In a climactic moment from The Expendables 4, Jason Statham’s character (Lee Christmas) is shown bracing firmly as he aims a weapon toward off-screen adversaries. The lighting is stark and dramatic, typical of the film’s high-contrast style: a mix of flickering amber glow from nearby fires and deep shadow encloses him, highlighting the sweat and grit on his face. His costume reinforces his hardened persona – he wears tactical black gear, including a fitted utility vest and fingerless gloves, with his muscular arms exposed. This practical, no-frills attire identifies him instantly as a seasoned mercenary and aligns with the franchise’s throwback to 1980s action aesthetics (plain, rugged outfits rather than high-tech armor). The space around Statham is cluttered with industrial debris and smashed cargo, suggesting an ongoing battle in a warehouse or cargo ship hold. The backdrop is slightly out of focus, drawing our eyes to the character’s taut stance, but we can discern sparks and smoke, evidence of recent explosions or gunfire. Statham’s body movement is captured in mid-action: his knees bent in a combat stance, arms locked forward holding a rifle. Even in a still image, there’s an implied momentum – we sense he has just taken cover and swung up his weapon, or is about to advance. The intensity in his eyes and the strain of his muscles convey the high tension of the scene. Every element of the mise-en-scène (from the dim, fire-tinged lighting to the combat gear and shattered environment) works together to communicate danger and urgency. This single frame encapsulates the film’s blunt, muscular style of action storytelling: the hero is visually framed as a human weapon amid the chaos he both endures and creates. This image also reflects how the film’s action is portrayed through filmmaking techniques. The composition centers Statham in a medium close-up with the rifle barrel in the foreground, a shot that emphasizes his lethal focus. The camera is positioned at his eye level, putting the audience almost shoulder-to-shoulder with him. In the actual sequence, this would likely be intercut with shots of his target and wider shots of the surroundings. The still captures a moment of pause, but in context it’s part of a rapid, kinetic exchange. The tense mise-en-scène – blinking emergency lights, flying dust, the character’s coiled intensity – conveys a snapshot of violence-in-motion. It suggests that the editing and camera movement in this scene are aggressive: quick cuts and a roving camera amplify the chaos, while the image’s dramatic lighting and tight framing on the hero’s determined expression highlight the intensity of the violence he’s engaged in. In sum, the visual elements (from Statham’s battle-worn costume to the smoky, low-key lighting and the dynamic pose) all serve the film’s larger-than-life action mise-en-scène, where physical might and firepower dominate the screen.
Examining the sequence from which this image is taken, we find a textbook example of modern action editing. Within roughly one minute of screen time, there are likely dozens of edits – on the order of 30 to 40 distinct shots – creating a rapid tempo that keeps viewers on edge. This pacing results in an average shot length of only a couple of seconds or less, consistent with what film scholar David Bordwell calls “intensified continuity,” a style of continuity editing “amped up” to increase excitement
MEDIUM.COM
. Each cut typically corresponds to a beat of action: muzzle flashes trigger split-second flashcuts to targets getting hit, and a punch lands just as the camera angle shifts to accentuate the impact. The point of view alternates frequently. We see the action primarily from an objective perspective that showcases the hero (medium shots of Statham advancing or taking cover), but the sequence likely also includes over-the-shoulder angles giving a peek down his gun’s sights, as well as reaction shots of the enemies being gunned down. This shifting POV keeps the audience oriented in the geography of the battle while also aligning us momentarily with the hero’s perspective as he zeroes in on his foes.
