Too much lead

email this story
read comments (36)
post a comment

Back in the creaky old analog days of the '90s, I used to rant about the "too much lead" syndrome in action movies and the occasional western. Bullets have to matter somewhat. Too many gunshots in a movie leads to a kind of fatigue in the soul, and even a kind of nausea. But nobody cared and the syndrome continued unabated. Too many guys and too many bullets going for the whammies. Except whammies are like jelly babies. Too many and you feel ill. I was in a state of almost permanent indigestion there for a while.

Then along came Unforgiven, a western that took the matter of death from gun shootings very seriously. Killing another human being is a horrible thing under any circumstance, and while we all understand that a certain ironic cinematic distance is necessary to deliver violent thrills in unserious genre films, the number of movies that have tried to absorb what it's really like to cause or observe death at close range have been very few.

Which is why Clint Eastwood's Oscar-winner felt so refreshing. As with Shane, which has a total of ten shots fired (and five of these fired at a white rock on the ground) and the Mike Hodges version of Get Carter, the gunfire in Unforgiven was not only spare and select, but you could feel the hurt. The killings sank in.

This less-is-more aesthetic is pretty much out the window these days, of course. You have to blam-blam it fairly relentlessly or young guys will tell their friends that the other shoot-em-up movie is cooler. (Much in the way that twentysomething Roman guys in 100 A.D. probably compared the gladiator and wild-animal killings they'd seen in the Collisseum.) Caution, regret and thinking twice before you pick up a gun are for pussies.

If a violent film is a brilliant anarchic cartoon like Shoot 'Em Up, then hundreds of gunshots is the satirical point and therefore not a problem. I can roll with cool gunplay as well as the next guy -- "good" being the key term. For me "good" means "done carefully and within limits." I also know that too much shooting is a turnoff. There are no hard and fast rules, but if there's too much of it, you can always tell. A little voice says, "This is getting to be too much." And then you start disengaging.

That said, there's nothing like a much-desired death happening at the right time. There are a couple of real beauties in this respect from the hand of Russell Crowe in James Mangold's 3:10 to Yuma. I disliked the characters he dispatches, and when the moment finally comes...good stuff!

Is that a contradiction or what?

Dark, deep-down places<< previous | next >>Goldstein's "Rendition: anecdote

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on August 10, 2007 at 10:26 AM

comment #1

BurmaShave says ...

It's become important to talk about this movie as much as possible, so I'll say that the obvious contradiction to this rule is the bank robbery escape shootout in HEAT, which is probably the most thrilling and intense use of firearms in any film of the past 15 years. I think the issue is whether you take the gunfire seriously, not how much it's fired.

Posted by BurmaShave at August 10, 2007 11:35 AM

comment #2

gruver1 says ...

I've always taken the gunfire in the bank robbery scene very seriously, which is one of the reasons it's perhaps the greatest shoot-em-up ever shot.

Posted by gruver1 at August 10, 2007 11:46 AM

comment #3

Alan Cerny says ...

Gunfire in most movies sounds fanciful, like mini-explosions of sound that aren't too threatening and punctuated by editing and music. The gunfire becomes, in a way, a part of the score, and so it's much easier to accept.

The proper use of gunfire in films, like HEAT, is to make it atonal to the rest of the film, and to put some real-world physics to the sound. The gunfire in HEAT echos off the surrounding buildings, and it's not done to punctuate a point, but instead to be chaotic and random. OPEN RANGE does gunfire right too. Even the gunfire in SAVING PRIVATE RYAN feels like it's a part of the whole aesthetic, instead of being abrupt and atonal.

Posted by Alan Cerny at August 10, 2007 11:54 AM

comment #4

kammy says ...

"...This less-is-more aesthetic is pretty much out the window these days, of course..."

How very true! Just think of a recent multi-racial, Oscar winner film whose name begins with a "C."

Posted by kammy at August 10, 2007 11:59 AM

comment #5

Shane says ...

The cadaver inserts from Three Kings help solve this problem, too.

Posted by Shane at August 10, 2007 12:02 PM

comment #6

OddDuck says ...

They could release Heat today, and apart from Tone Loc's cameo and perhaps one or two wardrobe choices, it wouldn't look dated at all. This movie has held up so well. It's too bad that in the 12 years since Heat, no other crime movie has come close to matching its intensity and suspense.

And is there really any argument that the bank robbery in Heat is the best gunfight ever put on film?

Posted by OddDuck at August 10, 2007 12:03 PM

comment #7

bachelorcool says ...

Anyone remember the first Hollywood movie to feature the actual impact (as in bulletholes) of gunfire?

Posted by bachelorcool at August 10, 2007 12:05 PM

comment #8

OddDuck says ...

Forgot to add, I think Children of Men also handled the seriousness of bullets very effectively early on. You definitely felt the consequences there.

Posted by OddDuck at August 10, 2007 12:05 PM

comment #9

Howlingman says ...

