Too many times I’ve read “Red Cliff is just another stupid blockbuster with lots of stupid action scenes“. I don’t know about the international cut, but the original one is far from being “stupid”. Wondering why?
Let’s take for example the village attack, at the beginning of the 1st film:
So what’s happening here?
00:00 – 00:49, John Woo is preparing the action scene:
• A burning village = The place (creating visual marks)
• Women trying to save a baby = Goal
• Bad guys want them dead – women & baby = Dangerous situation / Enemies
• One of them, with guards, is killed = Danger is real
• The last woman is wounded, baby may be killed = Failed Mission?
00:50 – 01:02, Through some medium close shots (spear; horse’s foot), John Woo maintains ambiguity, is the baby going to be killed? Or saved?
01:03 – 02:20, John Woo is introducing a character. We’ve already seen him fight briefly, it’s enough to let us know he’s a good fighter. And here, we’re learning he’s also a good-hearted man, ready to sacrifice himself to save a baby.
• Meaning, this action scene reveals the character’s mind. That way, we know what he is, and who he is. It’s a smart use of action as a narrative tool!
By the way, at 01:35-01:37, you can notice a wonderful ‘movement cut’, it could be also called an ‘invisible cut’ because it’s based on the action/movement you’re watching. And while watching it, usually you don’t see the cut. John Woo is that good.
Obviously, it needs to be watched live
Thanks Bob!