Despite the ferocious speed of cutting, the editing strives to remain seamless in the sense of maintaining spatial and temporal continuity – we always understand where Christmas is relative to the bad guys. For example, if he ducks behind a pillar in one shot, the next shot might be a quick wide view showing an explosion nearby from the enemy’s gunfire, then cut back to him emerging to return fire. This adheres to continuity principles even as it accelerates the rhythm. However, the sheer rate of edits and the use of techniques like shaky hand-held camera work do draw attention to themselves at times. The camera likely moves constantly in this scene – swishing from side to side with each combatant’s motion and following the trajectory of bullets and flying debris. One moment the camera might crash zoom toward an enemy’s snarling face, the next it’s in a tight close-up on Statham’s eyes, then it’s whipping around to track a massive explosion erupting behind him. Such dynamic camerawork places the viewer in the thick of the action, giving what one critic calls an “’in your face’ experience” of spectacular violence
EUPPUBLISHING.COM
. The pacing is therefore breakneck; even a one-minute segment feels breathlessly intense, with no shot lingering long enough for the audience to relax.In terms of realism, the scene is only superficially realistic. The editing and camera style favor visceral impact over documentary-like believability. Bullet impacts and explosions are likely exaggerated with slow-motion hits or fireball effects at key moments, underlined by dramatic sound design, rather than depicted with gruesome realism. The violence is framed to appear thrilling and cool: bad guys collapse theatrically or are flung through the air, and the hero ducks the blast just in time, emerging with a few artful scratches. We are not shown graphic suffering or drawn-out agony; instead, the “kills” are quick and often bloodless (or stylized with CGI blood spurts) to maintain a tone of slick entertainment. The editing might even cheat reality – for instance, cutting rapidly among angles can mask the implausibility of how the hero miraculously avoids every incoming shot. Overall, the scene’s editing and cinematography reflect the contemporary action ethos of maximalism. It calls attention to its own energy – a barrage of images and sounds – yet remains comprehensible enough that the viewer can follow the progression of the fight. The result is a sequence that feels at once chaotic and meticulously choreographed. The camera’s constant movement and the rapid edits convey the intensity of violence by never giving the audience a moment to look away: we are bombarded just as the characters are, swept up in the relentless rhythm of combat.
The scene’s character dynamics exemplify the action ecology of The Expendables 4, in which traditional ideas about who gets to fight and who dominates are both reinforced and subtly challenged. In this franchise, the core heroes are almost exclusively tough, battle-hardened men – and in this particular moment, the focus is entirely on Jason Statham’s lone warrior bravado. This reflects what Mark Gallagher notes about Hollywood action cinema being historically a “male” genre built around male heroism
THESES.NCL.AC.UK
. The gender representation in the scene (and much of the film) skews heavily male. Statham’s character is portrayed as the decisive aggressor, exhibiting traits long glorified in action films: physical strength, combat skill, and coolness under fire. If female characters are present in the broader sequence, their roles and screen time are limited. For example, Megan Fox appears in The Expendables 4 as a new team member, but even when she joins the fray, the narrative tends to position her as secondary to the male protagonists. A scholarly analysis of the earlier films observed that women in The Expendables universe are often “underrepresented, underdeveloped, and over sexualized,” serving mainly to reinforce the men’s camaraderie by effectively displacing the ‘feminine’ from the group’s world
COURSEHERO.COM
. This pattern holds true in the scene at hand: the emphasis is on male bonding through violence. The lone woman (if present) fights capably, but the camera is just as likely to highlight her tight-fitting outfit or her relationship to the male hero as it is her combat prowess, thereby upholding a male-centric gaze. Gender thus shapes the action ecology by determining who is front-and-center in the action. The dominance of Statham’s character underlines that, in this film, leadership and victory are coded masculine. Female characters, while present more than in earlier installments, must operate within a masculine framework to participate – they fight, but they fight on the men’s terms and alongside them, not independently leading the charge.
