Cast your mind back to the 80’s and imagine the top billed names on any action film: Schwarzenegger, Stallone, Van Damme, Segal. Each one a bodybuilder’s aspiration, a few of them even credited with being an origin point for the Adonis Complexi. The threats they faced were often an embodiment of Americas enemies abroad Russians, Missile Crises and even the occasional hunter from outer space with shimmering camouflage

The relation between these men, though different in nationality was that they were all in the prime of their lives. Each man was young strong and healthy, a perfect reflection of the Young Macho driven culture they were created for. This culture continued to expand through the decades, finding brand new angst during the nineties, and gaining the mass internet usage by the turn of the century. This meant that youth driven culture splintered into countless sub cultures, with this came the rise of the millennial. These new millennium children were raised with starkly contrasting values to their predecessors, especially with regards to masculinity.

The eighties action film portrayed a very particular type of man; strong (Conan), aggressive ( Predator), tenacious (Rocky). No matter how many of these traits were embodied he always had a clear code of honour (Rambo, Indiana Jones). All of these traits granted their characters strength and capability for whatever Herculean task lay ahead. However this type of masculinity was also laden with restrictions. No Action-man can cry, show fear, pain or be seen to care too deeply. He must always shoulder responsibility and never fail to step up to the mark. This obviously created a very one dimensional male. It also helped to perpetuate the culture of “might makes right”. This societal acceptance or need for strength is the crux of every John Hughes film ever made. Those who fail to exhibit 80’s machismo are exiled to the fringes of society.

The 2000’s changed this. Sub cultures began to exhibit different criteria for masculinity. Sensitivity, intelligence, culture each became the vogue of new men. There are even certain films that rally against the usurpation of the male role, 2004’s Closerii being but one. These films often portray the new man as insidious and sly.

The most significant change to youth culture in the 2000’s is the relief from the pressure of employment and more so responsibility. Both pre and post war America preached economic stability. When you left school you should begin a job or trade ( generally a career for life.) so as to contribute to society and stand on ones own two feetiii. This was furthered by the outrageous and unfeasible cost of third level education. Then came the reign of the supportive parent, a parent who allowed their children to pursue a career in the arts or follow their passion. This aided by a vastly overestimated, soon to collapse, economy meant that you had an environment for a middle class devoid of hardship. This supportive parent archetype, abetted by the invention of the internet parenting forum, has a flip side similar to the action man. It results in what many refer to as “political correctness gone mad.”, a world where no one can offend anyone, a world no longer suitable for the action-man. Such rigorous censorship has led to a cotton wool generationiv one which faces little or no difficulty, others a little more right wing would claim that a society of victims is being raisedv.

These kinds of shifts in the social landscape are often addressed in literature and art. One of the most prominent works to do so is Cormac MacCarthy’s No Country For Old Menvi. The novel is a bleak portrayal of the shift in American society caused by the degeneration of drugs, serial killers and greed many perceived the eighties brought with it. The novels title comes from an aged sherries realisation that in the face of this new evil (embodied by the nihilistic pragmatist Anton Chigurh) there is very little use in his brand of decent law abiding justice. He is forced to confront that America really is no country for old men.

If the modern age of America truly is no country for old masculinity then a somewhat paradoxical question emerges. Why are many action films of the last ten years led by old men and what led to their reassertion? If you look at some many of the action films (some of which were very successful) during that timeframe a pattern reveals itself:

Gran Torino(2008)

Taken 1,2,3 (2008-2014)

Harry Brown (2009)

The Expendables 1,2,3 (2010-2014)

Last Stand (2013)

November man (2014)

John Wick (2014)

The Equalizer (2014)

3 Days to Kill (2014)

Run All Night (2015)

The Gunman (2015)

This is only a few of the action films starring older men. None of the stars in these films are below the age of 50 and many feature men who are retired or “out of the game”. Each man is usually an retroactive form of an eighties action man. There are many reasons that these kind of ageing action hero ventures are continually being made. Many of the films feature the former action-men of the eighties and so invoke a kind of nostalgia for those who grew up in that time. The Expendables is the finest example of this, even utilising it in their marketing, phrases like “They’re back” or posters dominated, not by images of the actors but rather a long list of their names in bold capitals.

Whilst this is a good explanation for the Expendables it doesn’t really explain others films that could be credited with starting this trend. The likes of Taken and the Gunman, starring Liam Neeson and Sean Penn respectively, feature actors who are not associated with the action genre. So why then does the trend persist?

As mentioned earlier there is more laissez-faire approach taken to careers and employment in recent times. This new approach has led to an inevitable easing of responsibility especially on the side of men in western civilisation. This kind of easing combined with the cotton wool society has led to an increase in “the man child” or the Peter Pan effectvii Men no longer need to grow up and face their obstacles because there is nothing to triumph over. No failure means no experience, and society has always valued experience. Without experience there is no way these new men could be ready for a true crisis. The hard work of the 20’s and 30’s meant that the notion of conscription to military service could bear some fruit it is doubtful that the same could be said today. It is true that war has always been a working class occupation but even now the rise of drugs and poverty mean that pool is dangerously drained.

It could and probably will be argued that the above is an exceptionally conservative view of the current middle and working class but it is simply a statement of fact about the culture in which we are living. There is very little in the way of real life experience for the middle classes.

It is possible that on some subconscious level this has been recognised by screenwriters, the success of their films indicating that audiences have too. The rise of old men in action films then is born of an atavistic need rather than an aesthetic choice. If certain films are examined on a case by case basis then more evidence to support the above theory appears.

Taken– An ex CIA operative must find and retrieve his daughter, a task modern policing is helpless to achieve. His famous speech even references ” a very specific set of skills honed over “many years” He literally uses his experience as a threat.

The Expendables– A group of ageing mercenaries take on jobs deemed impossible or suicidal, yet always manage to succeed. In the second instalment the youngest member of their crew, played by Liam Hemsworth, actually dies at the hands of Jean Claude Van Damme. It stands as an example of younger generations being unable to cope with true threats.

Gran Torino– An old man is the only person capable of dealing true justice through his disregard for the rules of a cotton wool society strangled by red tape.

Harry Brown– Similar to the above but set in England. An old man watches as out of control youth terrorise his area, one in which the police are powerless to take action. Realising this he decides that he must use his military training to do just that.

John Wicke– An ex hitman is forced out of retirement in the face of a new generation of young criminals who operate with no rules and no respect. Through his discipline and training he is able to dispatch each new threat with relative ease.

Run all night– Liam neesons son has crossed an old gangster played by Ed Harrison. Unable to cope with the threat himself he must turn to his father. Neeson will not allow him to fire a gun, stating that “once you pull the trigger you can never go back”. The quote showcases experience once again but also that younger generations cannot hand the pressures the elder ones had to.

This brief outlining technique could be applied to a plethora of films with similar outcomes.

Much like the problem facing the sheriff in MacCarthy’s novel, the new menace comes in the form of old rules being broken. The eighties brought a new form of graphic violence to America, rampant gang activity swept throughout the cities of the US. The issue was one of control. It is no different in more modern times as noted in John Wicke a new breed of laissez- faire criminal, one who is ruthless and allowed to act as they choose, has come to the fore. The moral degeneration that forced old men to retreat then continued unchecked. No new blood has risen to challenge it (at least in films) the time has come for those old men to return and finish the task they originally shirked.