It seems obvious when you see it written like this, but “the action sequence is one of the defining elements of action cinema”. But what actually is an action sequence? When you really think about the term it’s actually quite nebulous. Purse (2011)¹ defines the action sequence as “dramatic physical action with a dynamism and intensity that marks it out from other sequences”, but even that definition leaves a lot of room for interpretation. The hockey sequences in The Mighty Ducks satisfy those criteria, but I don’t think anyone would describe that film as an action movie, or those scenes as action sequences.

While all action films must necessarily have action sequences, does the presence of action sequences necessarily make a film an action film?

Surprisingly, I’ve had more trouble pinning down a concrete definition of the action genre than any other this semester. Clearly, some films are self-evidently action films, like this week’s screening Ronin (1998), which is about 120% car chases. (Surprising fact: John Frankenheimer directed French Connection II.) But the sheer number of films considered action films is so vast, and there are so many variations in content and style between them, that I find it difficult to consider what the “canonical” action film might be — that is, the one that demonstrates all the hallmarks of the action genre. Perhaps one doesn’t exist.

I love this quote from Purse (2011): “Rather than assuming the action sequence’s aesthetics are somehow obvious, we should analyse each sequence with an open mind, eye and ear; and that understanding the impulses behind the content and presentation of the action sequence is important, as is an alertness to the often surprisingly nuanced ways in which such sequences can be communicative in narrative and representational terms.”

What I extract from this quote is that the action sequence is a multivalent concept, which shifts meaning depending on its application — much like any genre trope, or indeed genre itself.