Why Steven Seagal hates Liam Neeson: “Is he a great fighter, a great warrior?”
Have you ever watched Liam Neeson punching an Eastern European henchman in the head in one of his interchangeable action thrillers and thought, “Is that guy really a great fighter?”
I’m sure some people watch action movies this way, and get themselves all bent out of shape about whether the main actor is actually a legitimate tough guy. These are probably the same people who watch pro-wrestling and scoff that it’s fake, because they’re not really fighting like those terrifying guys and gals in the UFC.
My take on the matter, though, is fairly simple: if you think like that, you’re missing the point. No one should care at all whether Neeson could really handle himself in a scrap, or be capable of killing a group of gun-toting bad guys with his bare hands. He’s an actor, not a fighter, so as long as he sells audiences on his particular set of skills, and the filmmakers construct the movie to make him look as badass as possible, then it’s all good in my book. Punch away, Liam.
Amusingly, though, there is one man out there in Tinseltown – or, more accurately, Russia – who doesn’t share this outlook on Neeson’s action man status. That man is everyone’s favourite over-the-hill, spray-haired Aikido master Steven Seagal, who finds it offensive that the sensitive thespian who starred in Schindler’s List has been masquerading as an action hero for years.
When asked about the state of modern action cinema in 2014, Seagal grumbled, “People don’t have to be an action guy or a hero or a martial artist; they just get up there and let everybody spend the money and the time with special effects. Look at Liam Neeson. He can’t fight. He’s a great dramatic actor, a great guy. Is he an action guy? No. Is he a great fighter, a great warrior? No. Let’s be honest.”
After this takedown, which I can only assume Seagal thought was utterly devastating, he hinted at some kind of nefarious conspiracy concocted by Hollywood to rob the world of “real” action guys like him. “He’s getting action movies now,” the Under Siege star said through gritted teeth, “so that should tell you something.”
What, pray tell, does it actually tell us, Mr Seagal? That Neeson is a good actor who realised that his tall, imposing frame and inherent grit made him a good candidate for wrecking some fools on-screen? That audiences had a blast with Taken and subsequently demanded all the Neeson action vehicles they could handle, because they’re fun to watch on a Friday night with a couple of beers?
In truth, by definition, the fact that Neeson has starred in so many action movies means he is, in fact, an “action guy”, whether Seagal likes it or not. It’s neither here nor there whether he can beat people up in real life, although his aptitude for boxing, which he excelled at as a teenager in Northern Ireland, perhaps points to a guy who knows how to throw a punch just fine.
However, does that make him any more or less an action hero than a man who was a martial arts master many, many years ago, but has always lied about or exaggerated his tough-guy bona fides? Does it make him less of an “action guy” than a man who has made countless worse action movies than Neeson, despite supposedly being a true “warrior”? I’d argue that no, it doesn’t – mostly because even Neeson’s worst efforts (and there are a lot of them) look like Die Hard next to Seagal’s cinematic atrocities.
