---
title: 'How One Movie Trilogy Ruined Action Films Forever | The Art Of Film'
source: 'https://youtube.com/watch?v=evQZLw33htE'
video_id: 'evQZLw33htE'
date: 2026-06-30
duration_sec: 485
---

# How One Movie Trilogy Ruined Action Films Forever | The Art Of Film

> Source: [How One Movie Trilogy Ruined Action Films Forever | The Art Of Film](https://youtube.com/watch?v=evQZLw33htE)

## Summary

The video analyzes how the 'Bourne' trilogy revolutionized action film editing, transitioning from clear, wide-angle shots to a shaky, fast-cut style that prioritizes intensity and sensory experience over clarity. It argues that while Paul Greengrass's technique was deliberate and effective, its widespread imitation by other filmmakers led to confusing and poorly choreographed action sequences.

### Key Points

- **Shift from clarity to chaos in action films** [00:16] — Older action films, especially martial arts, used wide angles and few cuts to show physical feats. Modern action films are often choppy and confusing.
- **Bourne trilogy's influence on modern action editing** [01:10] — The original Bourne trilogy is a major influence, introducing jittery handheld cameras and rapid cuts that became a template for modern action.
- **Average Shot Length (ASL) decline in Bourne films** [01:40] — Bourne Identity had an ASL of ~4 seconds, Supremacy ~2.4 seconds, and Ultimatum ~2 seconds (3,200 shots in 105 minutes).
- **Greengrass's immersive camera work vs. classic style** [02:12] — Doug Liman used classic clear angles; Paul Greengrass uses shaky, close-up cameras to immerse the audience rather than let them observe.
- **Bourne editing mimics sensory perception** [02:42] — The editing mimics how human consciousness gathers bits of information to construct a whole, especially in chase scenes from Bourne's perspective.
- **Fast editing used as a trick to hide action** [03:43] — Hollywood adopted Greengrass's style to use visual trickery (cut before impact) to make anyone an action star, but this kills momentum and looks fake.
- **Bourne's authentic impact delivery** [04:12] — In Bourne, cuts never hide the action—every blow is fully registered on camera before cutting, making fights feel authentic.
- **Bourne's clever use of wide angles** [04:49] — Despite chaos, Bourne sequences use frequent wide-angle shots to maintain spatial awareness and guide viewer focus.
- **Bad imitations: excessive cuts and repetition** [05:32] — Failed imitations exaggerate the style, repeating the same shot multiple times (e.g., Liam Neeson jumping a fence ten times), losing coherence.
- **Absence of music in Bourne action sequences** [06:10] — Bourne uses no background music; the sounds of impacts and tools create rhythm and tension naturally.

### Conclusion

The Bourne trilogy's innovative editing technique was a deliberate tool for intensity and coherence, not a shortcut. The decline of modern action films stems from directors who copy the style without understanding its purpose, underestimating audiences' ability to detect manipulation.

