[Back to FILM Studies]  [<><>]
Film Studies: DieHard

The key difference between this film (produced in 1988) and
others that imitated it is that it first found its message:

   The story is a fake.
   The hero is real.
   Everyone "gets their moment".

Other films have concentrated on what Hitchcock used 
to call the "McGuffin". There are two view of what
this is:

  1) It is a thing that moves the story along,
     and we the audience are supposed to be
     focusing on it.

  2) It is a useless thing that is NOT the
     point of the film.

I adhere more to the second school of thought. Even
in films such as "The Maltese Falcon" where the
McGuffin (the statue of the falcon) is elevated to
title status, it is the inter-relation of the 
people and their motivations that IS the story.

Similarly (and their is an EXCELLENT extended version
of the film on DVD with both director and special
effects commentary as well as textual commentary 
by actors and other particpants), in DieHard,
the GOAL of the Terrorists is the McGuffin.

In fact we spend the first third of the movie
finding out that it's all (apparently) about 
just a high-end ($600 M USA) robbery and not
a terrorist plot at all.

Further, the design elements of the sub-plot is
set against (the then current) take over of 
USA companies by the Japanese - as the director
points out, the single largest foreign investor
is in fact the Dutch but they aren't the
"yellow peril" - thus, raising the racist card.

This ironic B/G is emphasized when:

 MaClane: I thought you [Japanese] didn't believe
          in Christmas.

 Takcagi: Hey, Pearl Harbor didn't work out, so
          we got you tape recorders instead.

The black-humor is prelude to the terror (as in
"The" Terror of the French Revolution, etc) to come.

Further, the tone of the film is lifted out of 
the continual rain of blood (the film was made
after the attrocious rendering of "Rambo" -
"First Blood" which turned the "mind-game" 
war between "Rambo" and the "Police Chief"
into nothing more than a blood bath), by the
"chess game" between "Hans" and "Maclane".

Nintety percent of the terror is that not only
will the terrorists kill without warning, but
that NO one can determine what they want.

That this is the real problem to be solved is
only (by stages and beautfully so) revealed
to Maclane and "Al" (VelJohnson) who reason
it through as they both sort through the 
mis-cues being given by the terrorists. 

As the mystery is un-raveled (and in keeping
with the strict code of the "single hero" 
movie - only Maclane (and his "deputy", Al)
are aware of the puzzle itself - all of the
other "authority figures" (the LA Police
Chief and the FBI Agents) are fools.

We see the inter-play between the players:

  Hans is the King, his tech guru is opening
  the vault (a bishop), his kinghts work 
  through the building setting up the threat.

  Maclane is the opposing King, his bishop
  is Al (feeding him intel from the outside
  world), and of course for him his wife
  is the (as yet un-disclosed) Queen.

Oddly enough, Hans is WHITE and makes the 
first move (and as the master of the game 
that Maclane is *literally* stumbing about
trying to get a grip on), and plays the
opponents knights (the police and FBI) as
pawns.

Maclane as BLACK in the chess game in our
metaphor reminds of one Chessmaster's comment
that when he is WHITE he wins because he
is white (moves first), when he wins when 
he is black (moves second), he wins because
he is a chess master and who he is.

Naturally, the hero is built up out of the
single defining difference between his own
motivation and use of violence: He cares.

The thematic and art details (as with almost
carefully designed movies) define the "levels"
(DieHard as video game as one of the commenters
calls it) - and thus keep us locked in to where
the various actors are in the building. The
building is of course "The Poisdon", "The
Death Camp", "Troy" - not only place of action,
but the GOAL of the conflict of conquest.
 
The film succeeds so well, becasue (like at
the other end of the spectrum in films like
"Sleuth") it keeps in mind that we "see" into
the film, thru the eyes of the hero (mainly)
and thus, the problem to be solved is revealed
to us asking the SAME questions that he does.
Thus, engaging us through rationality even in
the midst of the chaos and terror. Other films
miss this thinking that the carnal can really
over-power the intellectual - only in sports
and ACTUAL participation is this true. As 
spectators, our emotions "read" all of the
violance as "true", but to suspend our 
disbelief (and lift us out of the mono-dimensional
world of VIEWING into the multi-dimensional
world of OWNING/BEING) we have to be engaged
intellectually.