Race and ethnicity also play a role in the film’s representation. The Expendables 4 features a somewhat more diverse team than the earliest film – for instance, Curtis “50 Cent” Jackson (an African-American performer) and Iko Uwais (an Indonesian actor and martial artist) are in the cast. In the heat of action, however, these racial and cultural identities tend to be downplayed in favor of a unified “Expendables” identity. The action ecology generally grants the most heroic focus to the franchise’s legacy stars (Statham, Sylvester Stallone, Dolph Lundgren), who are predominantly white. Characters of color are often in supporting roles; they get to fight, but usually with less screen time or narrative importance. When it comes to villains, Hollywood action films have a long history of casting “enemy others” that are ethnically distinct or vaguely foreign to heighten a sense of us-vs-them
RESEARCHPORTAL.VUB.BE
. The Expendables 4 continues this trope: Iko Uwais plays the primary antagonist, a rogue arms dealer whose non-Western background is emphasized through his accent and fighting style. By making a person of color the villain and Western characters the heroes, the film risks echoing an implicit message common in the genre – that the “default” hero is white and American/European, while the “other” often occupies the role of expendable foe. This dynamic contributes to what one researcher describes as the genre’s association with themes of otherness and even imperialist subtext in its portrayal of enemies
RESEARCHPORTAL.VUB.BE
. Still, within the heroic team, the presence of actors like 50 Cent and Tony Jaa (a Thai action star who makes an appearance) does allow for non-white representation on the side of the good guys. These characters are portrayed as formidable fighters in their own right, suggesting a slight broadening of who “gets to” be an action hero. Yet, the film does not overtly tackle issues of race; rather, it sidesteps them. All the heroes, regardless of background, indulge in the same macho banter and violent expertise, implying that as long as one is a hardened warrior, one belongs. In this way, the action ecology is ostensibly color-blind among the mercenary team – everyone is reduced to their function as a soldier – but it also avoids giving any cultural specificity or deeper development to its non-white characters. Physical ability and age are another interesting aspect of representation in The Expendables 4. The franchise is known for its cast of aging action icons; by the fourth film, many of the protagonists are in their 50s or 60s, yet they are depicted as just as combat-capable (if not more so) as younger foes. In the scene with Statham aiming his weapon, the action ecology prizes a very high level of physical prowess: characters who cannot keep up physically tend not to survive or matter in the narrative. An elderly or disabled character is virtually nonexistent in the combat ranks – anyone who fights is in peak condition or at least portrayed as such. There is a brief nod to the toll of aging in Dolph Lundgren’s character (Gunner, who humorously struggles with eyesight in some moments), but even that is played for laughs and quickly set aside when the bullets start flying. The ethos is that only the strong and skilled thrive in battle. This extends to a kind of ableism inherent in the genre: injuries are shrugged off, and the idea of trauma is ignored. The heroes sustain miraculous amounts of physical stress without slowing down, thereby reinforcing the notion that toughness equals invulnerability. This idealized physical dominance is a core trait glorified in the film – the characters are almost superheroic in their pain tolerance and endurance. Together, these elements of representation – gender, race, and physical ability – shape an action ecology where dominance is associated with a very narrow profile (able-bodied, hyper-masculine warriors, predominantly male and largely Western). Those who fit that profile (like Statham’s character in this scene) are the ones driving the action, while others (women, marginalized men, anyone not physically imposing) either support from the sidelines or are absent altogether. The film thus both perpetuates the classic action genre hierarchy of heroes and sidekicks and, in a small way, updates it by including a token woman and a multiracial cast, albeit all molded into the same culture of macho firepower.
The patterns observed in this scene align closely with established action genre tropes discussed in scholarly literature. Decades of analysis of Hollywood action cinema have noted its emphasis on masculine heroes, spectacular violence, and stylistic excess. In fact, the action genre has been characterized as a space where traditional masculinity is performed and reaffirmed. As one scholar puts it, “the action film has historically been a ‘male’ genre, dealing with stories of male heroism”, usually produced by and for men
THESES.NCL.AC.UK
. The Expendables 4 unabashedly carries on this tradition – its core premise unites a crew of iconic male action stars whose very brand is tough-guy bravado. The film’s casting and characterization can be seen as a deliberate nostalgia for the 1980s era of action, which scholar Susan Jeffords famously described as the age of “hard bodies” – films celebrating muscled, invincible men. In The Expendables 4, aging hard bodies are given a encore. Ellexis Boyle and Sean Brayton’s analysis of the series argues that the theme of “expendability” is explored in a meta-textual way: these movies resurrect “vintage” Hollywood tough-men and comment on their place in a post-2008 recession world
COURSEHERO.COM
. In other words, the film knowingly presents its heroes as relics of a past ideal of masculinity and tests them in a modern context. Boyle and Brayton conclude that the film – with its cast of men past their prime still proving their worth through combat – reflects broader cultural anxieties about aging male labor and masculinity in crisis
COURSEHERO.COM
. The heroes’ continued dominance in battle becomes a reassuring fantasy that even in changing times, the old-school male ethos still has value. This scholarly perspective helps explain why The Expendables 4 places such heavy emphasis on reaffirming its protagonists’ potency (they must mow down legions of enemies to validate their lingering virility and relevance).