HEAT remains a standout, and I'm glad OPEN RANGE got a mention as its climactic gunfight is one of the best in recent memory. I also recall Spider's shooting in GOODFELLAS getting quite the audience reaction.

Posted by Howlingman at August 10, 2007 12:10 PM

comment #10

sunny says ...

"Anyone remember the first Hollywood movie to feature the actual impact (as in bulletholes) of gunfire?"

Public Enemy?

Posted by sunny at August 10, 2007 12:55 PM

comment #11

Silverscreenvideos says ...

Go back and take a look at that great western, High Noon. Four villains in it, a carefully chosen number, large enough to make it look like one man has little (but still a possible) chance against them, but small enough so that a decent sized posse should be able to handle things, although one or two of them might get shot in the process.

That's what made the townspeople's dilemma so credible. Eventually they were unable to undergo any risk of injury for the greater good even though, logically, they should have been able to handle the situation.

If High Noon were being made today, you wouldn't have that same situation. Instead, Frank Miller would have about twenty or thirty hired guns waiting for the train and the townspeople's reluctance to get involved would make perfect sense (and the sheriff's decision to stay would appear suicidal, although since the sheriff would be played by a Bruce Willis type, we would instinctively know that he would somehow survive).

Change the dynamics of the situation and High Noon becomes just another Rambo with no moral element whatsoever to it.

Posted by Silverscreenvideos at August 10, 2007 1:13 PM

comment #12

BurmaShave says ...

So in other words it would be RIO BRAVO, and it would still kick ass.

Posted by BurmaShave at August 10, 2007 1:17 PM

comment #13

George Prager says ...

The shootout in CAGED HEAT.

Posted by George Prager at August 10, 2007 1:19 PM

comment #14

Silverscreenvideos says ...

Rio Bravo doesn't kick ass. It's an amiable, talky, slow moving time killer with a couple of completely incredible (in both senses of the word) action sequences (of course, lots of westerns have incredible as in the sense of lacking credibility action sequences). There's no way, Duke, Dino, Ricky and Grandpa McCoy should be able to handle dozens of bad guys without as much as getting a single scratch, but we know it's the Duke so he'll get it done.

High Noon had tremendous moral intensity, Rio Bravo had a far more limited amount (Dean Martin's battle with booze gave it what little degree of moral heft it had).

Posted by Silverscreenvideos at August 10, 2007 1:22 PM

comment #15

Kristopher Tapley says ...

One of my favorite gunfights from recent memory was the finale of David Mamet's "Heist." Because it felt awkward, stilted, and, therefore, real. You'd have to be the Terminator to have the steady coolness of some of the gunfight participants we see in films today, yesterday and, likely, tomorrow.

Posted by Kristopher Tapley at August 10, 2007 1:28 PM

comment #16

Rich S. says ...

Silverscreen, I've always thought that the people's reaction to the gunslingers riding into town at the end of High Plains Drifter as kind of a "this is what would have happened had those losers stuck around at the end of High Noon."

High Plains Drifter is by no means a realistic western, but I thought that part was dead-on. And, to kind of tie into the theme of this thread, the part where Eastwood horsewhips the guy to death in the street is almost unbearable, despite the fact that you don't really see much of anything graphic.

Posted by Rich S. at August 10, 2007 1:41 PM

comment #17

BurmaShave says ...

Mamet is one of the best gunplay men in the business. SPARTAN has some excellent and hefty firepower.

Posted by BurmaShave at August 10, 2007 1:42 PM

comment #18

DarthCorleone says ...

Alan - great point about the acoustics of the gunfire in Heat. There's no doubt that it's an exception to this theory that an economy of bullets is better. In my opinion it's one of the greatest action scenes - much less shootouts - in movie history. Forget those images - a great deal of its strength is that those sounds stick with you - the echo off the buildings (as you say), the single, staccato report of Pacino' rifle, etc. The sound work in that scene left me buzzing after leaving the theater the first time, similar to my first reaction to the sounds of the T-Rex in the original Jurassic Park.

Posted by DarthCorleone at August 10, 2007 1:43 PM

comment #19

T. Holly says ...

No spoilers about who takes out Ben Wade, or how. Only the sense of space.

Posted by T. Holly at August 10, 2007 1:58 PM

comment #20

Savant says ...

I'm glad some people have talked about the unique sound of the gunshots in Heat. I saw the movie 3 times in the theater and every time I was reminded of how powerful the audio/visual connection was in that scene. Mann has used that emphasis on sound to lesser degrees in Collateral and Miami Vice and I truly love that attention to detail.

Posted by Savant at August 10, 2007 2:17 PM

comment #21

MiraJeffAICN says ...

Sense of space rules! I ate it for breakfast this morning, T. Holly.

Posted by MiraJeffAICN at August 10, 2007 2:29 PM

comment #22

T. Holly says ...

But you need to understand it.

