I suggested to some friends that perhaps we should all go see a movie. The Mini-Ster readily agreed but with the caveat: "I want to see something that requires no thinking." He then suggested that we should see Taken. I thought the movie was interesting enough: Liam Neeson as an action star was an interesting decision and, of course, Luc Besson can usually be counted on for interesting and highly stylized action sequences. An odd pairing, for sure, but so is peanut butter and ramen noodles ... don't knock it til you try it.
Well, after recruiting a few other people (Grumpy Old Guy as well as Dos Amigos), we all headed out for what we hoped would be 90 minutes of carnage. What did we get? Well, let's put it this way: the moment the film ended, The Mini-Ster turned to us and profusely apologized for having suggested we see Taken.
While it's certainly true that I wouldn't have chosen the film myself and I probably would have waited until it came out on DVD, I don't think it's terrible. Traditional narrative films always have three acts: the first establishes the premise, the second resolves the central conflict, and the third is the denoument. The problem with Taken is that the first and third acts are horrible. In most action films, the first and third acts are horrible but in the case of Taken, it was downright putrid. Much like hard-core porn, no one goes to see an action film for the plot. The story is simply an excuse to tie together a series of explosions. Sometimes when the plot is utterly ridiculous, it can become campy fun as in the case of the brilliantly conceived Speed. But, when the plot attempts to be earnest, the fun goes away and all you're left with is the struggle to hold back your gag reflex.
Unfortunately, Taken is one of those cases. The problem is that Neeson's gravitas is so earnest that it's hard to take him seriously. There's such a humorlessness about him. That's not a problem when playing Richard III but doesn't really work so well when playing a gun-slinging ex-CIA operative. I'm not suggesting that action films should all dissolve into parody or farce only that the less they take themselves seriously, the better they tend to be.
One of the Dos Amigos pointed out that the film felt as if the script had been written in the 1980s. Curiously enough, that turned out to be true. There is definitely something dated about Taken. The film relies on a series of stock ethnic stereotypes that could only exist in films pre 1990 (when people began to demand cultural sensitivity) or in films made in Europe (where cultural sensitivity just doesn't really exist ... it's easy for countries like France to criticize American race relations when they so conveniently sequester their ethnic problems to hidden districts).
One thing I did really appreciate about this film -- or at least that I found quite interesting -- was the unapologetic brutality. Taken is a basic abduction narrative. A parent loses a child and the parent desperately fights to get that child back. We've seen this in Ransom, in Not Without My Daughter, etc. What makes Taken different (though not necessarily better) than these other films is the narrow-minded focus of the father -- the extent to which he just doesn't care about anyone or anything else. It doesn't matter who he hurts or kills. To some extent, that sort of unapologetic, straight-forward brutality is refreshing. American films tend to candy coat violence or frame it in such wild extremes that it becomes cartoonish. When Neeson needs information from someone, he doesn't threaten him or his loved one. He just goes ahead and shoots the man's wife in the arm. There's no apology. Just determination. Oh, if only I had a little bit of that myself.
0 Comments
|
Archives
January 2016
|