Your point about realism reminds me of this quote by David Bordwell: "Realism, as usual, is simply a fig leaf for doing what you want. Virtually any technique can be justified as realistic according to some conception of what’s important in the scene. If you shoot the action cogently, with all the moves evident, that’s realistic because it shows you what’s 'really' happening. If you shoot it awkwardly, that presentation is 'realistically' reflecting what a participant perceives or feels. If you shoot it as 'chaos' (another description that Nobles applies to the Expendables action scenes)—well, action feels chaotic when you’re in it, right? Forget the realist alibi. What do you want your sequence to do to the viewer?"
As for the movie, you're right, it never pretended to be anything but an basic escapist film.
Leave a Comment:
Escapist fiction at its best.
Liam Neeson kicks way more ass than he should in this film.
Taken makes no pretensions about what it is - and what it is is the pinnacle of the "dumb action movie" (I don't think anyone says that in any other context without at least a small measure of condescension, but I use that term here with the utmost admiration) - and I believe that is part of its charm. With any other "dumb action movie," there would predictably be a lull in the action, possibly to tell the audience how the characters are feeling (something that should be obvious through good acting), or to explore a pointless romantic relationship. This would all serve only to remind the viewer how stupid the entire premise is.
Here, there is no such pretentiousness; there is no shoehorned and juvenile symbolism, and there is no moral hand-wringing. The closest the film gets is a brief (and, most importantly, silent) moment to let Liam Neeson's acting shine before the ass-kicking begins with renewed vigor.
I used to be a firm proponent of realism in films. Over the years, I have realized that "realism" is just that: that which appears real. We don't go to the movies to watch true stories. We watch films that have been constructed, in one way or the other, to tickle the imagination and amuse the senses - this is the primary goal of the filmmaker.
You can argue that the fighting was unrealistic, and that Liam Neeson's character should have been hit by a dozen bullets (at least) by the end of the movie. I personally didn't notice anything particularly fantastical about the fight scenes, although I suppose if I were an expert in the field of combat I would probably be very annoyed. Point is, it was realistic enough for me, and probably for the majority of filmgoers. And what is the value of a film other than what the audience decides for it?
In the end, Taken is a simple tale that realizes the revenge fantasy that all of us indubitably harbor in our hearts. As long as you can suspend your disbelief (and the producers of this film have definitely gone to great lengths to help you in this matter), you will enjoy yourself. Let the catharsis wash over you.