Posted by T. Holly at August 10, 2007 2:32 PM

comment #23

MiraJeffAICN says ...

Maybe we should get into a ring and you can help me understand the sense of space there.

Posted by MiraJeffAICN at August 10, 2007 2:37 PM

comment #24

BurmaShave says ...

Holly, boma ye!

It's the son, right?

Posted by BurmaShave at August 10, 2007 2:44 PM

comment #25

T. Holly says ...

I'm not a fighter, I'm a lover. Each round is a scene, we'll shoot with 3 cameras plus 2nd unit and inserts. Not crossing the line err axis, eyelines will be perfect and the action furious, and we'll keep it to 14 set-ups per minute in the private cutting room.

Posted by T. Holly at August 10, 2007 2:51 PM

comment #26

T. Holly says ...

Multiple takes, of course.

Posted by T. Holly at August 10, 2007 2:54 PM

comment #27

DarthCorleone says ...

I just thought of another exception for me from last year - the opening of The Proposition. The way they just throw you into the first scene right off the bat with bullets whizzing everywhere making Swiss cheese out of that shack is awesome.

Posted by DarthCorleone at August 10, 2007 3:15 PM

comment #28

Hallick says ...

The Matrix sequels are a prime example (and probably the modern-day parents) of the "too much is so much less" method of shoot outs vs. the merits of "Heat" and the opening of "The Propostion"; although I think people are remembering a lot more firing in that bank robbery scene in "Heat" than there actually was. I recall the main shooting being more of a series of controlled bursts from the primary cast with a lot of crossfire from the street police.

Personally, I prefer the realistic impact of the guns in "Heat" (and the execution of the undercover cops at the beginning of "Miami Vice"), but sometimes the over the top for the hell of it stuff works too. "Predator" has a great scene that might be the king of over-spent rounds; but still, you get to see an acre of jungle VAPORIZE.

Posted by Hallick at August 10, 2007 3:41 PM

comment #29

dangovich says ...

For over-the-top gun battles, you'd be hard-pressed to top the climactic scene of The Wild Bunch.

Posted by dangovich at August 10, 2007 3:55 PM

comment #30

Joe Leydon says ...

T. Holly: "No spoilers about who takes out Ben Wade, or how."

Excuse me, champ, but isn't that a pretty goddamn big spoiler all by itself? You've just revealed a plot twist that doesn't occur in either the first film or the original Elmore Leonard short story.

Jeez, and they say Jeff is bad about revealing endings before movies even open...

Posted by Joe Leydon at August 10, 2007 4:15 PM

comment #31

source188 says ...

The gun violence in Munich was also damn strong and realistic and even scary....the action sequences are only a few minutes long but they pack a fierce, ugly, real life-ending punch. The shoot-out in Heat is what I imagine an episode of Cops would cover. No one can captures bullet firing on film better than Mann, the scene in Collateral where Cruise expires the two punks who rob the cab is also memorable, not to mention the standout nightclub shoot-out.

Posted by source188 at August 10, 2007 4:35 PM

comment #32

Silverscreenvideos says ...

SAVING PRIVATE RYAN - The final battle where Barry Pepper's sniper is shooting at the Germans, at first dropping them, then as he gets tired, he starts missing and they get closer, and he and the audience realize that it's only a matter of time before they get to him because he just can't fire quickly enough and accurately enough.

ZULU- The first movie I can ever recall seeing in which it registered with me that guns did not have an infinite supply of bullets to blast away at your enemies as needed. From the first battle scene on, the audience is aware that it takes time for the British to reload their rifles after every shot and that until they do so, the battle with the Zulus becomes nothing more than a knife fight. Each battle becomes an individual struggle to keep the enemy away until the soldier can reload and fire again, and sometimes they never make it.

When the British finally get their formation together at the end and are able to form and hold massed firing lines, the carnage is far more dramatic than it would have been if the film started out that way.

Posted by Silverscreenvideos at August 10, 2007 8:03 PM

comment #33

atticusrex says ...

Fist off a shout out to SILVERSCREENVIDEOS... Kudos to you bringing up one of the greatest movies from the '60's: ZULU.

Jeff: I am glad to hear that Shoot'em Up and 3:10 to Yuma are good movies... I love me some Elmore Leonard and I actually like the Cartoonish gun flicks and I am looking forward to Shoot'em up. I even liked Slevin, Aces and Sin City. When it's done with just the right smirk, cleverness and dash of 'cool' I do feel entertained especially if the filmmaker makes it clear that the world we are watching isn't in our reality.

I get your point here... the gun crazed, bullet raining flicks that are 'based' within our reality seem questionable, unreal and fake and yes boring. You shouldn't have to question action. That said I also agree... the bank shoot-out in Heat was amazing... but then it's Mann not Bay.

Posted by atticusrex at August 11, 2007 5:58 AM

comment #34