Skyscraper/Die Hard - Quality Via Structure
Thoughts On: Skyscraper (2018) & Die Hard (1988)
A tower besieged by terrorists that must be infiltrated by a man with particular skills and a loved one in harms way.
I had two hours to kill yesterday and so decided to step into the closest cinema and watch the earliest screening of any movie possible. And at 10 O'clock in the morning that movie was Skyscraper.
I had heard bad things about Skyscraper; how it was a terrible and needless rip-off of Die Hard with basically no merit. I was surprised, however, by how little I saw this. Both films have very similar plots: a police official of sorts has to infiltrate a tower under siege of terrorists because his family is within. But, whilst the premise of Skyscraper is undoubtedly unoriginal, and whilst those making the film embraced the comparison with Die Hard through certain film posters, I believe Skyscraper does a good job in separating itself from Die Hard on the directorial and dramatic level. And it does this through a script that is derivative, but maybe better structured than the original Die Hard's.
There is difficulty in declaring this as Die Hard is such a loved movie, but I believe Skyscraper may be better in some respects. (How good either film is, I would say, is limited; both are well constructed pieces of entertainment). I want to make clear my apprehension and caution in suggesting this as Die Hard has been tested across three decades now and I have only seen Skyscraper once. But, again, having seen this movie only once, I managed to see through my pre-judgements and find a movie that is certainly no more profound than Die Hard, but maybe a little more entertaining and interesting in its own realm.
To assess Skyscraper, it is then important to highlight that, at its core, this is a kind of movie that is all about the script. In American action, adventure, crime, comedy and mystery movies (often horror films too), it is very apparent that all is built and viewed through a structural assessment of the script. In fact, I believe that, whilst the ambiguous "glitz and glamour" is often thought to be the crux of the Hollywood aesthetic, the truth lies in the screenplay. Anyone may get a sense of this if they try to learn to make a (Hollywood) film. Pick up, then, a book about making a movie and it will always point to the script first. Pick up another book on screenwriting specifically, and you will almost definitely find yourself with a book about building (or "fleshing out") a character and structuring a story. Hollywood's structuralism--and I say this having not studied this topic too closely--seems to have emerged from their studio system, which not only formalised the film business, but also the process of making a film; this is why there is a classical Hollywood style of directing built around terminology still used today: one-shot, two-shot, dolly, medium close-up, establishing shot, etc. However, it is sometimes overlooked that the script was also formalised. The reason for this, in my estimation, is because the American philosophy of film has always fundamentally been predicated on entertainment. Film, to the American audience and the American filmmaker, then has a very ambiguous base, one I would equate to happiness.
I would equate a philosophy of entertainment to a philosophy of happiness - a mode of thinking and being that seeks to only entertain to a mode that only seeks to be happy - as both philosophies are without solid bases; both then fall apart with one question: What is happiness/entertainment? This question may also be phrased as such: What does it mean to be happy/entertained? Before you attempt to answer this question yourself, it is crucial to ask if this introspection is embedded into the general film-as-entertainment philosophy - or even any philosophical structure that suggests that the root meaning of anything is something as vapid and capricious as just happiness or just entertainment.
The best attempt I've seen at rationalising with the Hollywood philosophy of entertainment comes from the 1941 film, Sullivan's Travels. The assertion made by this comedy is that there is value and meaning in laughter; a value and meaning predicated on (unfortunately, this is where the exploration runs aground) happiness. The basic implication of Sullivan's Travels, much like other self-reflexive Hollywood films such as Singin' In The Rain, is then that entertainment provides happiness to the masses. This seems to be the depth of the Hollywood philosophy of entertainment. (There is more to be found in Sullivan's Travels, but it is not necessarily asserted by the film, rather, represented and possibly extrapolated). The limitations of this philosophy are important to note because it is through this rather weak conceptual framework that one learns and teaches others how to make films.
In Hollywood, film is a part of show business, thus is it partly a commodity and an object with which to make money (or to satisfy ego). Beyond this, there is the philosophy of wanting to entertain. Yet, how does one teach and learn this philosophy? Hollywood's usual answer: give audiences what they want. How do you figure this out? With screenplays, you take what works and break it down into its basic components, implying a universal structure, or beats that must always be hit so that the audience is entertained: you formalise. It is through this reduction that Hollywood films, especially genre films with emphasis on plot, feel unified under a banner of Americanism; this is the feel of a Hollywood film, its structuralism or formalism.
