I want to talk about two movies. Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Arc, and Hacksaw Ridge. One of these movies is perhaps the platonic ideal of an action movie. The other was so infuriating that it has haunted me to this day.
It shouldn’t be that hard to figure out which is which.
As a writer, I want to understand storytelling, how others have done it and why certain things fail. I have no idea how Hacksaw did in the box office, and I’m not going to find out. The movie failed for me for simple reason.
Hacksaw told me it was a screenplay.
At no point in watching that movie was I unaware that this movie had a screenplay. The movie looked me in the eyes and said “This is the part of the movie when he meets the girl,” “This is the part of the movie where his convictions are tested,” “This is the part of the movie where he earns the respect of his peers,” “This is the part of the movie that his convictions are proven correct.”
It was like the movie was hitting the Save the Cat beats but wasn’t all that interested in hiding it. I could see the bones of the movie. Not that I’ve never seen a plot beat before, but I think it was the first time it had ever been telegraphed to me. It drove me bananas.
I want to compare that to Raiders, which is the best action movie ever. I think it stands on the opposite end of the spectrum from Hacksaw. Everything that happens in Raiders happens at the right time. Every plot beat, right when it’s needed.
Raiders doesn’t just have muscles, it has skin. The story moves along just at a perfect pace. Because of this momentum, it never has to pick itself up and run to hit the next plot point. Raiders pulls you along, the next moment is always the right moment. The action is never for its own sake, but to keep the audience invested while driving plot.
These two movies sit on opposite ends of a spectrum.
So what can I learn from these two movies? Smoothness, I think. I don’t ever want my readers to think “gosh, they just lost a battle, so now its time for a training montage.” Or at least not to read that in my books. I think the lesson is also about pacing, because it’s not like Raiders isn’t formulaic. It follows tropes of cinema and pulp fiction laid out before. But the formula is not the only thing it has to offer. It understands the tropes it’s playing with, and so puts them in an order where the bridges between them don’t have scaffolding. Raiders moves so well that it doesn’t have too worry about making it to the next stop, so when it reaches it, it simply goes on.
I hope that made sense. I am writing this late on a hot day. Take care,
Michael
Michael Frutig 