This is well recognised (as the director points
out) when a plateau is rached when for the 
first time Maclane sits down and takes out
a cigarette to rest. "You could hear quite
a few people in the audience "sigh" when
he does that" - not an exact quote.

Thus, we reclaim our individuality, by being
able to mull over what we've seen so far. And
then, of course the "buddy dialog" between 
Maclane and Al allows us to "down-build" them
as real people rather than super heroes. Odd
that this is a modern thing and usually in
classical work done thru "the other". For
example, in "The Odyssey", it is Odeseus'
son who is "down built" (and in fact guided
by Athena - in disguise) and thus allows us
to attach ourselves more directly to a 
"supe hero" character such as Odesseus.

It is simply impossible (unless we ourselves
ARE police or FBI) to continue the connection
from our (presumed mundane) everyday selves
and the hero who can literally walk thru 
glass, fall off buildings, and of course get
shot at by EVERYONE he meets. Thus, the 
character has to be "down-sized" (i prefer
the term "down built") with dark humor:

  "Why didn't you do anything? Because, 
   then you'd be dead too." 

   In the air duct - now i know what a TV
                     dinner feels like.

etc. Also, note that allows us to extend
the suspension of disbelief and enjoy the 
film. In the second DieHard, the line 
"How can the same the same thing happen
to the same guy twice?" is parallel to this
as well. Also, the little nuances (the
commando being pricked by a rose bush, the
fake guard wearing cowboy boots, the "two"
Johnsons (FBI) - no relation, etc) also,
let the audience relax as well - a point
noted in films at key points such as 
"Alien Ressurection" (eg, "We're teaching 
you.", "It must be a 'chick' thing."),
"RoboCop" (eg, "Don't touch him, he might
get infected!", "Don't worry Lewis, they
fix everything."), "2010" (eg, "I wished 
i'd seen the de-braking" - "I wished i 
slept though it.", "That's not some piece
of junk out there!"), etc.

As so many artists remind us:

   "Artists create; great artists steal."

So, for future ref:

1. Don't confuse WHO is the antagonist/protagonist.
   In reality we are all (as Twain reminds us) 
   "Half Moons, that have a dark side, that if
    we are wise, we never reveal to anyone".

   The key here is the phrase:  "We're not so 
   different you and i." - ie, the antagonist
   and the protagonist.

   Also, don't make the antagonist too strong,
   on the protagonist will have to use the old
   "pull the elephant gun out of the cloest" 
   trick.

2. In almost *every* case, the protagonist is
   shown to have flaws, and yet the antagonist
   has NONE - except that "he doesn't care".
   This is supposed to make the "triumph" more
   intense, but in reality (in badly made 
   films) it just makes the ending absurd. 

   For example, in "UnderSeige" it is the 
   combination of elements that "save" the
   antagonist from being mono-dimensional.

    1. His childhood dreams of TV Cartoons,
       the war vs war college,

    2. "If only we could have hired this
       cook, then we could have avoided
       all of this." - This is a some-what
       un-realistic point: Only the "chiefs"
       in the war room question Roshaks 
       loyalty, in the "pure hero" mode he
       never waivers. Compare this with the
       anti-hero, or even in the "tempting"
       of power in (eg, Star Wars), the flawed
       person pervailing in more realistic
       films; eg, "Little Miss SunShine",
       "How to Murder your Neighbor's Dog",
       "GroundHog Day".

3. Mainly, don't expect much from the action/adv
   format since in reality it's pretty much 
   degraded to the pure revenge mode in most
   cases: What the antagonists (finally) does
   is so horrible, that we are justified in
   feeling GOOD no matter what is done horribly
   to him in return - at the end. If you think
   about this; it's actually a bit sick. Prob
   some direct comment on our present, lack-luster
   and muggled existence, n'est pas?