I bring up this subject matter not for its own sake, but to start towards a comparison between Die Hard and Skyscraper. My general purpose in doing this is to highlight how Skyscraper is not necessarily a terrible film, most certainly one that is not made redundant via reference to Die Hard - which this betters in certain respects. The major point of comparison that must be made between these films is in the script and its structure, which is why I delved into the Hollywood structuralist philosophy. Die Hard is renowned for its tight script and, in my opinion, its self-justifying formulaic nature. This is actually true of many renowned Hollywood movies (maybe not all of the classics released between the late-60s and mid-70s; they are so often renowned for their breaking of tradition). As implied, the Hollywood philosophy of entertainment has no solid base and so it turns to formalism of some kind to build a value system predicated on measurement. There is, I believe, value beneath the philosophy of entertainment that reaches into ideas of the archetype and unconscious truth, but we shall not delve into them. It is important to make note of these, however, as, when a deeper truth below Hollywood movie structures resonate through their surface values, the formula becomes self-justifying - and this is because there is a more essential truth beneath the clumsily contrived reasoning for cinema's existence that Hollywood, its audiences, critics and filmmakers so often espouse that can shine through. (This more essential truth is what we so often try to access when looking at the meaning of a film on this blog - Ready Player One is just one recent example).
Without getting lost, let us zoom in on Die Hard. Die Hard's greatest structural virtues lie in the fact that it is 'tight'. What this means is that it has very little fat on it. However, what 'very little fat' means is that everything relates to plot. This manifests in Die Hard with numerous set-ups and pay-offs, which is to say that if the movie opens with information about the status of a marriage, it will constantly objectify this and relate it to the plot. This is why the picture of John McClain in his wife's office becomes a symbol of conflict; not only does it embody the fact that their marriage is falling apart, but it may get John or his wife killed. With a closer look at Die Hard, you can find many pairs of this sort as the nature of a tight script is the fact that everything that is put on the screenplay page has a reason for being there, reason often attached to another component of the narrative on another page of the script. On screen, the perfect movie in regards to this perspective will not have one shot in it that is not essential to the telling of the story - in other words, to the translation of information and genre-based entertainment of some kind (e.g. comedic, action-based, romantic or horrifying moments). Other examples of films like this would then be Home Alone, Casablanca and Chinatown, but one of the tightest scripts ever written might just be Back To The Future - if not Die Hard.
In being derivative of Die Hard, Skyscraper is incredibly tight, constantly emphasising certain details only because they will eventually tangle into the plot. Skyscraper, much like Die Hard, then makes the plot a determining factor and measurement of its own value. And because a plot is merely the stream of information and happenings of a story, a plot-centric film's value lies in its ability to have us follow events and gather information as to do so and, furthermore, find joy in doing so. Because the plot becomes a mildly engrossing game in Skyscraper, it is self-justifyingly tight. On this level, I believe it is quite possibly equal to Die Hard - at least approaching it. However, there are a few other elements of Skyscraper's formula that can be explored.
Firstly, logic. From a philosophy of entertainment and the plot comes a form of criticism entirely predicated on logic (the logic either characters or filmmakers display in their choice of actions). This form of criticism is probably best encapsulated by CinemaSins, but, more generally, an approach to film criticism through a movie's own internal logic is very common.
A film can be measured in regards to logic with two elements: the set-up and then the drama it inspires. Primarily, logic is effected by the tone or nature of the drama. This is the element of the film that implies how seriously you must take it and to what degree you must suspend your imagination. If a film then opens with a girl spontaneously breaking out into a song about a place over the rainbow, it welcomes into its general logic houses that can fly and, therefore, witches, talking scarecrows, walking tin men and lions that are cowardly as they walk and talk. The reason why this is so requires much thought and is a very complex topic. Alas, the first tone-setting element of Skyscraper's logic is typhlodramatic - that is to say that the drama manifested is unreal, but moves towards realism. This tone-setting element is the skyscraper which the film is based upon; it is a marvel of technology and the world's tallest building. The skyscraper's existence is unreal, yet it is pretty believable, especially considering all the drama that emerges from the skyscraper's existence; drama sourcing from the safety systems, officials, security, terrorists, etc.