Another hallmark of the genre addressed by scholars is the notion of spectacle and violence. Action films are often built around set-piece scenes of destruction, what Lisa Purse calls “spectacular violence” that is thrilling to watch but carefully choreographed to avoid real-world consequences. In a comprehensive study of 180 action films, researcher Lennart Soberon notes that the genre is renowned for featuring extravagant violence against faceless “enemy others” as a central appeal
RESEARCHPORTAL.VUB.BE
. This observation is vividly borne out in The Expendables 4. The film’s defining action moments (including Statham’s firefight scene) are essentially exercises in massive firepower unleashed upon a horde of nameless adversaries. The enemies exist to be dispatched in droves, which serves the dual purpose that Soberon highlights: it provides viscerally exciting visuals and reinforces a simplistic moral framework where the heroes’ violence is justified. The trope of the one-man-army (or one-team-army) mowing down the bad guys with superior skill is a staple of Hollywood action. It’s a trope that critics link to audience catharsis and empowerment fantasies – watching the heroes triumph through violence can be satisfyingly straightforward. However, this comes with the narrative shortcut of making the opponents undeveloped and vaguely evil, often tied to real-world stereotypes of villains (terrorists, warlords, gangsters, etc.). The Expendables 4 does not stray from this formula: Iko Uwais’s villain character and his henchmen receive minimal backstory; they function primarily as targets. The degree of realism is low, which is typical of the genre’s tropes – explosions bloom artfully and bodies fly, adhering to an aesthetic of cool mayhem rather than a realistic depiction of combat. Geoff King observes that modern action cinema delivers an “in your face” spectacle that places the viewer “in the very midst of the spectacular action” through stylistic intensity
EUPPUBLISHING.COM
. The film’s cinematography and editing, as discussed, clearly aim for this immersive bombardment of the senses. One can also consider the editing style as part of genre convention. Bordwell’s concept of intensified continuity is highly relevant: contemporary action films intensify classical editing norms to keep up with what audiences now expect – constant stimulation. In The Expendables 4, the lightning-fast cuts, dramatic push-zoom shots, and percussive sound editing (with bullets and explosions effectively ‘punctuating’ the cuts) exemplify how action tropes have evolved. The editing is not disorienting by accident; it’s a deliberate stylistic choice that has become common in the genre to convey speed and impact. In fact, while older action films of the 1980s might hold a shot longer on a roundhouse kick or a big explosion, many 21st-century action movies cut even faster and use shaky camerawork to create a sense of frenetic chaos. Some critics term this approach “chaos cinema,” though others like Bordwell note it’s really an extension of continuity editing, just louder and quicker
MEDIUM.COM
. The camera work – swooping and jittery – is likewise part of the contemporary action trope of making the audience feel embedded in the action. This can heighten excitement but also serves as a shorthand for realism (the shakier the camera, the more it mimics a documentary or combat photographer’s perspective).
In terms of representation tropes, The Expendables 4 adheres to many genre norms while gently updating others. The hyper-masculine team of soldiers recalls the archetype of the 1980s “rag-tag platoon” movie (like Predator or Commando), where each man has a specialty and a colorful personality, but together they form a brotherhood of warriors. The limited role of women is another longstanding trope – action narratives historically relegated women to love interests or damsels, though in recent decades we’ve seen more female fighters. This film’s inclusion of a female operative (Fox’s character) is a nod to modern expectations, but as the analysis above notes, it doesn’t dramatically shift the gender dynamic; it’s more a token inclusion that still fits the male-centered template
COURSEHERO.COM
. Racial representation in action films has likewise often been tokenistic: typically a tough Black character or an Asian martial artist might be part of the team, reflecting an attempt at diversity without changing the cultural viewpoint of the film. The Expendables 4 mirrors this by having a diverse squad yet still centering the narrative on its white stars. This aligns with genre tropes where diversity exists but the hero hierarchy remains clear. Finally, the glorification of certain traits – bravery, aggression, loyalty under fire – is very much in line with the action genre’s values. These movies construct an “action ecology,” to use the earlier term, that rewards characters (almost always men) who are willing to fight and sacrifice. As academic studies of action audiences have suggested, part of the genre’s appeal is how it valorizes a simplified moral universe where might and right are one and the same
RESEARCHPORTAL.VUB.BE
. The Expendables films knowingly trade in this appeal, presenting over-the-top violence as not only necessary but virtuous when performed by the heroes.
