https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1PCtIaM_GQ
One thing that was particular interesting to me is how the setup always starts with him at an extreme disadvantage: no shoes, tied to a chair, hanging upside down, etc. I never noticed it before and it’s exactly what makes his action so enjoyable to watch.
(The YouTube Channel is called Every Frame a Painting and all the other videos are fascinating and very worth checking out.)
What? He's one of the biggest breakout stars from Hong Kong cinema in Western History. Is a household name, and starred in scores of movies during his career, including a 3 picture comedy/action movie series (Rush Hour), then went on to reboot a beloved 80's action story alongside the son of one of Hollywoods biggest names.
He also had his own cartoon for a while.
How the hell do you get "lack of respect" from his shining career?
I don't think he gets lack of respect. Directors have studied his stuff for years. Anyone who has watched his movies has been impressed for years. However, let's face it, the average person didn't have any inkling who he was until Rush Hour.
As for Jackie Chan's work, the problem is that you get injured. No stuntmen in their right mind would do the kind of stunts he did. A slight change to the angle of several of his bad landings and Jackie Chan isn't a star but has been dead or crippled for 20 years.
As for his fight choreography, the primary problem is that it takes time, and that's something that Hollywood simply will not abide. You see this in the way Hollywood does music, CGI, etc. Everything is about cranking the handle and getting things done quickly, if there is craft, well, that's a happy accident but certainly not required.
Take a movie like "Who am I", it's like Johnny English meets Drunken Master.
"Kung Fu" films to me always have a notion of slapstick, even the beautiful ones like House of Flying Daggers; Chan's background in Opera I imagine helps to fulfill that element of slightly ludicrous spectacle (at least if Chinese opera has any similarity to its Western namesake).
I mean Shanghai Noon, great film within its genre, but goofy as anything; actors doing those sorts of movies just aren't treated as serious actors I guess.
https://www.provideocoalition.com/art-cut-margaret-sixel-edi...
If we're getting into Jackie Chan movies, though, one cannot leave out Drunken Master
Rumble in the Bronx is an insane movie that is US based, better then Rush Hour.
His heightened capacity for emoting is arguably as good of entertainment as his stunt skills.
I'm reminded of a Quora answer by a guy who loved fighting, one phrase he used stuck out at me. "Great fighters have to kind of like getting hit."
You can't push your body to its very limits without getting injured. Planning and preparing for it is not sad, it's smart. Chan's account should be taken at face value. It is inspirational for all the reasons he thinks it is.
I mean, sure, it would be way better if Hong Kong weren't the colonial hell-hole it was. Chan rose above that and made a noticeable dent in the world. If he could do it in the situation he grew up in, anyone can.
As the Brits like to say, Chan and his story are exactly what it says on the tin. To say it's not demeans Chan and his life and his choices.
I'd generalize it to: "Great craftspeople have to kind of like the part of their craft that is unpleasant to 99% of the population."
Someone who excels at playing violin, writing computer software, public speaking, etc., generally does not find the "unpleasant" part to be "tiring", "boring", or "work". Instead, it's just part of the overall experience, which is a net positive.
When I was younger, I had a classmate who's an excellent violin player. Her practice schedule sounded awful to me, with well over an hour spent even on weekdays. I played musical instruments, too, and I liked a little practice, but rarely more than 30 minutes in a day.
I asked the violin player about this schedule, and the way she answered the question made it clear that practicing didn't seem unpleasant, or like "work," like it would to many other people. It was something she truly enjoyed.
Similar things can be applied to software development and liking the idea of investigating obtuse error messages and things breaking without any clear root cause.
Fixing bugs and refactoring. They have their perks.
This is a terrible mindset to have.
What mindset do you propose people have when they want to achieve something exceptionally difficult?
I was honestly shocked to learn how little Jackie Chan is educated -- and how little he wants to be -- despite his tremendous wealth.
Floyd Mayweather disputes this.
In what sense is Hong Kong a colonial hell-hole? (Take this not as a challenge, but as a question from someone who is unfamiliar with the idea.) Is there an underclass trapped there? Do the people in it feel trapped?
If you get hurt, you are out, and you are checking gates for 12 hours a day or go regular infantry. Yes, there are second chances, but that's another story.
Sammo starred as the master in a film about the school
It sort of stands to reason that it has to be that way, too, for the whole system to work. Chan is able to be the celebrity that he is, specifically because there's only one of him; if there were dozens or hundreds of people like him, he wouldn't have the same kind of fame. Celebrity depends on singularity.
It's absolute nonsense to say that "If he could do it...anyone can"; it's demeaning and cruel to the many people who were, like him, stuck in a terrible situation, but didn't have his good luck in getting out.
You are the one demeaning the people there. Chan is the one inspiring them.
It's silly to think that everybody in Hong Kong is going to compare themselves to Jackie Chan and lament that they won't be able to do what he does. He's inspirational because he shows that you don't have to define yourself by your station in life and can change it. Chan is just the most visible symbol of it, but you can see similar stories all across the country.
Your daughter getting inspired by princesses isn't cruel because she'll never be able to be a princess. She can become more like a particular princess she likes, adopting personality traits and learning to think like her.
China was extremely poor and now it is extremely rich as a mass phenomenon. It is not like a Gulf power in which a tiny elite of owners presiding over an army of imported indentures. Like any society in history there is inequality, but you have to be an insane ideologue to deny the reality of mass advancement in standard of living in China during the 20th and 21st century so far.