The second element of a film's logic is all in relation to the set up; it is the maintenance of a certain tone of realism or verisimilitude (believability). Sustaining its tone, the drama that follows from the outset of our introduction to the skyscraper of Skyscraper is almost always typhlodramatic - which is to say, it is almost always believeable despite being based on unreal events. There are points, however, when the action and drama moves the tone towards melodrama somewhat unwelcomingly. One instance of this is a huge jump between a crane and building that no human could possibly make, and so is rather unbelievable and non-typhlodramatic. Furthermore, the film does a somewhat good job of inflicting damage and pain upon its main character, The Rock, but, it must be said that it is rather forgetful and so neglects certain wounds that should effect him across the entirety of the narrative - which breaks its logical fortitude. What Skyscraper does manage to do, however, is give its central character a strong weakness that always plays a part of the action; that is, he lost his leg through a mistake he made as an officer. This leg debilitates him physically and mentally, and so is one of the film's central symbols upon which a character arc is developed (the leg becomes a strength) and physical conflict intensified. This leaves the film's typhlodrama more complex than that in Die Hard, but not as stable; it tries to do more, to be bigger and better than Die Hard, but stumbles in doing so.
It is because Skyscraper does try to do so much more with its physical drama that I found this slightly more impressive than Die Hard. What's more, I found the presentation of the action to be often more striking than that displayed in Die Hard, but nonetheless the direction and use of the camera, especially considering the technological advantage Skyscraper has over Die Hard, leaves quite a lot to be desired. That said, indeed, Skyscraper loses the precision of its predecessor in attempting to up its scale, and so can be said to not be as tight, but, the scope of its drama, the size of its world and the breadths of the plot overshadow Die Hard, which is not as tense, not as expansive and far more secluded. The effect and outcome of this, for me personally, was positive; if Skyscraper, like Die Hard, wasn't aiming to do much beyond plot and entertainment, I appreciate its relative momentum and scale - all of which is sustained and wrapped up in a plot whose logic is rather solid and drama that is, sometimes melodramatic, but often more typhlodramatically intense.
The last point of comparison that I will make concerns the meeting of drama and character. Die Hard and Skyscraper are, in my view, romances of the masculine variety. This means that the drama is physically centred, but the themes all relate to love and romance more generally. (For the sake of clarity, a feminine romance is predicated on emotional conflict in relation to love - and the designation of gender is, for a lack of a better word, transcendental, not related to male and female persons). The characters in this masculine romance are built upon a dichotomy of action and love; in fact, it is their character arcs that establish a constant movement through action and into love (feminine romances see love become action). We see this in both films with both central characters saving their respective family members. It is then through their problem solving and, for lack of a better word, ass kicking, that they are allowed to establish and secure romance of some kind. Die Hard has a stronger arc embedded into it as their is a lack of romance at the inception of the narrative, but a surplus in the end. Skyscraper, on the other hand, starts out with an abundance of romance that is constantly fought to be maintained and preserved - that said, it does intensify.
Whilst the acuteness of a character arc is a way of judging the quality of character, the most fundamental means is the search for meaning through character action (drama). So, whilst Die Hard contains an acuter character arc and general narrative arc (the change that occurs over the narrative is rather dramatic), it holds less meaning.
