Vern’s Book on Steven
Seagal is this Christmas’s Tickle-Me-Elmo
Okay, by some
strange fluke I had never seen a Steven Seagal film in my life. He was a well known action star when I was a
child and even continued to have theatrically-released films throughout my teen
years, but I never bothered to check out what it was he was doing with the
genre. I mostly just lumped him in with
Jean-Claude Van Damme, who’s films I found mediocre and who’s persona did
nothing special for me.
However my
brother-in-law has always held Seagal as his favorite action actor and whenever
he spoke enthusiastically about him I kinda just nodded and listened, but I
guess only recently did I actually let it slip that I’d never seen any of his
hero’s films. Over the years I’ve
introduced my brother-in-law to countless action films that he now holds dear,
so he was thrilled that he could finally broaden my horizons and insisted that
I view a Seagal film with him.
I browsed his
collection and found one called Fire
Down Below. I liked the cover
(special note: this was a Russian bootleg of the film and the cover art was
actually the poster for On Deadly Ground
with the title changed, but more on that later) it depicted Seagal wearing a
fringe jacket and standing in a rustic environment. The jacket kinda made him look like a Native
American and so I guessed that the plot might involve a Native guy, played by
Seagal, who has to get revenge on whiteys after some corrupt white cops rape a
lady on his reservation or something. I
figured that would be a great setup for a movie so we watched that one. It turns out the plot was something totally
different, though I still feel the story I’d divined from the incorrect
packaging would make a great Seagal flick.
Seeing as it was the poster art from On Deadly Ground, which I have since viewed, my assumptions were a
bit more accurate. On Deadly Ground does involve Native Americans and revenge in a
rustic setting, just not the setup I had envisaged.
I have to say, Fire Down Below blew me away. This film featured some of the most ambitious
character and plot development choices I’ve seen and a unique action sequence
approach that simply amazed me. The bad
guys would all form a cluster around Seagal, arrogantly eyeballing him but
letting him finish sassing them, and then he would do a spin kick and knock
them all down. It’s the kind of
nerve-racking buildup with short, decisive payoff we haven’t seen since cowboy
movies went out of style. I’m sure that
if you lined up all the goons from any of Fire
Down Below’s fights in a row and fired a rifle point blank the bullet would
probably go through the first two guy’s heads and then just end up lodged in
the third guy’s face causing him to sneeze funny for the rest of his life. So the idea of a single kick swinging around
and smashing through more than five men was a true virtuoso move. I knew I was looking at something
extraordinary.
Seagal’s acting
was also very experimental. His
character was some sort of biochemist federal agent assigned to investigate
pollution in a small
Even though
Steven Seagal chose to dress and play the lead character in a way that makes
him stand out as much as possible, he clearly understood the setting because he
wrote almost the entire soundtrack full of authentic hillbilly sounding
bluegrass tunes. Even my brother-in-law,
the Seagalophile, didn’t know this until our shared viewing when the credits
rolled to the portion listing the song tracks.
Don’t even think of comparing this to when Will Smith comes up with
those goofy rap songs to promote his non-hip-hop Men In Black and Wild Wild
West movies. This was true artistic
vision. On screen in this film, Seagal
beats up several known country music performers turned actors using aikido, but
then he completes the theme’s cycle by beating them at their own singing game
on the soundtrack where they have home field genre advantage.
I knew when Seagal
uttered the climatic line “I’ll teach you
new meanings of the word violation.” that I had found something
special. But I had no idea how
special. Six weeks later internet outlaw
film analyst, Vern, completed the milestone in research into Steven Seagal. Vern published a book five years in the
making titled Seagalogy analyzing the
cinema of this screen legend. Vern digs
deep and provides meaningful insight into all of Seagal’s films as well as his
musical endeavors and the development of his energy drink. Vern gives us the hard facts we want such as
what types of glass shattering occur in each Seagal film. But Vern also looks through that glass to see
the deeper themes of Seagal’s work.
With Seagalogy, Vern shows how far ahead of
his time Seagal was in terms of political themes, action style, and
fashion. Actually, most Seagal’s fashion
choices have yet to even become trends, so if you haven’t bought stock in funky
shiny jackets with tigers printed on them, call your broker now. Vern guides you through this legend’s
filmography with care, passion, and humor.