On its release, The Expendables 4 faced the ultimate test of any Hollywood action tentpole: the audience reaction and box office performance. In this case, the results were underwhelming. According to Box Office Mojo, the film earned only about $16.7 million in domestic U.S. grosses and roughly $37.9 million worldwide
BOXOFFICEMOJO.COM
. These figures are strikingly low, especially compared to the earlier entries in the franchise (for context, the first Expendables made over $100 million domestic). The fourth installment’s disappointing revenue suggests that the novelty of assembling veteran action stars may have worn thin, and that audiences did not find enough fresh value in this sequel. Several factors likely contributed to this lukewarm reception. Critics were largely negative, citing a stale formula and poorer production quality; such reviews can dampen turnout. Additionally, by 2023 when Expendables 4 came out, audience tastes had shifted somewhat – superhero films and other franchises dominated the action landscape, perhaps making the old-school mayhem of The Expendables seem behind the times. It’s also notable that the film was released nearly a decade after the last entry, which might have caused it to lose momentum with its fan base. Despite the financial flop, understanding the audience impact involves looking at how those who did see the film responded to its content. For fans of 80s/90s action movies, The Expendables 4 delivered on its promise: it’s packed with large-scale fights, quippy one-liners, and tributes to its stars’ iconic personas. Such viewers often relish the very elements that critics dismiss – the paper-thin plot and excessive explosions are, for aficionados, part of the charm. The film’s action scenes (like the Statham moment analyzed) were engineered to elicit cheers and applause in a theater setting. A certain segment of the audience finds satisfaction in the sheer adrenaline rush and nostalgia of seeing legends like Sylvester Stallone and Jason Statham battling side by side. The Expendables series has always traded on intertextual audience pleasure: viewers bring in memories of Rambo, Terminator, Die Hard, etc., and the film winks at those, creating a communal experience of recognition. In that sense, Expendables 4 aimed to make the audience feel “in on the joke” of its exaggerated action. However, broader audience impact was limited. Many moviegoers these days expect a bit more innovation or emotional engagement even from action flicks. By largely repeating genre conventions, the film may have satisfied core fans but failed to persuade casual viewers to care. The low box office suggests that a majority of potential viewers stayed away, possibly perceiving the film as a low-priority or niche offering. Internationally, the movie fared slightly better (over half its gross came from overseas
BOXOFFICEMOJO.COM
), which is common for action films that rely on visual spectacle – they transcend language barriers more easily. Yet even globally, the numbers were modest. It’s worth noting that audience fatigue can set in for a franchise that doesn’t evolve; by the fourth entry, some novelty (like younger stars or a genre twist) might have been needed to regenerate interest. In terms of audience reception of the content itself, the impact can be measured in qualitative ways. Fans on social media and forums either celebrated the film for delivering “what it says on the tin” – lots of explosions and macho banter – or they lamented that it felt like a direct-to-video effort that didn’t live up to earlier installments. There is also an audience impact in terms of expectations: The Expendables series has established a baseline of ensemble action mayhem, and each film has to top the last in spectacle. Some viewers likely appreciated that Expendables 4 pushed the envelope on violence (returning to an R-rating after the PG-13 third film, thus featuring more blood and gore). Others might have found the non-stop action numbing rather than exciting, reflecting a split in audience taste – while some crave constant stimuli, others prefer action with more story or character stakes. From a cultural standpoint, the film’s performance indicated that pure action nostalgia was not enough to guarantee success in 2023’s market. Interestingly, the failure of The Expendables 4 at the box office might itself influence Hollywood’s approach; studios pay attention to such trends. A strong box office could have spurred more “legacy action star” projects, whereas a weak one signals that the formula has run its course. Thus, the audience impact extends beyond just those who watched the movie – it potentially affects industry decisions on what kinds of action films to greenlight. In summary, Expendables 4 landed quietly: it catered to a narrow audience appetite (those nostalgic for retro macho action) but did not capture the broader imagination, as evidenced by its low earnings and relatively fleeting presence in theaters. It demonstrates that even with heavy marketing and known stars, an action film needs either quality or novelty (preferably both) to make a dent in the contemporary box office.
