'In a short time, Hollywood action films and thrillers have come to reflect the cultural zeitgeist of the war on terrorism'

- John Ip, Moritz College of Law

I finally got around to watching The Dark Knight Rises today. I took so long not due to lack of interest but simply because there are so many superhero films around now that I've become reluctant to buy into yet another backstory or mythological construct that ultimately follows the same pattern as most others. But I've always held Christopher Nolan's Batman films as standing apart from iterations that have come before in the way it deals with each films villain, their motives and behaviour taking on similarities with real world terrorists. Most superhero films contain analogies to terrorism with plans for world domination or mass slaughter but its Nolan's films that contain the ultra serious references to a generation living in a post 9/11 age. Essentially, they strip away the camp tone and grandiose action of most similar films to deliver a more realistic depiction of attacks on cities or populations and the reasons behind them. It's a far cry from the motifs of the action dominated decade that had immediately preceded it and one only has to revisit that decade's action genre to notice the stark contrast in style.

The 1990s were a golden age for the Hollywood action film. Examples such as Die Hard 2, Speed, Independence Day, The Rock and Face/Off are now all regarded as classics of the genre. But it's a genre that has changed significantly since the 90s both in terms of their messages and their visuals, from aesthetics to cinematography. All of these titles represented a time when there were no qualms about destroying entire cities, wiping out countless numbers of people or making use of deplorable devices such as nuclear weapons or poison gas rockets. To Hollywood, these were simply the tools with which to entertain their audiences. Perhaps the prevalence of such films took hold largely because this decade was, for the most part, a rather dull one. Politically, it was the end of many sensitive issues such as the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Gulf War, becoming what many have seen as culturally stagnant since an absence of world events means little context with which to base a song or a film. So, enter the action film that replaces this period of non-activity with activity of its own. Through them we had massive alien invasions, make belief terrorist attacks, and all out war between police and gang members as if the action film were coming to the rescue of a pacified youth culture. Of course, the reason all of these make belief events were accepted without objection was because they were exactly that make believe. For example, filmmakers could tear down the World Trade Centre in Armageddon without fear of political or public outrage simply because the idea that any such event might occur in real life was unlikely to have entered the minds of many of those watching these films. So, when it did happen on September 11 2001, that kind of cheerful destruction took on a very real, shocking and unpleasant connotation. Now seen as far too sensitive to continue, the action genre's destruction of buildings or entire cities after the collapse of the twin towers essentially ended as something to marvel at or be excited by. The focus of such imagery after 2001 now turned to creating horror and resonance with a 9/11 generation. One of the first casualties of the action film in response to 9/11 was cinematography. The shots created in films such as Independence Day, where the wiping out of New York took on an almost panoramic spectacle, or Armageddon's rapid aerial editing of the meteor shower hitting the city's sky scrapers were replaced by point of view, ground level and often seamless cinematography resembling amateur camera footage.

Armageddon was one of the last examples of an action film without commentary in the 90s.

For me, the film that captured the horror of 9/11 itself most effectively was Cloverfield. The handheld, found footage shooting of the film's event carries enormous resonance for those who watched the amateur footage shot of the towers collapse from their living rooms. Since this is a found footage film, all imagery of the amphibious monster attacking New York is shot from street level as buildings are torn down before the character's eyes. In one particular sequence early on, the camera looks down a street to the skyscrapers in the distance. Suddenly, one begins to collapse from the damage sustained in the attack. But while many films of the 90s portrayed skyscrapers exploding or entire streets being engulfed in a giant fireball Independence Day style, this buildings collapse contains no explosions or fire. Instead, enormous clouds of grey smoke, dust and debris are seen hurtling towards the camera as those holding it attempt to duck and hide behind cover. I recognised this immediately as being strikingly similar to one particular piece of footage I saw of a bystander attempting to hide behind a parked car to avoid the smoke of the collapsing north tower repeating the words 'I hope I dont die. I hope I dont die'. So, in Cloverfield, gone is the awe inspiring fire and spectacle replaced with a matter of fact image of a city under attack. The horror replacing the awe is generated by the simple knowledge that such imagery has already occurred for real and recalls the shock of seeing that amateur footage for the first time, struggling to belief that it wasnt just another Hollywood film as I did on that day. To hammer the point home, a few seconds after the cloud has cleared somewhat, bystanders emerge covered in from head to toe in grey dust also recalling the countless number of nearby witnesses of 9/11 who found themselves being consumed and then transformed into bodies of grey by the remains of two of America's proudest buildings.

The influence of 9/11 on the action genre at its most evident.