In being an archetypal 'rescue the princess from the dragon' narrative, Die Hard sees its main character venture into a place and extract wholeness (a bond with a woman) via a fight against evil (a dragon) with goodness. It complexifies this commentary with the dragon being two-faced; a potential divorce as well as potential death. However, because there is no relation built between these two faces, Die Hard lacks individual expressivity and so has no specific meaning to extract beyond, 'sacrifice for the greater good and you become more whole' - yet this is what all rescue the princess narratives suggest. Skyscraper is slightly more developed than Die Hard because it tries to say something about the nature of trust. So, whilst out hero goes into the skyscraper to defeat the terrorists (the dragon), he must maintain the faith his children and wife have in him. Because the severity of the drama is not at all deep and the narrative arc rather flat, the main character never loses the trust of his wife and children, nor is their trust ever in deficit. As a result, he merely builds further trust (further romance) among them. And whilst this lacks depth, it is given expressivity through the symbolic action of turning something off and back on again - such as a phone. This introduces an element to the rescue the princess narrative that not only suggest that one must sacrifice to become whole, but maintains that sacrifice takes a toll on the body and mind, and that, to do good, one must trust in the inherent functions of a system. Thus, to turn something off before turning it back on again relates to the narrative's exploration of an ex-officer, an officer that is essentially switched off, but switched on again, constantly beaten down, yet given the strength to rise and beat the dragon. The dragon itself in this narrative becomes fatigue; it is as if this is what the dragon breathes instead of fire. The only way to defeat this fatigue-breathing dragon is to submit, to sleep and to wake again and take another step towards coming into contact with it so that a deadly blow may be landed. Granted, this commentary is only briefly woven into the fabric of this narrative's drama, but it is there because of the more abstract symbolism and metaphors.
Because the main character of Skyscraper manages to carry this dramatic and symbolic meaning, he becomes a character of greater depth in my view. There is more to character than just meaning, but, on this basis Skyscraper is better structured than Die Hard. In other respects, such as the quality of the writing and the complexity of character reasoning and general being, one could argue that John McClain is a stronger character, but, in regards to structure, I find Skyscraper's main character, Will, stronger (though, far less memorable by virtue of the lack of complexity and individuality).
To bring things towards a close, I'd hazard to say that Skyscraper is the better structured film. Yet, whilst structure is the centralised element of both Die Hard and Skyscraper, there is more to the films than just this (e.g. character, entertainment and meaning beyond structure, world building, general aesthetics, etc.). So, it is not possible to conclude which is definitively the better film, but, I certainly do not think that Skyscraper is outright subservient to Die Hard. I leave things open to you now: How bad or good is Skyscraper in your view, and how can you rationalise your opinion?
Previous post:
The Functions Of Dramatis Personae - Concept-Object Reduction
Next poster:
End Of The Week Shorts #67
More from me:
amazon.com/author/danielslack
A tower besieged by terrorists that must be infiltrated by a man with particular skills and a loved one in harms way.
I had two hours to kill yesterday and so decided to step into the closest cinema and watch the earliest screening of any movie possible. And at 10 O'clock in the morning that movie was Skyscraper.
I had heard bad things about Skyscraper; how it was a terrible and needless rip-off of Die Hard with basically no merit. I was surprised, however, by how little I saw this. Both films have very similar plots: a police official of sorts has to infiltrate a tower under siege of terrorists because his family is within. But, whilst the premise of Skyscraper is undoubtedly unoriginal, and whilst those making the film embraced the comparison with Die Hard through certain film posters, I believe Skyscraper does a good job in separating itself from Die Hard on the directorial and dramatic level. And it does this through a script that is derivative, but maybe better structured than the original Die Hard's.
There is difficulty in declaring this as Die Hard is such a loved movie, but I believe Skyscraper may be better in some respects. (How good either film is, I would say, is limited; both are well constructed pieces of entertainment). I want to make clear my apprehension and caution in suggesting this as Die Hard has been tested across three decades now and I have only seen Skyscraper once. But, again, having seen this movie only once, I managed to see through my pre-judgements and find a movie that is certainly no more profound than Die Hard, but maybe a little more entertaining and interesting in its own realm.
To assess Skyscraper, it is then important to highlight that, at its core, this is a kind of movie that is all about the script. In American action, adventure, crime, comedy and mystery movies (often horror films too), it is very apparent that all is built and viewed through a structural assessment of the script. In fact, I believe that, whilst the ambiguous "glitz and glamour" is often thought to be the crux of the Hollywood aesthetic, the truth lies in the screenplay. Anyone may get a sense of this if they try to learn to make a (Hollywood) film. Pick up, then, a book about making a movie and it will always point to the script first. Pick up another book on screenwriting specifically, and you will almost definitely find yourself with a book about building (or "fleshing out") a character and structuring a story. Hollywood's structuralism--and I say this having not studied this topic too closely--seems to have emerged from their studio system, which not only formalised the film business, but also the process of making a film; this is why there is a classical Hollywood style of directing built around terminology still used today: one-shot, two-shot, dolly, medium close-up, establishing shot, etc. However, it is sometimes overlooked that the script was also formalised. The reason for this, in my estimation, is because the American philosophy of film has always fundamentally been predicated on entertainment. Film, to the American audience and the American filmmaker, then has a very ambiguous base, one I would equate to happiness.
