John Woo's Cinema of Hyperkinetic Violence: From ABetter Tomorrow to Face/Off Robert Hanke For many North American movie gocrs like myself. Face/Off ( I997) was both a summer box-office hitand an introduction [0 director John Woo's choreography and pyrotechnics of violent action. Though I am by no means a ran of Hollywood action movies, Face/Ojfwas com pelling a nd intrigui ng, if not alway s ple asu rable, to wat c h. compared [0 other violence-laden Hollywood action films or crime dramas, such as LA Confi den fial ( 1997). For all its discomfiting violence, the fil m presen ts us with a more complicated ca se of interpreting sc ree n violen ce and understanding its social and (crossjcultural implications and meanings than the usual Hollywood fare. III thix essay, I want to argue that while Woo's llrst two Hollywood features reflect his asshuihui on into the generic conventions and formulas of the mainstream "A merican " action movie. Face/Off represents a generic transformation, For in this film, Woo carries on with concerns registered in his 1I0ng Kong films - the vicissitudes and instability of the masculinc subject- inorder 10 bring to Hollywood action fi IIII a new kind of male protagonist, one that comb ines physical violence and emot ional intensity, Having based his career on appropriating from American films, among other traditions of world cinema, Woo also picks up on recent Hollywood films which feature male protagonists who arc both violent and sensitive. who perform their own contradictions, and who struggle with themselves as much as with evil. This generic transformruion is not merely a matter of cha nging images o f the male ac tio n hero , us Woo 's hybrid aes thetic is no longer a privileged momen t within the narrat ive," Grant continues, combines a spec tac ular sty le of viole nt masculi nity with the cultura l "it is no longer redem ptive or ca tha rtic" (Gran t 7 1). For Grant. the form o f melodram a. problem is that these films depict violent action that it is neither " heroic O f course. the represent ation of vio lence in film an d television nor mo ral, because nothing is es pec ially meaning ful. nothing more has bee n a lo ng-stan d ing pu blic and scho larly co nce rn. Billig Hallg, rea l or important than any thi ng e lse " (G rant 70). Mo reo ver, the S"oOI Shoot' Essays 0/1 CIIII.\· and /' opular Culture. based on an c outcmpo ra ry ac tio n mo vi e ' s in c on seque nt ial v io le nce a nti interna tion a l conference held at Ryerson Polytechni c University last significa tion o f de ath without pai n demonstrates the "logical end of year, is s)" ~ n pto mu t ic ofthe lUI est round o f inquiry anempting to come human relations under ca pital ism" (Grant 72). In a mo vie such as Pil ip to terms with the see mingly inex plicable phenomenon o f IHI,.'d ia violence Fiction ( 199.t), where someone is shot point blan k in the face, "splatter (Pomerance an d Suken s).! E xplunuti on s, in te rp rct uri on s , a nd becomes em blemat ic of the posrmodcm co ndition, trans lat ing our assessmen ts o f the social and cultural significance o f media violence erode d subjec tivity in the graphics of the fractured head" (Grant 72), differ, depen ding on one 's scho larly paradigm , approa ch to film or Even though he acknowledges that work s of "ult ra-violence" rnay work television study, defi nition of sc ree n vio lence or conte xtual fnc turx, 10 dcmyrh ify vio lence. enabling viewers access to the truth of rea l and what so rt o f "cffec ls" one is seeking to explain.? violence. the problem with man y contemporary senal-mirrder fil ms is To beg in with. th ere is the ({1If11l1i,." of screen violence . In The that they do not offer such modern ist distanciurion: instead. they Killil/g Scrrrns: ,\I t'd ia and the Culture of \'jo lt'lI n ', ma ss uivializc or unde rmine the serio us ness with wh ich violence ought 10 co mmunic ation sc holar George Gerbncr d iscusses thi s issue fromthe be regarded. social-sc ienti fic perspective of cultivation theory. Specifically, how Within the contemporary genre of action movies, the film s o f can we account for the fact that when Holly wood act ion film s arc John Woo