It should be
mentioned that Seagalogy is Vern’s
second book. His first book, titled 5 On the Outside, was a recollection of
his best essays on various films from his website. So in musical terms, Vern has debuted with a
greatest hits compilation and followed up with an album. Only in this age prequels could such a
defiance of sequence occur. He’ll
probably proceed to whatever the online movie reviewing equivalent of busking
and coffee house jamming is. 5 On the Outside had all the advantages
of a typical greatest hits compilation: you get lots of great stuff in one
place. You get lots of essays that you
can pick and read quickly as individual pieces and enjoy. I know a lot of dentists read my website, so
I would definitely recommend 5 On the
Outside as primo literature for your waiting areas. However Seagalogy
has the organic feel of something conceived with purpose and constructed with
focus as one flowing vision, and so I like it more.
If I had one
criticism of Seagalogy, it would
require a bit of back story. But here it
goes, the first time I emailed Vern was at the beginning of this year when he
reviewed Lethal Weapon and, in my
opinion, undervalued it. We talked
things out and both saw where the other was coming from and agreed to
disagree. However in the Seagalogy chapter dealing with Above the Law, Vern mentions how he
found it really weird that Seagal had photos of himself and his police partner,
Pam Grier, where she was posed with his family like she was a family
member. He argued that other movie cops
would never do this and specifically asking (rhetorically) if Danny Glover and
Mel Gibson would do something like this.
I know from my conversation with Vern that he has not seen Lethal Weapon 4, and so he doesn’t know
that that film actually end with both Riggs (Gibson) and Murtaugh (Glover)
posing with their families for one big photo and telling the photographer that
they aren’t just friends, but family. So
I guess undervaluing and misrepresenting Lethal
Weapon is the one part of Vern’s art that I just don’t get. Other than that, Vern has his priorities
totally in check. He compares the films
of Seagal to the entertainment value of The
Bible, so you know the guy’s solid and I’m just knitpicking. Maybe in the second edition he’ll change that
argument about cops not having family photos together by citing Tango & Cash instead, who
definitely did not do that. However I’d
prefer if he just added a footnote calling me an asshole for pointing this
whole thing out.
Vern teaches most film critics new meanings of the word violation
with his penetrating research including reading multiple screenplay drafts for
all of Seagal’s films, cross referencing the supporting cast that help in
establishing a Leone-esque consistency across the wrist-breaking landscape of
the Seagaliverse, and digging up interviews from far and wide. The only film researcher I can think of who’s
gone further is Annette Insdorf, who actually learned Polish so that she could
work as Krzysztof Kieslowski’s interpreter while writing her book his works
called Double Lives, Second Chances: The
Cinema of Krzysztof Kieslowski. Vern
does not claim to have studied aikido or learned Japanese, but fuck me if his
book isn’t more insightful and entertaining.
Would Annette Insdorf ponder how a character who lives in a glass house
masturbates? I don’t think so. But Vern does.
He also provides
quick at-a-glance reference guides to each of the films for you busy folk on
the go. He details the glass smashed,
the badassedness of the hero, political themes, and even comments on the
accuracy of the packaging and titles. I
know some people refer to indigestion as “the fire down below” and might shy
away from viewing the film out of fear of seeing a Rolaids product placement
vehicle. So this is incredibly helpful.
But after a
whole book of academic analysis, there’s a special treat at the end. Vern retells his trip to Seagal’s blues
concert and his brief meeting with Seagal.
Vern frequently peppers his film reviews with personal anecdotes, and
most of the time I like them. He
reviewed Walter Hill’s film, The
Warriors, and drew from his own life to illustrate how helping a yuppie
couple inefficiently move furniture helped him relate to the characters of
street gang members framed for murder.
But this concert experience was the most touching one I’ve ever seen
from him.
I know that I’ve
got a copy of Seagalogy for my
brother-in-law’s Christmas gift, and I’m sure that Seagalogy will be this Christmas’s Tickle-Me-Elmo. But don’t tickle this motherfucker unless
those are fingers you want to lose. This
is more like Kick-You-In-The-Nuts-Elmo.