High-octane action films like The Expendables 4 invite discussion about their real-life social implications. One major concern often raised is the potential for desensitization to violence. The film revels in stylized carnage – dozens of killings occur with an almost gleeful disregard for realism or remorse. When audiences consume this kind of violent imagery repeatedly, it could numb their emotional response to actual violence. Research in psychology supports this idea: habitual exposure to media violence has been linked to reduced physiological arousal and emotional reaction when witnessing violence in real life
PMC.NCBI.NLM.NIH.GOV
. In other words, after seeing countless fictional gunfights and explosions, a viewer might find themselves less shocked by news of real-world violence or less empathic to its victims. This desensitization effect is gradual and often subconscious, but studies have shown it can also correlate with increased aggressive thoughts or tendencies in some individuals
PMC.NCBI.NLM.NIH.GOV
. While watching The Expendables 4 in isolation is unlikely to turn a peaceful person aggressive, it contributes to a cumulative environment of media where violence is frequent and consequence-free. Over time, this could potentially make some viewers more tolerant of aggressive solutions to problems or less sensitive to suffering – essentially normalizing violence as a method of conflict resolution.
Another real-life implication concerns gender norms and attitudes. As analyzed, The Expendables 4 reinforces a very traditional image of masculinity: men are warriors – stoic, physically dominant, unemotional in the face of killing – and women, to the extent they appear, are peripheral and sexualized. Consuming many such films could affirm and perpetuate outdated gender stereotypes. Young male viewers, in particular, might internalize the message that to be a “real man” one must be tough, aggressive, and dismissive of anything deemed feminine (a dynamic literally played out by minimizing female presence in the story
COURSEHERO.COM
). Similarly, the film’s treatment of its token female character could influence how some viewers see women’s role in society – i.e. as sidekicks or eye candy rather than leaders in their own right. These representations feed into a broader cultural narrative about gender. Of course, audiences are not blank slates; many viewers recognize the over-the-top machismo as a fantasy or even as self-parody. The Expendables series, in fact, often winks at its own macho excess. Nonetheless, repeated portrayals of men as uber-violent heroes and women as secondary can subtly shape expectations – for example, fostering the notion that in dangerous situations one should look to a man for rescue, or that male aggression is a natural and even admirable trait. This can have social ramifications, contributing to how gender roles are perceived in workplaces, relationships, and politics (e.g., the idea that strong leadership must be aggressive and male). The film’s handling of racial and cultural imagery also has consequences. As noted, the primary villains are foreigners, which taps into a longstanding Hollywood tendency to cast foreign (often non-white) characters as the “other” to be vanquished. This can reinforce xenophobic undercurrents in the culture. If audiences repeatedly see narratives where Americans (or Westerners) triumph over vaguely ethnic bad guys, it might bolster unconscious biases associating crime or terror with certain ethnicities. Soberon’s study of action films links these depictions to American imperialist attitudes, where audiences are subtly encouraged to cheer for the domination of foreign “enemies”
RESEARCHPORTAL.VUB.BE
. In a real-life context, this might translate to less empathy or understanding in international conflicts and a simplistic us-versus-them mentality. For example, a viewer conditioned by dozens of action movies might be more prone to accept the idea that military force is the first and best answer to global problems, having seen their heroes on-screen always resort to firepower successfully. It’s a speculative leap, but media theorists often discuss how entertainment can both reflect and reinforce the values of a society. When the entertainment repeatedly glorifies vigilantism and militarism, it contributes to a cultural atmosphere that is more accepting of those approaches in reality.