would certuiuly lend themselves to suc h analyses. One need remade, there is a substantial rise in the dead body count? For Gc rbncr, not conduct a content analysis to recognize that Woo 's action movies vio lence is a "cheap. indu strial ing redi ent" used 10 project ;1 sense of di splay a fire power and body count that e xceeds the most violent ma le power and to hype up othe rwise dull prognnns or films. Whi le Hollywood ac tion films. His films a lso seem 10 be structured around violent media fare may not be the most popula r, violence is used 10 Sl't pieces whe n: a hype rkinetic choreography o f gu n violence and ensure that mo vies will "travel we ll" in the glo balized media market ex plosive pyrote chnics seem to be privileged o ver plot , narrat ive, or since physical action, unlike dia logue. docs not requ ire translation , character. Woo's cross -over from the New Wa ve o f Hong Kong cinema and humor ma y be culturally specific. In con trast 10 " legit ima te artistic to Ho llywood is no doubt due to the need fo r Holly wood stud io c reatio ns" where vio lent repre sentatio ns may show us tragedy. pai n, executives to increase the dosage o f vio lence in orde r 10 disti nguish o r destruc tion, Ho llywood act ion mo vies, Gcr bner posits, present their prod uct from what is alread y on television or what we have already " happy violence" thut is "entertaining" 0' 'thrilling," In this approach. see n in the mo vie theatres. In thi s sense, Woo 's ex pe rtise in, anti his the c h ief as sum ption is that sc ree n vio lence is not simply th e pe nchant for, the spec tacle o f o verkill presen ts us with an other case o f rep resent ation of physical acts but soci al relation s of po wer. T hus, fihu prod uction that is part ofthe "social problem " of med ia violence. sc ree n violence. for heavy viewers of television, is a svmbclic lesson His cinema of hyperkinetic vio lence may be read as ye t another grap hic a bo~t agg ressors and victims that reinforces rela tioll~ of power and e mb lem of the dea th of the hum an ist subject. However. while Ge rbne r's and Grant's attent ion to the quantity cu ltivates a sense that the wo rld is a dangerou s place to live in. ' Other sc ho lars ha ve focuss ed on the shift in the tll/alitr of screen and qualit)' of violence in Hollywood action movies is insightful . these vio lence. From the perspecti ve ofhum anistic 111m studies. Barry Grunt c ritica l po sition s neglect important c ult ural aspects o f Woo ' s deicers a "ne w tone of violence" in con temporary Hollywood action filmmaking pract ice . First of a ll, whi le wo rking within the realm of mO\:ics; k i l l i ~l g . he observes, is so common place that it no longer shocks popular film, he has been cred ited with contributing to the "heroic but IS me t with "bemused detachment " (Grant 70), " Because violence bloodshed" subgcnrc of Hong Kong ac tion film (Baker; Logan). '0 "' lndced. in so me film critics' and film makers' eyes, he has co me to multipcrspective cultural study of Woo's filmmaking pra ctice, and his occupy the unique position of auteur of "art-action" movies. But the act ion films. as produced in. throu gh. and in respo nse to variou s stylistics. thcm anc s, and structure offeel ing that Woo put into comotion discourses of indu stry, gende r. capitalism, and eve n religion. in his Hong Kong action films are not so much ..m ex pression of his Woo's Hong Kong action film s. including their style of violent individual vision o r ge nius as they are an articulation of filmmaking imagery. have already been discu ssed in terms of their geohistorical practice with local/global. Easl!\Vest dynamics. On the local side. Woo, spec ificity. as well as in rela tion to cultural and political fac tors. Most who was born in Guandong Province in South China in 1948 but gre w accounts ge nerally agree that for ,III the ir spectacular viole nt action. up in Hong Kong, co-directed his first im'ependcnt low-b udget fe ature his post-1986 films e xpress Hong Kong's co llec tive cultural anxiety film, n u: Young Dragons ( 1973: released 1975) at age twenty-six for over the historical trauma of reunification with China in 199 7.