Moviedrome #3: Kung Fu Fighting
Loading …
Old School vs. New School
Enter the Dragon vs. Hero
Enter the Dragon is seminal Bruce Lee. Yeah, yeah, Hollywood-made but come on, the Nunchaku scene is pure brilliance.
You have offended my family…and you have offended the shaolin temple.
So, you’ve got to watch Enter the Dragon. (Bonus: Dragon — the Bruce Lee Story, is not bad, IIRC.)
The New School is represented here by Hero. Again, more made for Hollywood stuff that the purists will poo-poo. But I say poo to that: Hero is awesome and then some. Great story, great fighting, and wonderful cinematography. Hero is not actually kung fu but wuxia (”martial arts chivalry”). Nonetheless, the wuxia movies (see also Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and House of Flying Daggers), remind us, like Bruce Lee, why Chinese-style fighting and fantasy is cool.
(Double bonus: Kung Fu Hustle and Shaolin Soccer are both brilliant. (Hustle was my favourite movie of 2005)).
_______________________
Moviedrome Winners so far:
Spirited Away
Blade Runner
I haven’t seen ETD for a long time, though I remember enjoying it. Probably for over 10 years. I own CTHD, Hero, and HoFD. Of those three I have to say that Hero is the weakest. A great film, but not as great as the other two. The repetetive structure is great the first time through but doesn’t stand up to repeat viewings. If it was CTHD vs ETD I would vote for CTHD, but I think my vote here will go to ETD.
Comment by a random John — February 7, 2006 @ 9:51 pm
Now this is a genre I can get behind. Thanks, Ronan.
To tell the truth, Maude is the real kung-fu movie fanatic in my marriage (I know, I’m a lucky guy) but I still enjoy a good Hong Kong flick. I’ve never seen a Bruce Lee movie though.
I suspect that Ronan had to pick Hero instead of Crouching Tiger so that the voting would at least be close. I thought Hero was beautifully shot, but had some problems in plot. I still think it is far superior to House of Flying Daggers, which had *gaping* plot holes that got in the way of enjoying the (way too few) fight scenes.
In all, this looks to be a good match-up!
Comment by NFlanders — February 7, 2006 @ 10:56 pm
In many ways, I find Hero to be superior to CTHD. I find the thematic color elements to be far more interesting than CTHD, and I also love the way it ties into a far more Chinese theme of sacrifice and national unity. CTHD was great myth, don’t get me wrong, but I think the nameless hero is far more interesting than Li Mu Bai.
Comment by Supergenius — February 7, 2006 @ 11:30 pm
I talked about what I considered to be the relative weaknesses of Hero and House of Flying Daggers here. As far as wuxia goes, Crouching Tiger was superior to either of them, I think. Enter the Dragon is a very different style of film–an out-and-out kung fu movie. Moreover, it is one of the best of it’s kind. Hence, I give my vote to Bruce Lee. (If the choice had been between Enter and one of Jackie Chan’s efforts, like Drunken Master, the choice would have been much harder…)
Comment by Russell Arben Fox — February 8, 2006 @ 8:11 am
Nice post, Russell. So many movie geeks ’round here…!
I agree that Chan vs. Lee would be a more natural match-up. One of my “rules” for Moviedrome, though, is that the genres be a little different. So, really, the match-up here is Kung Fu vs. Wuxia under the umbrella of “Chinese fighting.” The same went for “Japanimation” where I decided not to have Miyazaki vs. Miyazaki, but broaden the genre somewhat.
Comment by Ronan — February 8, 2006 @ 8:35 am
SuperG (#3): “. . . I also love the way [Hero] ties into a far more Chinese theme of sacrifice and national unity.”
You forgot totalitarianism. Hero has to be the most beautiful and skillfully made apologia for brutal tyranny in the history of film. Not that I mind. I love it. The movie, that is. Not the tyranny.
Does anybody else think that the title refers, not only to Nameless, but to the emperor as well? The movie is as much about Nameless’s heroic sacrifice as it is about the emperor’s heroic conquest to unify the country.
Ronan: “Again, more made for Hollywood stuff . . .”
At the time Hero came out a lot of people were saying that Yimou made the film primarily with the Chinese government in mind as a way to get them off his back by reassuring them that he was a Chinese nationalist. Of course, he also wanted to out-wuxia Ang Lee.