And you won’t be able to find it at Toy ‘R Us, but more likely from a
guy unloading them out of the back of a van in the parking lot of Toys ‘R Us
after it’s closed at night.
So when Vern
posted on his website that
he’d be willing to do interviews to raise awareness about Seagalogy, I jumped
at the chance and I have the man here (digitally speaking) to answer some
questions.
So here it is,
kids; an interview from the crystal cave.
You’ve developed
what you call “badass auteur theory” stating that in many iconic cases (such as
Charles Bronson, Clint Eastwood, and Steven Seagal) it was the actors who
really characterized action films more than the directors. But these days doesn’t it seem that audiences
gravitate to individual action films that don’t push an actor’s established
persona, such as The Bourne Whatever, 300 and Kill Bill? The younger generation of action actors who
play similar personas across many similar action films such as Jason Statham,
Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, Mila Jonovich, and Clive Owen don’t seem to generate
the same enthusiasm from audiences or attract big projects like a Sly Stallone
or a John Wayne would’ve in their day.
How do you explain that and how does it make you feel?
VERN: Well,
you're right, there used to be such a thing as a Charles Bronson movie, a Clint
Eastwood movie, a Schwarzenegger movie. That sort of body of work isn't as
common anymore. Even in martial arts movies I think we're coming to the end of
Jackie Chan movies and Jet Li movies as categories. (One major exception: there
is such a thing as Tony Jaa movies.) Of
course it's sad to me because I like those kinds of movies, but I guess you
can't shed too many tears over it. I mean, they're formulaic by definition.
it's not exactly an artistic tragedy.
I think the
other factor is that you just don't have many actors with that kind of presence
anymore. The Rock is great but he doesn't pick good movies or directors.
Statham is pretty good but he hasn't done enough good ones to gain our trust.
And I can't see either of them doing something as gritty as Bronson and
Eastwood were doing in the '70s. I'm not sure we'll get too many movies like
that ever again.
And as for
Seagal, obviously I believe he put more of a personal stamp on his movies than
the other '80s and '90s action guys. That's why I thought I could write a whole
book about him. Somebody said that a director's movies are really just segments
in one long movie. I think it applies better to Seagal though than it does to
most directors.
Why do you think
DTV (direct to video) action cinema exists in such force? Entire films are conceived and produced with
the full intention of never gracing the silver screen. Isn’t that like looking down on your healthy
cute newborn and planning to raise him as a C student who never goes to
college, knocks up some annoying chick, drops out to support her, and ends up
working at Wal Mart but is still sorta happy in their own underachieving kind
of way?
VERN: Well, the companies that pay for them don't
think of it that way because to them it's just a product. Honestly I think it's
just a mathematical formula for making a certain amount of money. These
production companies have it down, they know if it has either Wesley Snipes,
Dean Cain or a CGI reptile of some kind, then they will automatically have, you
know, 5 copies or whatever in each Blockbuster. So if the budget is X,
Blockbuster pays Y for each DVD, and they buy Z copies, Y x Z is gonna be a
hell of alot more than X, it is guaranteed profit, and it doesn't have to rent
once. Nobody ever has to watch it and it's a success before they even sell it
to cable.
In the old
days they made movies for drive-ins where they were just trying to churn them
out and didn't give a shit about quality, this is just the modern equivalent.
Unfortunately not as many of them have a charm to them, it's too much of a
factory. I have a hard time watching most of that shit. Roger Corman had all
kinds of young directors trying to prove themselves, but in DTV most of them
seem like they're just punching a clock, they might as well be working at
Subway. I hope eventually we'll see young hungry directors trying to prove
themselves in DTV, but I don't notice much of that happening yet.
What general
advice would you give to action stars to sustain their big screen careers and
avoid ending up stuck in the ranks of DTV?
VERN: I don't
think that's possible anymore. I mean, I'm constantly scratching my head over
Wesley Snipes. I guess he's supposed to be hard to get along with, but I think he's
a genius. He was already a great actor in Mo' Better Blues and Jungle Fever and
stuff before I even knew he could do action. And he's so fuckin great in the
Blade movies, even the not as good third one. The full package of actor,
fighter, guy who looks cool.
But now he
strictly does DTV. And even in some of those he's giving a great performance,
but the movie can't match what he's doing.
