Tarantino elicits vivid responses from his audiences by incorporating mundane banter about ubiquitous popular culture subject matters.

Though Tarantino is extremely exuberant about filmmaking; his true passion lies in the dialogue articulated by his characters. To him, the randomness and esoteric manner of the subject matter is indicative of a characters particular personality trait. It may seem like random dialect being spurted from the tongue but, in fact, it is revealing the multiple layers of depth existent within these characters souls.  The fact that they appear to be “regular joes” who discuss and dissect frivolous information allows the audience to better identify themselves with these characters. As they ponder, we, the audience, ponder the absurd nature of their topics.

For instance, in ‘Reservoir Dogs’ (1992), the audience’s initial introduction to the men in black sitting around a table in a diner drinking coffee is accompanied by an in-depth discussion about what Madonna’s song ‘Like A Virgin’ truly means?  This discussion, on the surface, has nothing to do with the film’s subject matter but yet the audience is enthralled by its analysis.

You see, as much as Tarantino is a talented filmmaker, he is an even better writer. The duration of his films are more then likely extended by at least a half an hour because of his admiration for the written word. In fact, it seems, at times, that Tarantino is more interested in finding opportunities for dialogue diversions then in propelling his narrative forward.

In ‘Pulp Fiction’ (1994), two men, Jules and Vincent (Samuel L. Jackson and John Travolta), are seemingly driving to an unknown destination while simultaneously dissecting the enigmatic nature of fast food and its place in European culture. The audience is unaware that these two men are in fact hit men and that they are on their way to perform a job. The randomness of their conversation diverts any feelings of mistrust on behalf of the audience member. Even though they are eventually identified as killers, the audience still feels some sort of kinship with these men. Their personality traits indicate average individuals but yet their professional jobs deem them as dangerous and sinister (outsiders). The audience’s initial interpretation of these two men has now been undermined as was the case in ‘Reservoir Dogs’ when it is found out later that the men discussing the nature of Madonna are, in fact, hardened criminals.

The Hybrid Nature of Tarantino’s Films

Tarantino is a filmmaker immensely soaked in film culture. He is truly a student of film history. He will not only embrace and pay homage to cinematic masterpieces but will also incorporate little known and unheard of films into his repertoire of cinematic infatuation (he will also incorporate many unknown and forgotten actors into his films). There are hints of John Huston’s ‘The Asphalt Jungle’ (1950), Stanley Kubrick’s ‘The Killing’ (1956) and Joseph Sargent’s ‘The Taking of Pelham One Two Three’ (1974) in ‘Reservoir Dogs’ (not to mention many Japanese films-particularly from director Ringo Lam).

‘Kill Bill’ (2003), starring Uma Thurman, incorporates many different forms of Japanese cinema into its story while 2007’s Grindhouse film ‘Death Proof’ is another entry within the Tarantino canon to incorporate his love of horrendous 1970’s cinema. Even his next film, ‘Inglorious Bastards’, a war film set for release in 2009, is said to incorporate many genres including the spaghetti western.

In 1992, ‘Reservoir Dogs’ was released to strong critical acclaim. Two years later, Tarantino delivered his masterpiece ‘Pulp Fiction’ to the world (winner of numerous awards including an Academy Award for Best Screenplay). To sum it up, within a mere sixteen years, Tarantino has changed the landscape of cinema. There have been a countless array of copycats who have attempted to cash in on his influential films but, as of yet, none have been able to fully capture the essence of a Tarantino flick. He is a special filmmaker with extraordinary storytelling capabilities. It is a thrill to witness an event like a QT film.