Jackie Chan’s Plan to Keep Kicking Forever
gq.com
gq.com
There are a few decent fight scenes that happen from time to time in modern action films. Haywire is really good, for one.
Some of Jet Li's work in the early 2000s is good as well.
> The film's title was supposed to be Meals on Wheels. Superstitious Golden Harvest executives however demanded the title change because their two previous films with titles began with the letter 'M' – Megaforce and Menage A Trois – were both box office flops.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwang_Jang-lee
He is almost always amazing to look at, like in this clip from the Buddha Assasinator, where he plays the main villain in red at the end.
They are't moving that fast in real life at all. Camera trick.
That’s also what gave us Fawlty Towers (sitcom, 2 series of 6 episodes, each of which took weeks to write) and Fred Astaire looking an even better dancer than he was (edit: just came across https://youtube.com/watch?v=lfyXPONE7Ws, showing two versions of the same Fred Astaire scene side by side (I can’t find info on how much time there is between the shots, but Wikipedia says ”Long after the photography […] was completed […] the entire sequence was reshot.”, so it likely was days, if not weeks))
The villains and heroes in his movies think the way kids do. If you defeat the neighborhood bad guy, of course all crime would stop. If you're a rich guy, of course you'd turn your entire wealth into diamonds. Who wouldn't want diamonds?
The violence in his movies is also never really sinister. Nor are the villains - especially the thugs-for-hire cannon fodder - ever truly evil. In Rumble in the Bronx, the initial bad guy - Tony (iirc) - becomes Jackie's friend once he realizes that Jackie is actually a good guy.
That's child logic, and I absolutely love it.
I know some "serious" movie critics fault his movies for their simplistic plot lines, but to me, this is a feature, not a flaw.
Outside of animation, I don't see any western movie maker doing anything remotely similar.
After failing to confront Keung, the bikers trash Elaine's supermarket, during which two of Angelo's men are captured by White Tiger's men, who turn up at the supermarket in search of Angelo. Angelo's colleagues are unaware of his diamond heist and one is executed in a tree-shredder; his remains given back to the other gangsters as a warning to return the multimillion-dollar goods.
This was taken out of the American release of the film.
Police Story 1-4 were all good fun. Not really for kids though. Plenty of bawdy jokes and innuendo.
edit: found it, new police story https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdEvxSxZAdE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuQpO9UJhck
It's goofy rather than grim, but it is still pretty damn sinister.
Got an earful from my wife about that choice. Heheh
Remember those old Tom and Jerry cartoons where Tom was once sawed in half, or blown to smithereens?
(And still does, eh)
He's tried to do some more dark and serious movies (like Crime Story and Shinjuku Incident) but frankly he always seems kind of odd in them.
It's really not so different from a lot of Western actors, but it seems like Westerners are ignorant of it in Chan's case. As others mentioned, his films have a certain innocent quality. But the real man, not so much.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61s3nnCn7xU&ab_channel=Marti...
The tall guy taking off his tie as he's watching his buddy get beat up with his is just brilliant.
I'm not a fan of martial arts movies in general, but I've lost count of how many Jackie Chan movies I've seen.
It also allowed the protagonist to be shown facing off against two very different styles; alternating between kwan's punch-heavy Chinese style, and Smoorenburg's kick-heavy Okinawan style, with the long, drawn out anticipation of him eventually facing both at once.
I've tracked down some behind-the-scenes footage of it, and there's amazing amount of detail put into the timing of each hit; it's much more of a dance using martial-arts moves than it is a fight, and the totality is far more than the sum of its parts.
It is excellent. If you are interested in watching more and you haven't seen it, I'd highly recommend the Wheels on Meals fight vs. Benny Urquidez
https://www.buzzfeed.com/kevintang/jackie-chan-offends-chine...
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/jackie-chan-political-...
https://qz.com/720749/why-some-hong-kongers-think-hometown-a...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/01/10...
If our own countrymen don’t support our country,
who will support our country? We know our country
has many problems. We [can] talk about it when the
door is closed. To outsiders, [we should say] “our
country is the best.”
Seriously, I am always like, when the door is
closed, “Our country is like this and this. Who
and who is not good.” But outside, “Our country
is the best, like so and so, is the best.” You
cannot say our country has problems [when you are
outside], like “Yes, our country is bad.”
t. Canadian
Not so much "the American standard" as it is basic logic.
It's more that Americans do not necessarily consider open criticism of government leaders and policy to be "disparaging our country". Many consider it unpatriotic to not voice such criticism if you honestly believe that something is wrong.
Jackie Chan on the other hand is against free speech, thinks Chinese people can't handle freedom and that they need to be controlled for their own good.
Why should the Chinese agree with it?
Because of the white man's burden? Or because some countries think their way (e.g. related to how to govern etc) is the only way? China has millennia old tradition and preference for a confucianism in government, where it's all about cohesion and harmony.