And it's not
like he's gotten fat or old or anything, he looks like he bathes in the blood
of virgins. So if he can't even stay on the big screen I don't know how anybody
else can do it, because they're not gonna be as good as him.
What do you
think the biggest problem is with the way modern audiences view action film?
VERN: Well, I
wouldn't want to blame the audiences. To me the biggest problem with modern
action movies is caused by
It breaks my
heart that there are people who think Transformers is a great action movie!
I understand
the spectacle of a bunch of big explosions and cartoon special effects flying
around and shit, but it wasn't that long ago that James Cameron, John McTiernan,
George Miller, Steven Spielberg and guys like that were carefully constructing
setpieces so that you were involved, carried along with it, with suspense and
tension, building to a climax, telling a story, thrilling the audience and
building character at the same time.
So I guess if
you want to blame the audience for something it's for accepting that status quo
and not noticing that there's a difference. I want to sit them down and show
them Road Warrior, Terminator 2, Aliens. It's not just that they were smarter
movies, it's also that they were actually about visual storytelling back then,
about cinema. Not just hitting you over the head with the same shovel for 130
minutes.
What do you
think has been the biggest improvement in action cinema in the last ten years?
VERN: I don't think I have an answer for that. It
hasn't been a good ten years for my kind of action. Face/Off was ten years ago
now and that was John Woo's last good movie. (Well, okay, I love Blackjack with
Dolph Lundgren, but that was made for cable.) I don't know if I could name ten
truly great action movies from the last ten years.
I do love The
Matrix, if we're gonna include sci-fi, but its influence quickly became
annoying. Bringing wire-fu to
So I guess
that's my answer. That "serious" actors will do action movies now is
a good thing. Mark Wahlberg is really good, Matt Damon is surprisingly good,
Uma Thurman was great in Kill Bill, even if most of that fighting was Zoe Bell.
But they're not quite making the same thing we think about when we talk about
action movies, where the action itself is the main reason for the movie to
exist, this is a more mainstream version of a genre that's kind of meant to be
cheap and lowbrow.
Why do you think
action actors with martial arts skills such as Steven Seagal or Jet Li never
seem to get as big as action actors like Stallone or Willis? Why is it that actually being able to do
something on top of acting seems to count against action actors and they get
labelled as “niche market” or “just another karate guy”?
VERN: Well, to
be honest there's a matter of versatility. Bruce Willis is a great actor. He
was already known as a comedic actor before anybody thought of him as a badass.
As much as I love Seagal I don't think he could do most of the movies that
Willis has done. I think people give Stallone alot of shit too, they make fun
of the way he talks and he's not really given credit for how smart he is. But
he's an Oscar winning writer, he should probaly just carry that Oscar around with
him and pull it out when people give him shit.
But you're
right, there's a prejudice against taking martial artists seriously as more
than martial artists. It's just like anything else though. Not everybody can
outgrow what they're originally known for. Mark Wahlberg got lucky but most pop
stars, or people known for some sitcom or for being related to someone famous
or something, are not ever gonna be taken seriously as actors, and it's the
same for martial artists. Like if Eric Estrada was in some movie where he gave
an undeniably great performance he still might not be taken seriously, because
he's the guy from CHiPs.
Many actors who
spent their careers largely in action cinema decided to get on both sides of
the camera as director and star to give their personas a powerful farewell,
frequently to critical acclaim. Gibson
with Braveheart. Stallone with Rocky 6
and Rambo 4. Eastwood with
Unforgiven. Do feel Seagal has this kind
of ‘bookend’ film in him? How would you
imagine it?
VERN: Well,
Seagal already directed himself in On Deadly Ground, and he's been trying to
get another one off the ground called Prince of Pistols which is a revenge
action movie but set among blues musicians in New Orleans. No, I don't think he
will ever get the respect that those guys get and I'm not sure he's as into
expressing himself through directing as they are. But there's a long tradition
of action stars directing themselves, going back to Bruce Lee, Tom Laughlin, Jackie Chan, Sammo Hung, also
Jean-Claude Van Damme has done it and Dolph Lundgren.
I don't know
what Seagal's Unforgiven would be, that's an interesting thought. The thing is
he's always had kind of a pacifist side since the beginning, he's always
questioned the morality of what he's doing, so I'm not sure how he could do a
revionist Seagal movie. But I definitely think Prince of Pistols, if he ever
makes it, will be even more personal than his other movies.
