V For Violence

I'll come right out and say this: I love screen violence. The bloodier the better. Mind you, I can appreciate bloodless CGI enhanced smackdowns a la The Matrix , Spider Man and the X Men flicks. I can dig hyper stylized wire-fu aided battles as exemplified by countless wuxia epics like Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon ( and given an added patina of poetic elegance by Zhang Yimou's recent forays into the genre), but there's no substitute for honest to goodness blood spattering, brain blowing, flesh searing and limb hacking carnage. Of course, there are movies a plenty whose sole existence is the depiction of gore in its various forms. Slasher flicks like Saw, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Hostel are "gore porn" in it's most basic form: regular porn exists for the sole purpose of relieving its actors of their clothing to get them engaging in all manner of sexual gymnastics while gore porn relieves its actors of every vestige of dignity to inflict all manner of pain and torture upon them. The former ends with a violent orgasm while the latter finishes with violent death. While I can watch and even enjoy these films, for me violence for violence's sake doesn't hold any long term appeal.

No sir, for me bloodshed needs to come wrapped inside the familiar tropes of an honest to goodness action flick. I suppose what got me ruminating on this subject is the hotly debated topic in the IMDB (Internet Movie Data Base) forums on the possibility that Die Hard 4.0, one of the hotly anticipated summer flicks this year may get a PG-13 instead of an R rating. For those unfamiliar with the antecedents of this much loved action franchise, the above statement would have all the novelty of an announcement that the next Harry Porter flick would feature broom sticks and wands.

For those, like me, who grew up watching testosterone laden action behemoths in the 80's and 90's, the scaled down PG-13 rating for what is easily a landmark action franchise of the late 80s to mid 90s is a slap in the face. A kick to the groins. It's the equivalent of making an Elm Street movie with a de-clawed Freddy. Or a Friday the 13th with a socially well-adjusted Jason who frolics with his camp mates instead of dismembering them with his machete.

Ok..... maybe I exaggerate.

But I grew up on and devoured macho action flicks during an era when Sly Stallone and Arnold Schwarzenegger strode like muscular kings across a dystopian landscape littered with debris from exploded buildings, burnt out skeletal husks of damaged vehicles and corpses of unfortunate sods who stood in the way of their righteous vengeance.

Stallone, The Governator and their lesser incarnations Jean Claude Van Damme and Steven Seagal hacked, stabbed, shot, kicked, punched and cursed their way to R-rated glory and everlasting immortality (at least as long as people like me keep dipping into their DVD collections and customers continue frequenting the action section of Video Ezy).

This was before action movies decided to get brainy and philosophical, before some one decided that Keanu Reeves looked cool doing Kung Fu, before blonde caucasian women went on a roaring rampage of revenge, before CGI heralded the age of comic book violence(even when the source material wasn't actually based on a comic) and especially before studios became obsessed with slapping on a PG-13 to any potentially lucrative summer popcorn flick.

See, it's a matter of simple economics:

This rating ensures that kiddies will flock to see this movie (and their parents who will no doubt be springing for the tickets and popcorn) since the rating does not SPECIFICALLY prohibit them from viewing the film. It merely advices that some material may be inappropriate .

Contrast that with:

This rating on the other hand, prohibits the Under-17s from viewing the film unless accompanied by an adult guardian. That means the majority of parents aren't exactly going to make a movie with this rating their first choice for a family outing at the cinemas. Meaning less revenue, where the studios are concerned.

Such a myopic view precludes the understanding that there's a big enough adult audience out there who can and will pay money to see slightly more mature fare. Sigh!

Out of a sense of nostalgia, I raided my DVD collection over the weekend and had me a jolly old marathon of all 3 Die Hard flicks. While certain elements of it are charmingly anachronistic (check out the brick sized cell phones and cassette players in limos), they still remain, in my humble opinion, dynamite action yarns that pack a wallop.

The first, the original and naturally the best, Die Hard, not only catapulted Bruce Willis from wise cracking TV star to mega movie stardom, but practically invented the Hostage-Terrorist sub-genre within action movies. Subsequent imitators like Die Hard on a train (Under Siege 2), Die Hard on a bus (Speed), Die Hard on a ship (Speed 2), occasionally rivalled but rarely topped this dynamite actioner that managed to be exciting, intelligent, claustrophobic and funny without sacrificing its action movie roots via eye-popping action set pieces while still managing to suffuse its hero with an aura of vulnerability. Willis' John McClane, jet lagged, barefoot and tired, has to play a deadly cat and mouse game with high tech European thieves atop a high rise.

He has to stay one step ahead of them while figuring out a way to rescue his hostage wife and convince bone headed police and FBI officials that he's one of the good guys. Via walkie talkie McClane establishes 2 relationships, a warm camaraderie with Al Johnson, the sole cop who believes he's trying to help and an antagonistic repartee with chief crook Hans Gruber (Alan Rickman, an actor who should come with a sign saying "Warning! I may steal the movie away from the lead!"). McClane and Gruber are evenly matched, one armed with streewise cunning, the other suave intelligence but both ruthlessly efficient in dispatching impediments to their progress. Their banter, with Willis' American idioms puncturing Rickman's German inflected classical musings is rib tickling stuff. In an era of invincible muscle men,Die Hard dared to let its protagonist get increasingly beaten and bloodied as the movie hurtles towards an explosive finale. In an age of laconic he men who only opened their mouths to spew the odd one liner, Die Hard gave you a verbose and wise cracking hero. For its time, it was an original. And it's rarely been bettered.

Not even by its sequels.

Die Hard 2 piled on twice the action and plot twists galore in an equally enclosed environment, this time an airport where our intrepid hero races against time to stop a band of lethal mercenaries from flying off with an extradited drug baron while ensuring his wife's flight lands intact. It's audacious set pieces includes an horrific plane crash and a final showdown that takes place on the wing of a moving airliner! It's never dull, yet Willis' lack of vulnerability and the absence of a charismatic villain like Hans Gruber makes this a lesser effort in the series.

Die Hard With A Vengeance(DHWAV) opens up the claustrophobic confines of the previous 2 movies by having McClane race around New York city but recycles the original formula of having Euro thieves as its villains, with yet another Brit thespian made to mouth lines in a German accent. Jeremy Irons' character is even made to be the brother of Rickman's Hans Gruber! DHWAV even pays a nod to that other enduring action franchise of the 90s, the Lethal Weapon series, by having the white McClane team up with a black Samuel Jackson. With a few re-writes, they could be Riggs and Murtaugh!

Violent and profane , the Die Hard movies earn their R rating. With a vengeance.

I await with bated breath for the new installment. With the PG-13 tag bound to neuter much of its action scenes, one can only hope its plotting, pacing and intelligence isn't watered down along with the blood letting.

And the swearing. What's McClane gonna say as he dispatches the baddies now, I wonder: Yip-ee-kay-yay Monkey Fellow??