I would equate a philosophy of entertainment to a philosophy of happiness - a mode of thinking and being that seeks to only entertain to a mode that only seeks to be happy - as both philosophies are without solid bases; both then fall apart with one question: What is happiness/entertainment? This question may also be phrased as such: What does it mean to be happy/entertained? Before you attempt to answer this question yourself, it is crucial to ask if this introspection is embedded into the general film-as-entertainment philosophy - or even any philosophical structure that suggests that the root meaning of anything is something as vapid and capricious as just happiness or just entertainment.
The best attempt I've seen at rationalising with the Hollywood philosophy of entertainment comes from the 1941 film, Sullivan's Travels. The assertion made by this comedy is that there is value and meaning in laughter; a value and meaning predicated on (unfortunately, this is where the exploration runs aground) happiness. The basic implication of Sullivan's Travels, much like other self-reflexive Hollywood films such as Singin' In The Rain, is then that entertainment provides happiness to the masses. This seems to be the depth of the Hollywood philosophy of entertainment. (There is more to be found in Sullivan's Travels, but it is not necessarily asserted by the film, rather, represented and possibly extrapolated). The limitations of this philosophy are important to note because it is through this rather weak conceptual framework that one learns and teaches others how to make films.
In Hollywood, film is a part of show business, thus is it partly a commodity and an object with which to make money (or to satisfy ego). Beyond this, there is the philosophy of wanting to entertain. Yet, how does one teach and learn this philosophy? Hollywood's usual answer: give audiences what they want. How do you figure this out? With screenplays, you take what works and break it down into its basic components, implying a universal structure, or beats that must always be hit so that the audience is entertained: you formalise. It is through this reduction that Hollywood films, especially genre films with emphasis on plot, feel unified under a banner of Americanism; this is the feel of a Hollywood film, its structuralism or formalism.
I bring up this subject matter not for its own sake, but to start towards a comparison between Die Hard and Skyscraper. My general purpose in doing this is to highlight how Skyscraper is not necessarily a terrible film, most certainly one that is not made redundant via reference to Die Hard - which this betters in certain respects. The major point of comparison that must be made between these films is in the script and its structure, which is why I delved into the Hollywood structuralist philosophy. Die Hard is renowned for its tight script and, in my opinion, its self-justifying formulaic nature. This is actually true of many renowned Hollywood movies (maybe not all of the classics released between the late-60s and mid-70s; they are so often renowned for their breaking of tradition). As implied, the Hollywood philosophy of entertainment has no solid base and so it turns to formalism of some kind to build a value system predicated on measurement. There is, I believe, value beneath the philosophy of entertainment that reaches into ideas of the archetype and unconscious truth, but we shall not delve into them. It is important to make note of these, however, as, when a deeper truth below Hollywood movie structures resonate through their surface values, the formula becomes self-justifying - and this is because there is a more essential truth beneath the clumsily contrived reasoning for cinema's existence that Hollywood, its audiences, critics and filmmakers so often espouse that can shine through. (This more essential truth is what we so often try to access when looking at the meaning of a film on this blog - Ready Player One is just one recent example).
Without getting lost, let us zoom in on Die Hard. Die Hard's greatest structural virtues lie in the fact that it is 'tight'. What this means is that it has very little fat on it. However, what 'very little fat' means is that everything relates to plot. This manifests in Die Hard with numerous set-ups and pay-offs, which is to say that if the movie opens with information about the status of a marriage, it will constantly objectify this and relate it to the plot. This is why the picture of John McClain in his wife's office becomes a symbol of conflict; not only does it embody the fact that their marriage is falling apart, but it may get John or his wife killed. With a closer look at Die Hard, you can find many pairs of this sort as the nature of a tight script is the fact that everything that is put on the screenplay page has a reason for being there, reason often attached to another component of the narrative on another page of the script. On screen, the perfect movie in regards to this perspective will not have one shot in it that is not essential to the telling of the story - in other words, to the translation of information and genre-based entertainment of some kind (e.g. comedic, action-based, romantic or horrifying moments). Other examples of films like this would then be Home Alone, Casablanca and Chinatown, but one of the tightest scripts ever written might just be Back To The Future - if not Die Hard.