Yes; while the attitude is extremely common, and not just when it comes to nations, it's an attitude that serves as a powerful enabler of evil in every context in which it is found, whether national, family, corporate, partisan, religious, or otherwise, and it should emphatically be condemned every time it rears its ugly head.
> Perhaps it is the American standard that is wrong.
Americans are no less prone to this than others.
No, they tend to think that their farts don't smell -- and that being pro-China as a Chinese is somehow worse than being pro-US as an American.
Some of them might, plenty of them—like Chan—don't believe anyone should criticize America where outsiders can see (of course, it's hard to tell those attitudes apart in either country, since the outward expression of the latter is also a convenient cover for the former.)
Ultimately, national power is extremely valuable on the global stage. Every single industrial nation on Earth has tens of thousands of business leaders and decision makers working to usurp that power from other nations as their own; this must be known and acknowledged! Whether it be exploitative trade agreements or owning parts of a neighbouring country's industry, to have control and dominance over other nations and their diverse varieties of resources is what wars are fought over.
Thus, if Americans do not seek to solidify their dominance at every moment, their dominance will be taken from them at some point; of this we can be sure. We _must_ have solidarity. It is not an enabler of evil - rather, it protects us from the evils that others might inflict upon us. Because that's how the world works. We fight over resources.
No, I claim that refusing to ackniwledge and criticize evil by members of your family, nation, corporation, etc. around outsiders is an enabler of evil. Solidarity doesn't require that.
You can always immigrate.
But even for immigrants, their native country, if they spend their formative years there, is not some mere "accident of birth", anymore than your family is or your kid is (after all what is a kid? Some accident of birth as well, could have made another kid with another person -- not to mention who your spouse is among 8 billion is an "accident of meeting", etc)
Not easily. Many countries are openly hostile to immigration, and do not even have a path to legal immigration.
Because he should go out of his way to agree with the opinions of foreigners on his own country?
In eastern cultures, you never talk poorly of your own "family" (in this case, the country), no matter how bad it might be.
For example, Beardy (Leung Kar Yan) oozes charisma just by breathing, and does fights like these:
...without any formal kung-fu training! He's just a gifted physical mimic.
Gordon Liu is another hugely influential actor who more or less is what people think of when they think of shaolin kung fu, and he starred in many of the most iconic films of that genre, like the 36th chamber of shaolin. Then you have the five venoms, etc. If you actually went through a collection of the best films, like the old Dragon Dynasty DVDs, you'd be shocked to see how little Chan is in them.
How many action star all gone? Only few can stay. Stallone's different. He's a legend. Other action stars already gone.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9m6qAaqRu2M
I also like one of Jackie Chan's quotes:
Cinema reflects culture and there is no harm in adapting technology, but not at the cost of losing your originality.
Secondly, he can invest just like everybody else but starts off with more.
Being in a high place in society amplifies investment opportunities too.
Heck rush hour 1-3 probably paid off that jet easily
Later he states that if he stays in the industry he will no longer act. "If I'm [to] continue on in the film industry," Jackie says, "I have to change. Otherwise, you gone. You see—in Japan. Korea. America. China. Hong Kong. How many action star all gone? Only few can stay. Stallone's different. He's a legend. Other action stars already gone.
"So that's why I'm looking for different script, different character, different Jackie Chan. I want the audience look at Jackie Chan as an actor. Not the action star. Actor who can fight. Look at Clint Eastwood. If he continue to 'Make my day'? Gone. So he change to directing. He change some other things. Look at Al Pacino. Robert De Niro. I wanna be an Asian Robert De Niro, Dustin Hoffman, Al Pacino."
The plan is constant reinvention. The underlying irony is to western audiences, including those who love his work very dearly, he's type-cast and plays essentially the same character in every film. His new grittier film likened to Liam Neeson in Taken, may change that.
He hasn't been idle this decade. Idle is not one of the speeds in Jackie Chan's gearbox. "Sometimes I look at some other actors, famous actors," he says incredulously. "They're so comfortable! After filming, just holiday! With a girlfriend or the family." After filming, Jackie tends to an ever-expanding portfolio of business interests, and then he makes more films.
He's just going to be doing a lot more things besides acting. I also view him and his school as something that allows him to be 'kicking forever' even if he retires. All the stunt men/women are a product of his handwork.
“I wanted to be like a Chaplin or Buster Keaton, but all the martial arts directors I worked with wanted me to copy Bruce Lee.” -- Jackie Chan, http://www.nytimes.com/1995/01/30/movies/faster-than-a-speed...
In another country I remember hearing about the number 1 movies having only 30 million in earnings. I think that was a record for Japan at the time. So it never really mattered what the local population thought, changing it for American audiences was always important because a lackluster performance was still a great deal.