Although I felt it carried the most powerful connections to the event, this wasn't the first time Hollywood replicated the symbolism of 9/11 in action films. War of the Worlds contained the same style of cinematography, deciding to shoot an invading alien race from the ground rather than with dramatic, wide, aerial shots but arguably makes better use of the shock factor. Again, distancing itself from fellow alien invasion film Independence Day's fireballs, War of the World's initial attack scene contains no explosions but instead depicts buildings, cars and people being reduced to ash on contact with the tripod's weaponry. As central character Ray flees the attack, he is caught in the rising clouds of dust being thrown up by the carnage around him. Eventually, he makes it home only to look in the mirror and see he is covered from head to toe in that same dust he had to run through. This is a direct reference to the same experiences of those present at ground zero where they never realised they were covered until reaching home and looking in the mirror. The horror on Ray's face is unmistakable and he vigorously washes himself in disgust.

Low street level camera angles in War of the Worlds recall amateur footage of 9/11.

These two examples deal more with the effects of terrorism inflicted on the bystander rather than terrorism itself, however, which brings me back to Nolan's Batman films. Although there is plenty of terrorism present in his three entries, the focus is more on the motives of the villain rather than the effects of their plans. No act of terrorism is committed for the sole purpose of killing. There is always a wider political or religious motive behind them. 9/11 is generally believed to have been motivated by the United State's support of Israel and the presence of coalition forces in Saudi Arabia which were perceived by Al-Qaeda as being part of the West's goal of wiping out Islam. If this is true, it would be wrong to say that Al-Qaeda simply wanted to kill Americans. On the basis of their wider ambitions, it was simply a means to achieving their goals. This includes local terrorists such as Timothy McVeigh's bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995 killing 168 people. When asked why, he claimed it was retaliation for the Waco siege. But if you take the examples of both Tim Burton and Joel Schumacher's iterations of Batman in the 90s, the central villains do largely commit slaughter out of a sheer desire for bloodshed. Jack Nicholson's Joker gases an entire restaurant to death and proceeds to dance to Prince around the bodies of his victims while casually defacing priceless works of art. So, murder becomes a form of entertainment for him and nothing more. Two-Face in Batman Forever is somewhat more complicated as he is portrayed as having a deep hatred of Batman using acts of terrorism to bring him out of hiding so he may have a chance of killing him. Even so, he too commits acts of murder on a whim as he slaughters the family of Dick Grayson at a circus seemingly out of boredom when Batman fails to reveal himself.

By the time Nolan had taken over, he removed a lot of the cardboard villainy replacing it with more coherent motives specifically meant to speak to a 9/11 generation. For example, it can be argued that 9/11 was also partly motivated by the World Trade Center being symbolic of the western economy, something the Middle-east does not posses. If so, The Dark Knight Rises' Wall Street attack sequence by a ragtag gang carries significant weight. In Batman Begins, the villain Ras Al Ghul's goal of wiping out the population of Gotham City is similarly defined by a hatred for what he views as a decadent western society. His backstory is that he sees the majority of the world as populated by violent criminals who must be wiped out in order to leave the world as a place that only the virtuous can inhabit. This can be connected to the suggestion that Al-Qaeda has such a strong belief in Islam that it has led them to hold it up as something so righteous that all other religions can be defined by a state of immoral decadence by comparison. If so, it would indicate that they regard themselves as the only virtuous society remaining. The Dark Knight Rises references this idea by depicting Gotham City as being captured by a terrorist organisation led by the character Bane. Once in charge, he announces to the population that he is handing over justice to the virtuous so that they may deal it out to those viewed as corrupt. In doing so, the film simultaneously makes a second point of asking difficult questions of how terrorists might look at us, not simply how they might see themselves making it a far more complex film than Batman Begins. One scene shows a kangaroo court being presided over by Scarecrow, a former villain of Batman Begins and sentences many city and police officials, those seen as corrupt, to either exile or death. What this implies is that how we might perceive villains or terrorists could very well be how they see us in turn. After all, the West has invaded virtually every country and killed countless numbers of civilians while claiming to be bringers of peace - a number far disproportionate to those killed by terrorists.

Bane captures Gotham City before handing it over to the 'virtuous'.

Terrorism had never been at the forefront of contemporary culture in such a way before 9/11. Groups such as Al-Qaeda had received little attention from the West and their existence remained largely unknown. After 9/11 as the threat of terrorism became all too real, it's perhaps only natural that the style of Hollywood action genres changed as they suddenly gaining a new method of expression. The question now is what the role of the modern action film is today with this newfound ability. Is it still simply to entertain, is it to educate or is it to ask questions about the nature of cinematic action? Still, some might ask whether it even meant to become something more profound than pure spectacle or should it revert back to its previous form during its golden age? And would it even be possible for the genre to morally embrace such casual destruction again for the purposes of sheer entertainment? I think it's important to remember that the 90s were known for highly entertaining action films whereas today they take on more depressing qualities which often drain the entertainment value away. For example, despite their interesting messages, I'm far more inclined to lose myself in Burton's original Batman than I am in The Dark Knight Rises. But perhaps the difficulty in confronting the threat of terrorism on screen is ultimately the point. If it is, the genre is fulfilling its new purpose successfully.