In being derivative of Die Hard, Skyscraper is incredibly tight, constantly emphasising certain details only because they will eventually tangle into the plot. Skyscraper, much like Die Hard, then makes the plot a determining factor and measurement of its own value. And because a plot is merely the stream of information and happenings of a story, a plot-centric film's value lies in its ability to have us follow events and gather information as to do so and, furthermore, find joy in doing so. Because the plot becomes a mildly engrossing game in Skyscraper, it is self-justifyingly tight. On this level, I believe it is quite possibly equal to Die Hard - at least approaching it. However, there are a few other elements of Skyscraper's formula that can be explored.
Firstly, logic. From a philosophy of entertainment and the plot comes a form of criticism entirely predicated on logic (the logic either characters or filmmakers display in their choice of actions). This form of criticism is probably best encapsulated by CinemaSins, but, more generally, an approach to film criticism through a movie's own internal logic is very common.
A film can be measured in regards to logic with two elements: the set-up and then the drama it inspires. Primarily, logic is effected by the tone or nature of the drama. This is the element of the film that implies how seriously you must take it and to what degree you must suspend your imagination. If a film then opens with a girl spontaneously breaking out into a song about a place over the rainbow, it welcomes into its general logic houses that can fly and, therefore, witches, talking scarecrows, walking tin men and lions that are cowardly as they walk and talk. The reason why this is so requires much thought and is a very complex topic. Alas, the first tone-setting element of Skyscraper's logic is typhlodramatic - that is to say that the drama manifested is unreal, but moves towards realism. This tone-setting element is the skyscraper which the film is based upon; it is a marvel of technology and the world's tallest building. The skyscraper's existence is unreal, yet it is pretty believable, especially considering all the drama that emerges from the skyscraper's existence; drama sourcing from the safety systems, officials, security, terrorists, etc.
The second element of a film's logic is all in relation to the set up; it is the maintenance of a certain tone of realism or verisimilitude (believability). Sustaining its tone, the drama that follows from the outset of our introduction to the skyscraper of Skyscraper is almost always typhlodramatic - which is to say, it is almost always believeable despite being based on unreal events. There are points, however, when the action and drama moves the tone towards melodrama somewhat unwelcomingly. One instance of this is a huge jump between a crane and building that no human could possibly make, and so is rather unbelievable and non-typhlodramatic. Furthermore, the film does a somewhat good job of inflicting damage and pain upon its main character, The Rock, but, it must be said that it is rather forgetful and so neglects certain wounds that should effect him across the entirety of the narrative - which breaks its logical fortitude. What Skyscraper does manage to do, however, is give its central character a strong weakness that always plays a part of the action; that is, he lost his leg through a mistake he made as an officer. This leg debilitates him physically and mentally, and so is one of the film's central symbols upon which a character arc is developed (the leg becomes a strength) and physical conflict intensified. This leaves the film's typhlodrama more complex than that in Die Hard, but not as stable; it tries to do more, to be bigger and better than Die Hard, but stumbles in doing so.
It is because Skyscraper does try to do so much more with its physical drama that I found this slightly more impressive than Die Hard. What's more, I found the presentation of the action to be often more striking than that displayed in Die Hard, but nonetheless the direction and use of the camera, especially considering the technological advantage Skyscraper has over Die Hard, leaves quite a lot to be desired. That said, indeed, Skyscraper loses the precision of its predecessor in attempting to up its scale, and so can be said to not be as tight, but, the scope of its drama, the size of its world and the breadths of the plot overshadow Die Hard, which is not as tense, not as expansive and far more secluded. The effect and outcome of this, for me personally, was positive; if Skyscraper, like Die Hard, wasn't aiming to do much beyond plot and entertainment, I appreciate its relative momentum and scale - all of which is sustained and wrapped up in a plot whose logic is rather solid and drama that is, sometimes melodramatic, but often more typhlodramatically intense.
