Boiling Point: An Inconsistent Force

Posted by Robert Fure (robert@filmschoolrejects.com) on July 13, 2009

Movies should strive to achieve some sort of consistency.  There is a person on set, a script supervisor, who has the job of making sure things stay consistent from scene to scene.  Unfortunately, this person isn’t concerned with the strength of doors, human jaws, or the impact of a punch.  That really doesn’t fall under their union guidelines.  No, I’m not entirely sure who to blame – writers, directors, stuntmen – but someone is doing it wrong.

This particular rant has been brewing awhile but was spurred into life by the finale of Harper’s Island which was somewhat less than great, in my opinion.  In the final episodes, they did provide us with perfect examples of what I like to the inconsistent force of Hollywood.  This force is present in virtually all action TV shows and movies, so I’m not going to rail against Harper’s exclusively, but I wanted you to know where I’m coming from.

The most common inconsistent force is that of a blow to the head.  Whether it is a pistol whip or a rifle butt or just a single punch, in the middle of a movie it’s enough to knock someone out cold.  As a person who has experienced an unjustifiably high number of blows to the head, I can assure that it’s not that simple to put someone down for the count.  But this is the movies, so lets assume that whoever did the smashing is strong enough to knock someone unconscious in one blow.  Fast forward to the climax of the film and characters all of a sudden have developed a skull thicker than an ankylosaur’s.  Repeated punches to the face, smashed snow globes, and even fire extinguisher make-out sessions won’t knock the guy out.  What gives?

Coming in a very close second is the strength of a door.  When the killer is outside, your front exterior door is no match.  Stand back because he’s going to kick a hundred pounds of solid wood out of the way and break locks.  Because he’s bad ass and big and strong and no door on earth can stop him – except the bedroom, or bathroom door.  Once the killer is inside it’s like his entire well of door-smashing strength has gone.  An exterior door, which is thicker, stronger, and generally just harder to kick down, is no match for him.  But a flimsy, hollow, plywood interior door with a push lock is an insurmountable obstacle?  Give me a break!

Bullets, too, are often victims of the inconsistent force both in regards to their penetration abilities and their killing abilities.  If you’re a henchman, watch out – these bullets are depleted uranium.  A single round to the torso, anywhere from the belt line up to the shoulder, is instantly fatal to you.  If you’re the villain, or his right hand man, take it easy, because being shot is just an inconvenience until the final act.  The hero will shake off the cripplingly painful gut shot and ignore any damage to the legs, despite those same injuries causing spontaneous death in the ‘for hire’ department.  Further, when its appropriate bullets will pass through cars, doors, and many other objects – which is realistic.  They will then however be stopped by kitchen cabinets (aka thin wood, which is coincidentally Rob Hunter’s nickname) or couches (we call Neil “couches”).  Is there no consistency in this world?

I suppose this instances are all just means to an end.  The bad guy has to get into the house but then be held up.  The kidnapper must be knocked out but then put up a hell of a fight.  Hm.  No.  Scratch ‘means to an end.’  These are just examples of some lame laziness.  Instead of having them kick down the door, give them another, easier way in.  Say breaking a window.  Want a bullet to kill somebody?  Put the squib near his heart, not his belly button.  It’s not that difficult to understand – just work a little harder, a little smarter.  After all, I’m paying $14 to see your movie and all I get is past my boiling point.

What inconsistent forces in films bother you?

Read more articles by Robert Fure