Comment by Tom — February 8, 2006 @ 8:41 am
Tom, I’ve wanted to take the time to really work through Zhang Yimou’s films and think about how Hero relates to it all. I tend to think that most “authoritarian” readings of that movie presume some sort of change in Zhang’s politics, that he was making, as you say, an apologia or self-account in order to prove something. I’m not sure that’s correct; I’m not certain the message of that film is really all that distinct from themes that have always occupied him. But that’s not something I can really spell out at this point.
Comment by Russell Arben Fox — February 8, 2006 @ 9:11 am
Gareth: You know when [Bruce Lee] is fighting Chuck Norris in “Enter the Dragon”?
Simon the Computer Geek: No?
Gareth: You not seen that?
Simon: No?
Gareth: Have you not??! I can’t…. that is a classic!
Simon: No, I’ve not seen him fight Chuck Norris in “Enter the Dragon”, I’ve seen him fight Chuck Norris in “Way of the Dragon.â€Â
Gareth: Ah, that’s what I meant, that’s what I meant.
Simon: Is it? Why did you say, have you seen him fight Chuck Norris in “Enter the Dragon?” He fights Bob Wall in both, but Norris is only in “Way of the Dragon”.
Gareth: Yeah, I know, so when he’s fighting Chuck Norris–
Simon: In what?
Gareth: In “Way of the Dragon.â€Â
Simon: Correct. At last.
Comment by Elisabeth — February 8, 2006 @ 10:09 am
Russell,
I think Hero stands alone as an apologia for tyranny (that’s not the only theme, but it’s prominent and overt) independent of how it fits into Yimou’s body of work and independent of whether or not he was trying prove himself as a nationalist. I went into Hero not having seen anything else by Yimou and not expecting an overt political theme and I came out thinking, “Wow. I’ve never seen a movie that argued for tyranny.”
The most prominent message of the film is that the emperor’s brutality was justified because it was for the purpose of uniting the land under one government. There was no condemnation of the heavy-handed, merciless means that the emperor employed to reach his ends. Nameless’s subservience to the cause was portrayed as virtuous and heroic. He forgave the emperor and gave up his own life because he was convinced that the ends justified the means. Otherwise he would have done his super stealth sword-stealing fatality move.
Here’s the question: if you were a hot dog would you eat yourself? Just kidding. Here’s the question: if you were a Chinese ruler would you like the message of this film? I know I would.
Comment by Tom — February 8, 2006 @ 10:39 am
I would eat myself, Tom. But how??
Comment by Supergenius — February 8, 2006 @ 11:31 am
I am going to second Tom. Hero felt like propoganda, albeit beautifully shot and well acted and choreographed propoganda.
Comment by John C. — February 8, 2006 @ 11:35 am
Propaganda it may be, but Hero doesn’t make me want to dissolve Parliament and give dictatorial powers to the Queen so she can incinerate the Welsh. So, it didn’t work. For me. And that’s all that counts. It’s a great movie.
Comment by Ronan — February 8, 2006 @ 11:44 am
If only we could give dictatorial powers to Trogdor and allow him to burninate the Welsh…
Comment by a random John — February 8, 2006 @ 12:02 pm
Curse you, Brits. You can correct my spelling, but you can never take away my FREEDOM!
Comment by John C. — February 8, 2006 @ 12:11 pm
rJ, I don’t think the Welsh live in thatched roof cottages anymore, do they?
Personally, that overall political theme is what made Hero a better movie in my view than CTHD, which lacked overall cohesiveness (not fatally so — it’s still an outstanding movie, which I love).
Comment by Supergenius — February 8, 2006 @ 12:21 pm
SuperG (#10), with brown mustard and sauerkraut.
Comment by Tom — February 8, 2006 @ 12:27 pm
I don’t think the Welsh live in thatched roof cottages anymore, do they?
Yes they do!
Besides now that I think of it, Trogdor doesn’t need dictatorial powers to burninate. The Welsh had better look out!
Comment by a random John — February 8, 2006 @ 12:40 pm
Ronan–
I don’t think Hero wants you to dissolve parliament, just ignore China’s outrageous human rights record, which, of course, everyone does.
Nothing makes up for ugly like money. (insert Trump joke here)
Comment by NFlanders — February 9, 2006 @ 2:19 am
It doesn’t make me want to do that, either Ned. It just makes me want to take up archery.
