The lack of respect Chan gets in the west is a travesty IMO. His fight choreography is rooted in the traditions Chinese opera while being constantly fresh, playful and imaginative. He shows absolute technical mastery, but there is always a sense of child-like joy underpinning that mastery. The fact that his films are often regarded as frivolous and lightweight says something profound about what is valued in our cultural milieu.
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 most people truly appreciate how good his direction is, even if they enjoy watching him on screen. This oversight extends to Hollywood producers, who insist that his classic movies require "adaptation" before release in America. If Jackie Chan were truly respected, "Legend of the Drunken Master" would never have happened.
He's more of a caricature; following under the idea that Asian actors are always portrayed as comical Chan is someone you emulate when pretending to do some ridiculous silly kungfu fu move with your friends rather than appreciated as a seriously talented actor in his own right (anecdotally).
> The lack of respect Chan gets in the west is a travesty IMO.
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.
Doesn't he do a lot of frivolous and light-hearted movies though -- I'm a huge fan.
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.
You can be goofy and fun and make high art. Slapstick spectacle can also be profound. There's a certain po-faced affectation that is necessary to be called an artist. Being good isn't good enough; you also need to convincingly ape the norms of a self-appointed cultural elite.
The disparity in esteem between pop and rock springs to mind. We have an ingrained sense that if a record appeals to 13-year-old girls, then it must on some level be inherently inferior to a record that appeals to middle-aged men, regardless of the actual sophistication of the music in question. A teenage boy learning to play guitar carries an entirely different set of cultural connotations and expectations than a teenage girl learning to sing, regardless of how much effort they each expend. The term "credibility" hides a deep vein of ugly bigotry.
> There's a certain po-faced affectation that is necessary to be called an artist. Being good isn't good enough; you also need to convincingly ape the norms of a self-appointed cultural elite.
The cultural elite isn't self-appointed. They clawed their way up there the same way as everyone else who has reached some position in some hierarchy. And that includes various hierarchies of artists.
> The disparity in esteem between pop and rock springs to mind. We have an ingrained sense that if a record appeals to 13-year-old girls, then it must on some level be inherently inferior to a record that appeals to middle-aged men, regardless of the actual sophistication of the music in question.
I think the more standard criticism is that some music is made by a committee as a product whereas other music is the result of a group/individual trying to make good music and that, in general, the latter category is better. I don't necessarily accept this argument, but it's different than the one you're proposing.
More generally, I find your attitude perplexing. If you want to think about this subject seriously, then surely there is no objective way to view art. If that's the case, then saying "you can be goofy and make art" is pointless because it's obvious. It's all just people's opinions. "Being goofy" can be art just like anything else.
Where I strongly disagree is where you sneer at "high art" and the "cultural elite". In my opinion, "high art" is art that is appreciated by rich/educated people who have been exposed to different things than less rich/less educated people. "High art" isn't better or worse than "low art". The definition of art is "something from which people derive emotion".
Charles Saatchi is the most influential man in contemporary visual art. Why? Because he made a bunch of money in advertising and bought a bunch of art. He clawed his way up the hierarchy of advertising, but he bought his status as the kingmaker of contemporary art. Do a broad sample of artists consider Saatchi to have exceptional taste? Does he have unique insights into the creative process? Mu.
I don't really count films he did after Rumble in the Bronx as part of his oeuvre, he effectively retired from doing the kind of physical performances that made him great after 1995. By the time he made his debut in Hollywood his body was a little too broken to keep up the routine.
You mentioning Shanghai Noon as an example is bad, the ones you referenced that weren't filmed in hollywood are much better examples - Chan has already expressed his distaste in how hollywood films are produced because most of the time they're in it for money rather than any sort of art.
About Jackie Chans’s image in the West, for what it’s worth there are still some people who have recognized how great he is, I remember reading a laudatory article about his movies in the French movie magazine “Cahiers du Cinema” way back in late 2001, and the Cahiers du Cinema people are generally known to be pretty insufferable and elitist. I think they also focused one of their famous Hors-Serie issues on Hong Kong cinema in the ‘80s (that one I didn’t read).