The last point of comparison that I will make concerns the meeting of drama and character. Die Hard and Skyscraper are, in my view, romances of the masculine variety. This means that the drama is physically centred, but the themes all relate to love and romance more generally. (For the sake of clarity, a feminine romance is predicated on emotional conflict in relation to love - and the designation of gender is, for a lack of a better word, transcendental, not related to male and female persons). The characters in this masculine romance are built upon a dichotomy of action and love; in fact, it is their character arcs that establish a constant movement through action and into love (feminine romances see love become action). We see this in both films with both central characters saving their respective family members. It is then through their problem solving and, for lack of a better word, ass kicking, that they are allowed to establish and secure romance of some kind. Die Hard has a stronger arc embedded into it as their is a lack of romance at the inception of the narrative, but a surplus in the end. Skyscraper, on the other hand, starts out with an abundance of romance that is constantly fought to be maintained and preserved - that said, it does intensify.
Whilst the acuteness of a character arc is a way of judging the quality of character, the most fundamental means is the search for meaning through character action (drama). So, whilst Die Hard contains an acuter character arc and general narrative arc (the change that occurs over the narrative is rather dramatic), it holds less meaning.
In being an archetypal 'rescue the princess from the dragon' narrative, Die Hard sees its main character venture into a place and extract wholeness (a bond with a woman) via a fight against evil (a dragon) with goodness. It complexifies this commentary with the dragon being two-faced; a potential divorce as well as potential death. However, because there is no relation built between these two faces, Die Hard lacks individual expressivity and so has no specific meaning to extract beyond, 'sacrifice for the greater good and you become more whole' - yet this is what all rescue the princess narratives suggest. Skyscraper is slightly more developed than Die Hard because it tries to say something about the nature of trust. So, whilst out hero goes into the skyscraper to defeat the terrorists (the dragon), he must maintain the faith his children and wife have in him. Because the severity of the drama is not at all deep and the narrative arc rather flat, the main character never loses the trust of his wife and children, nor is their trust ever in deficit. As a result, he merely builds further trust (further romance) among them. And whilst this lacks depth, it is given expressivity through the symbolic action of turning something off and back on again - such as a phone. This introduces an element to the rescue the princess narrative that not only suggest that one must sacrifice to become whole, but maintains that sacrifice takes a toll on the body and mind, and that, to do good, one must trust in the inherent functions of a system. Thus, to turn something off before turning it back on again relates to the narrative's exploration of an ex-officer, an officer that is essentially switched off, but switched on again, constantly beaten down, yet given the strength to rise and beat the dragon. The dragon itself in this narrative becomes fatigue; it is as if this is what the dragon breathes instead of fire. The only way to defeat this fatigue-breathing dragon is to submit, to sleep and to wake again and take another step towards coming into contact with it so that a deadly blow may be landed. Granted, this commentary is only briefly woven into the fabric of this narrative's drama, but it is there because of the more abstract symbolism and metaphors.
Because the main character of Skyscraper manages to carry this dramatic and symbolic meaning, he becomes a character of greater depth in my view. There is more to character than just meaning, but, on this basis Skyscraper is better structured than Die Hard. In other respects, such as the quality of the writing and the complexity of character reasoning and general being, one could argue that John McClain is a stronger character, but, in regards to structure, I find Skyscraper's main character, Will, stronger (though, far less memorable by virtue of the lack of complexity and individuality).
To bring things towards a close, I'd hazard to say that Skyscraper is the better structured film. Yet, whilst structure is the centralised element of both Die Hard and Skyscraper, there is more to the films than just this (e.g. character, entertainment and meaning beyond structure, world building, general aesthetics, etc.). So, it is not possible to conclude which is definitively the better film, but, I certainly do not think that Skyscraper is outright subservient to Die Hard. I leave things open to you now: How bad or good is Skyscraper in your view, and how can you rationalise your opinion?
Previous post:
The Functions Of Dramatis Personae - Concept-Object Reduction
Next poster:
End Of The Week Shorts #67
More from me:
amazon.com/author/danielslack