Unrelated, but I suppose this is why there is so much controversy and disagreement as to whether Floyd Mayweather actually is the greatest boxer ever (which he himself has claimed multiple times he is), as he puts so much effort into not getting hit (and some say he runs away from opponents, only fights them before or after their prime, never during their prime). But he does have that 50-0 record.
This is almost tautologically true. Who starts fighting because they want to avoid getting hit at all costs?
The author wants to examine _why_ Chan drives himself, over and over, to the brink of life-threatening injuries, while we HN commenters - most of us anyway - do not. He fairly persuasively argues that it's a mix of extreme C-PTSD, childhood abandonment, economic destitution, and a near total lack of alternative opportunities.
Can that still be inspiring? To whom? To do what? These are the questions the author wants to ask. We can quibble over the answers. But either way, I find this type of critical perspective more intellectually provocative than taking Chan's plain-faced recollection for granted.
The cost would be paid by Chan regardless of whether he became rich and famous. Specifically, he did not have a choice for being a slave in the Peking Opera house, so I'm not sure what point you and the author are trying to make. Paraphrasing Obama, Chan has embraced the burden of his past without becoming and staying a victim of it. Jackie Chan has taken responsibility for his life and successfully determined his own destiny. What does the author suggest Jackie Chan do instead of rising above his past? Obsess about it and wallow in despair, hopelessness, and depression?
I'm not sure. Maybe he wouldn't have had to be sold as an indentured servant, get beaten, be deprived of an education, and sleep on a mattress soiled with piss. Or maybe he would have died of starvation, who knows? Or maybe he would have moved with his parents to Australia, where the article mentions they went. It's definitely worth thinking about.
Please don't conflate my opinion and that of the author. I can't answer what the author's point was.
> What does the author suggest Jackie Chan do instead of rising above his past? Obsess about it and wallow in despair, hopelessness, and depression?
Again, I can't answer for the author, but I can think of a few things Chan could do: help prevent a similar hard childhood for current kids. Speak out. Join an advocacy group. Maybe raise awareness of how dire the situation for many families was in colonial Hong Kong. Not saying all of these would be helpful (and maybe he already does some of this), but arguing there's only despair and hopelessness seems disingenuous to me.
This part really stuck out to me. He was treated like a single-purpose tool.
At least he got to enjoy life being rich and famous, kids in Africa become slaves or child soldiers and end up dead.
Yes, the children in Africa who become slaves or child soldiers and end up dead have it worse. I'm not sure what lesson we can draw from that :)
Yes, and at what cost to those who didn't make it! Thank social progress that it's getting better, but there's still a ways to go.
Most people have been through various levels of shit[0] through their lives. I believe one should acknowledge your problems but certainly not dwell on them and should put your energy and drive into the good times.
[0]Trying to think of a better word, but that covers it quite well I think.
For us in the the lower / middle class, the best we can do is prepare as much as we can for the day we encounter luck or opportunity. No amount of preparation / commitment / training guarantees success, but we can't afford to be fatalistic about it.
I do agree that we need to be more empathetic with those who haven't succeeded though. People tend to assume it's due to some personal fault rather than accounting for the luck / opportunity aspect. Humans tend to think that when they themselves fail it's because of outside forces they couldn't control, but when others fail it's because of internal forces they could have controlled.
Also agree, failure is complex and society has been known to sweep people under the rug.
To be constructive: Here, enjoy G.K. Chesterton's wonderful and funny short essay The Fallacy of Success, which I think agrees with you. I'd love to be able to write so well, but...I'm not him.
But the rest of the article seems to drunkenly wonder around bumping into rhetorical questions that don't lead anywhere other than the reporter believes that Jackie Chan didn't complain or rejoice enough in his hardships or successes.
Ok, sure. I guess that's one opinion. But I'm kind of surprised that the reporter didn't have more to say than that.
I'm still a fan though, but only for his movies.
I know this because he shares an office there with someone I know. I initially didn't believe it when I was told, but Wikipedia backs the story up.
Yes but doesn't any Chinese person have to be if they want to maintain any kind of ability to travel in China? _Especially_ if they are famous.
Before we heap praise on Jackie Chan, I think it’s important to know his full background.
Here is even more of his thought process: “Noting the strong tensions in Hong Kong and Taiwan, he said, ‘I'm gradually beginning to feel that we Chinese need to be controlled. If we're not being controlled, we'll just do what we want.’”
Haha... wow, that circular reasoning is so tight it's almost not even a circle anymore. "Chinese people need to be controlled, otherwise they will not be controlled". I have a theory that all circular reasoning can be reduced down to a (probably faulty) axiom or assertion.
I'm sure this is all true, but I'm curious, have you lived in China? What's your take on the lived experience in China?
I just wanted to see this from different perspectives, because the United States has many parts that are perceived as hellholes in the abstract (like the city of Chicago where I live), but in reality daily life is quite normal and livable.
> He was, in effect, a walking slab of meat to be trotted out whenever a Peking opera production needed a singer or dancer or acrobat.
These hyperboles, so full of off-putting judgements are completely unnecessary. It's almost as if the author is hoping to gain, by being as rude and sensationalistic as possible.
Imagine if the author of this article actually met Jackie Chan - he'd crumble in shame if he has an iota of decency left in him/her. This article can be renamed 'the painful price of trying to be a journalist' - it'd be more accurate.
In past, he narrowly missed out on 'father of the year' after admitting to throwing his young child across a room (1). He was overlooked a second time when he disowned his illegitimate daughter over her sexuality.
(1) https://edition.cnn.com/2018/12/03/asia/jackie-chan-autobiog...