Comment by Ronan — February 9, 2006 @ 8:35 am
I think Hero is the most beautiful film I’ve ever seen. The scene with the falling leaves turning red is just so gorgeous.
But I like CTHD better. I just *love* the story.
I’ll have to think about this one, but I’ll probably vote for Bruce Lee. There’s all the precedent-setting he did. Plus, he is a hometown hero and all.
As for Flying Daggers, we bought it on dvd without having seen it, and proceeded to laugh our way through it. I can’t believe we actually watched the whole thing. It was like the actors wrote it and just wanted to incorporate as many make out scenes with different women as possible.
Comment by Susan M — February 9, 2006 @ 9:07 am
I bought Flying Daggers without seeing it as well, and ended up liking it quite a bit. Not as well done as Hero, but it also lacks that pesky political aspect mentioned above.
Always kinda dug the Bruce Lee vs. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar fight in “Game of Death.”
Comment by Pris — February 9, 2006 @ 11:14 am
Susan M, have you checked out the making of feature on Hero where they talk about making that scene? Apparently Zhang had some guy paid to watch the leaves so they wouldn’t miss the perfect moment. Also, the swirling leaves were hand categorized so that the best looking ones would appear in the foreground (yeah, I know you can’t believe everything they say, but it’s a good story).
Here’s a link to my take on Hero. I think a Hero/In the Mood for Love Moviedrome would have rocked. I still think of Hero primarily as a love story.
I’m detecting a theme in the moviedromes so far: genre definers vs. genre refiners. It’s hard to evaluate without a given set of criteria — kind of like MVP voting.
Comment by Bryce I — February 9, 2006 @ 11:44 am
And yes, Kung Fu Hustle and Shaolin Soccer are brilliant, must see films. Stephen Chow is a genius.
Comment by Bryce I — February 9, 2006 @ 11:45 am
I can’t remember if I watched the extra features or not. I also can’t remember if we own Hero. I’ll have to check.
Comment by Susan M — February 9, 2006 @ 11:50 am
I have to go with Hero here. Enter the Dragon felt very much like an artifact. It is not a well-made movie by any stretch of the imagination–the action, the suspense, the plotting were all sub-par (setting contemporary 007 as par). So the only thing it really had going for it was the Bruce Lee mystique, which wasn’t enough for me. I really couldn’t get into it. Hero, on the other hand, I found intriguing and beautiful start to finish.
Comment by Tom — February 20, 2006 @ 4:49 pm
As for Flying Daggers, we bought it on dvd without having seen it, and proceeded to laugh our way through it. I can’t believe we actually watched the whole thing. It was like the actors wrote it and just wanted to incorporate as many make out scenes with different women as possible.
Susan, you say that like it’s a bad thing.
I loved both HOFD and Hero. I think Western audiences are being unnecessarily harsh when they declare that Hero is fascist or totalitarian. Eastern societies value harmony of the group over the individual. Not only that, but I believe that Hero is (sort of) historical, and these are themes that are found in Chinese history and politics. I don’t think it’s necessary to agree with the protaganist’s ultimate choice to enjoy or appreciate the movie. CTHD, which I loved, is sort of artificially Eastern. It’s sort of superimposed with this Western individualism and romanticism that is not really true to the time and place of the movie, but really appeals to Western audiences.
Comment by BTD Greg — February 20, 2006 @ 5:03 pm
I think Western audiences are being unnecessarily harsh when they declare that Hero is fascist or totalitarian.
For me, calling Hero totalitarian or an apologia for tyranny isn’t a criticism of the film itself. It’s calling a spade a spade. I agree that we don’t need to agree with the protagonist’s decision or with the film’s theme to enjoy or appreciate it.
Comment by Tom — February 20, 2006 @ 6:39 pm
I voted for Hero, even though Bruce Lee kicks Jet Li’s butt.
Comment by Bryce I — February 20, 2006 @ 10:17 pm
Bryce, I voted for ETD for that reason (Bruce!) and for nostalgic purposes. It was my first martial arts film, which I rented (for $10!) on Betamax back in the 80s. Like Ronan said, the nunchuk (sp?) scene still causes goosebumps after all these years. Hero is rad, the falling leaves scene is, for lack of a more potent word-choice, beautiful. I guess I just like nostalgia more.
Comment by David J — February 23, 2006 @ 1:12 am
Hero was way overrated IMO.
Comment by clark — February 23, 2006 @ 11:16 pm