## Transcript

You've probably seen this countless times, the shaky cameras, the fast cuts, and just plain overall mayhem. It's sometimes so bad that you may ask yourself, what am I watching?
So how do we exactly get to this? Let's rewind a bit. The one common denominator among older action films is clarity, and it makes sense.
Here action films, especially martial art pictures, focused on showing the physical feats of its stars. To achieve this, scenes were often shot in a wide angle, with most of the body visible in the frame.
The camera also rarely moves, and when it does, it follows the actions of its characters to accentuate speed and power. But modern action movies aren't shot this way anymore, instead they're choppy chaotic,
and a lot of times just confusing. When you compare these movies side by side, the difference is unmistakable. But perhaps the real shock comes when you realize that most of this is actually intentional.
So back to the question, how did we get to this point? Well, it's impossible to pinpoint a specific source, but one of the biggest influences was probably the original born trilogy. These films were revolutionary in the action genre, not to mention both a commercial and
critical success. And from jittery hand-out cameras to rapidly firing cuts, you can trace all the problems in modern action films to this series. An easy way to see how the born trilogy changed to action films is by looking at the average
shot length, or ASL for short. It's a cinematic statistic that measures the average length of a scene before a cut. In the first film, born and identity, the ASL was around 4 seconds, which then became 2.4
seconds in its sequel, Born Supremacy, and in the final film, Born Ultimatum, a total of about 3,200 shots were squashed into 105 minute running time. That's a cut happening almost every 2 seconds of the film.
Another change you can notice is in the camera work. Doug Lyman and Born Identity shot his sequence more like the classic action cinemas we're used to. It angles and fewer cuts to capture the action as clearly as possible.
But under Paul Greengrass's direction, the camera becomes a lot shakier and closer to the action. He prefers his audience to experience the film rather than to simply observe it. And that's what Born really is, it's an experience.
The series is actually edited in a similar way our consciousness and sensory perception works, now we gather bits of information to create a larger hole. This is especially evident in chase scenes like this, where we see everything from Born's
perspective and are given the chance to interpret different clues to track down a target. There is an intensity to these films that we can't quite place. And the secret lies in how Greengrass chooses to shoot an action sequence.
Although every cut and angle seems choppy, chaotic, and mostly random, once you take a closer look at it, you realize that everything serves a purpose. But not everyone dedicates the same amount of thought like Greengrass, and sadly, it's
made for some pretty terrible action films in recent years. There's a reason Hollywood was so quick to adopt Greengrass's style, because fast paced editing makes it easy to use visual trickery to turn anyone into an action star.
All it requires is to put three different shots together. Action, impact, and reaction. This is why we often see a cut right before the impact, then it cuts to the moment after
the impact takes place. They cut to hide the action. This not only makes the action look fake, but it kills the overall momentum of the scene as well. But in Born, each cut is a deliberate act to quicken the pace of the film.
It's never really used to hide anything. We hit, every impact, is fully delivered in front of the camera. The camera doesn't cut until the blow has been fully registered, making the fight more
authentic and engaging. The combination of action, impact, and reaction still exists in this method of editing. It's not as obvious when replicated incorrectly.
And although Greengrass does sacrifice some level of clarity for the sake of adding intensity, it doesn't mean he's abandoned it completely. In fact, when you watch any of the action sequences from the Born series, you'd be surprised
to notice that it isn't as confusing as it first appears. There are clever tricks at play here, if you know where to look. First check out the frequent use of wide angle shots like these.
They let the audience understand the space and the placement of each character. Sometimes in an obvious angle as this, from above, as the fight moves on to a new location. For how most of the blows, the impact, and brief inserts whenever a new weapon is acquired
are all centered on the frame. Guiding our focus, gathering these hints of information more quickly. Now let's look at bad examples. The biggest problems in films that try to imitate the Born style is that they take it too
far, exaggerating everything. For instance, in this scene you can see the fast cuts, kind of like the Born style, but it's paired with the same shot, repeated numerous times in rapid succession.
We've seen repetitions in past action films hundreds of times, but not quite to this extreme. And let's admit it, there's no reason to watch Liam Neeson jumping over the same fence ten times.
Even in car chase sequences where repetitions are bound to happen, one impact is enough if shot correctly.
Or even in music, most recent films have a track that plays throughout the entire action sequences, setting the pace and sometimes fading it out to accentuate key moments like this.
But it's the entirely opposite in Born. There is no music. What builds momentum and tension is the actual sound of the action itself.
Every sound from the brutal impact to the various tools of combat creates a rhythm of beat without a single note.
All these small details and tricks make the action of Born more coherent and more intense than anything we've seen before or since. It's a beautiful combination of what was successful in traditional action films with a new innovative
technique. Born can't be blamed for how bad action films are these days, but the blame is on filmmakers who are trying to replicate its technique and failing miserably.
Audiences are smarter than what some directors believe. We can easily notice when we are being manipulated to see and feel in a way that is not natural to us. And perhaps that's what differentiates Born from so many of its predecessors.
It knows that editing can be used to make anyone an action star but not necessarily a good action film. And it's aware what this genre of cinema is really about in the end.