Cinema seems to
be the most widely consumed art form, yet its theories and history are not
taught in many schools to our children.
How would you suggest cinema be integrated into the school
curriculum? And what kind of adults
would populate the future if Seagalogy were taught in school today?
VERN: Shit, I don't know. I don't know if kids need
to learn about movies if they don't want to. I do think film schools need to
start teaching visual storytelling again, the simple art of telling a story
through imagery.
How do you feel
chatrooms, talkbacks, and internet film analysts, such as yourself, have
changed the way audiences view films and the way studios make them? And how would you like it to change the
essence of the film industry and artform?
VERN: Well, I do think there is a nerdening of
America going on, people are more likely to look at movies critically than they
did ten years ago because they're more likely to be reading about the movies
and exchanging opinions about them and following the headlines as they're being
made and all the nerd shit we do. I don't know if it has changed how studios
make movies, unless this is the reason for all this super hero movies they keep
making.
When speaking of
films such as those in the Seagal canon, people toss the term “guilty pleasure”
around a fair bit. What do you think
that term means? I sure as shit don’t
know. It sounds paralegal. Do you think me liking DOA: Dead or Alive
could limit my employment possibilities and keep me from entering the
VERN: I hate that one too. I figure if you like a
movie you shouldn't be ashamed of it. Unless it's child porn or something. If
somebody refers to movies as a guilty pleasure just assume they are talking
about their huge collection of child porn.
I had an
experience recently where I went to see Blade Runner and I used to really like
that movie, and I still admired the design of it and the world and everything,
but I realized I didn't really enjoy watching it anymore. And I felt kind of
bad about it, so that was a guilty unpleasure.
If there was one
misconception about Seagal’s films that you could clear up, what would it be?
VERN: They're not all 3 word titles. Less than half
of them are. That's bullshit. Also he doesn't have a ponytail in all of them.
No, I don't know
if there are really alot of misconceptions, because most of the people talking
shit about Seagal movies have only seen a couple of them. It's not so much
misconceptions as a general disrespect toward his movies. Obviously I
understand some of that because the movies are pretty funny, that's part of why
I enjoy them. But with Seagalogy I'm trying to show why I think they're
entertaining and show that his movies are more unique and more meaningful than
people give them credit for.
Thank you for
your time. I wish you all the best with
your writing and the success of Seagalogy.
VERN: No, thank you.
After finishing
my conversation with Vern I thought about the future of Seagal. I know that having only seen Fire Down Below and On Deadly
Ground, I have quite a library of film experiences ahead of me. I plan to rent Belly of the Beast and Exit
Wounds based on Vern’s analysis. But
what about Seagalogists like Vern and his many other fans, what do they have to
look forward to? I did some thinking, and
I feel that the best thing for Seagal to do next would be a video game. I know that Jet Li and Chow Yun Phat have
both had original video games made using their personas in action video games
in which they provided some motion capture acting and voice talent. John Woo even wrote and directed the video
game for Mr. Phat. There was supposed to
be a Dirty Harry video game and Clint Eastwood had even signed on for doing the
voice acting, but it fell through. I
guess Dirty Harry was too character driven to turn into a video game. But Sean Connery posed and acted for a retro
From Russia With Love game and other nostalgia games based on films such as The Warriors and Scarface have become pretty standard.
I haven’t really
played a video game since the SuperNintendo, but I’ve kept abreast on
developments in the industry. I see all
these games coming out that appeal to an older nostalgia audience. I’m sure a video game could be dreamed up for
Seagal fans to play as Seagal doing kicks and wrist snaps through countless
bars and the such in a plot rigged for action.
This could be a big hit, or at least a medium hit. I offer this idea to Seagal for free. I also advise getting Vern on board in some
sort of expert consulting role and paying him well. And I further advise using my storyline of a
Native American taking on a corrupt white police force after they rape a girl
on his reservation.
And no, thank
you, Vern.
If you liked this, here are some other
recommended articles:
My essay analyzing this
revolutionary film series.
Successful trilogizing complete!
This is a film
based on video game based on a wet dream.