There is also the question of audience aggression. Does watching a film like The Expendables 4 make someone more likely to act aggressively afterwards? This has been debated extensively in academic circles. Some experiments indicate a short-term increase in aggressive thoughts or adrenaline after viewing violent media, especially in younger viewers
PMC.NCBI.NLM.NIH.GOV
PMC.NCBI.NLM.NIH.GOV
. However, long-term effects are harder to pin down and likely depend on many factors (personality, environment, etc.). It’s important to recognize that action fans often experience films as a form of catharsis or stress release. They might feel that watching the heroes blow away the bad guys provides a harmless outlet for frustration – a kind of vicarious thrill that actually leaves them calmer in real life. While catharsis theory (the idea that viewing violence purges one’s own aggressive impulses) isn’t strongly supported by empirical evidence, the subjective feeling of satisfaction is real for many viewers. Thus, the immediate social consequence for a typical audience member is not to become violent, but perhaps to feel energized or excited for a little while after the movie. The concern from a societal perspective is more about the normalization of certain attitudes (like equating justice with lethal force, or associating heroism with masculinity and firepower). The Expendables 4, like many action films, exists in a paradoxical space regarding real-life impact: it is pure escapism on one hand, yet it carries ideological baggage on the other. The filmmakers’ primary goal is to entertain, not educate, so they lean into whatever will get a cheer – big guns, big muscles, clear-cut good vs. evil. But in doing so, they inadvertently comment on what power looks like (older white men with guns), what justice looks like (violence without due process), and who matters in the story (those able to fight). Society at large can absorb these messages in subtle ways. For instance, when such films dominate young audiences’ media diets, there is a fear that desensitization and a skewed understanding of violence’s consequences can result. The real world, of course, does not reset after a firefight; violence has legal and moral repercussions – points rarely dwelled on in The Expendables. Additionally, the thrill of cinematic violence may contribute to a culture that is less horrified by real violence or more hungry for sensationalism. Real-life events can even be perceived through the lens of action movies by the public (e.g. seeing war footage and unconsciously comparing it to scenes from films). On the flip side, one might argue these movies simply reflect existing societal attitudes. The popularity of the Expendables series in its early entries showed an appetite for old-school macho heroes – arguably a reaction to anxieties about changing gender norms or geopolitical uncertainties (playing out fantasies of strong men saving the day). In conclusion, while The Expendables 4 is an exaggerated fantasy of combat, its social implications are worth noting. It contributes to the ongoing conversation about media violence and its potential to dull our response to real violence
PMC.NCBI.NLM.NIH.GOV
. It reinforces gender and racial tropes that society has been working to move beyond, even as it provides a form of nostalgic enjoyment. There may not be a direct line from enjoying an Expendables showdown to exhibiting real-life aggression or bias – most viewers distinguish fiction from reality – but the film is a small part of the cultural tapestry that shapes our views. As such, it exemplifies both the escapist joy and the problematic themes of Hollywood action cinema. Recognizing these layers doesn’t necessarily diminish one’s ability to enjoy the film’s outrageous action, but it does allow us to be critical consumers. In a media-savvy society, viewers can indeed have fun with a movie like The Expendables 4 while also acknowledging, for example, “Yes, it was cool, but real life is not (and should not be) like that,” or questioning why certain stereotypes persist. Thus, the real-life consequence might ultimately be a call for media literacy: films like this highlight the importance of understanding how cinematic fantasy and reality diverge, and how the former might influence our perceptions of the latter.
Bibliography
Bordwell, David. “Intensified Continuity: Visual Style in Contemporary American Film.” Film Quarterly 55, no. 3 (2002): 16–28
MEDIUM.COM
. Boyle, Ellexis, and Sean Brayton. “Ageing Masculinities and ‘Muscle Work’ in Hollywood Action Film: An Analysis of The Expendables.” Men and Masculinities 15, no. 5 (2012): 468–485
COURSEHERO.COM
COURSEHERO.COM
. Krahé, Barbara, and Ingrid Möller. “Desensitization to Media Violence: Links with Habitual Media Violence Exposure, Aggressive Cognitions, and Aggressive Behavior.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 100, no. 4 (2011): 630–646
PMC.NCBI.NLM.NIH.GOV
. Soberon, Lennart. “In Action Cinema’s Crosshair: A Longitudinal Mapping of Enemy Images in the American Action Film.” Poetics 85, no. 1 (2021): 1–17
RESEARCHPORTAL.VUB.BE
. “The Expendables 4” – Box Office Mojo. Box Office Mojo, 2023
BOXOFFICEMOJO.COM
. (Box office statistics)
Provide Feedback