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?
Movies of pretty much ever forign directors have been remade or rebooted.
So if you want to say that Hollywood has respect of nothing, then fine, bit it does not reflect on him at all.
Maybe you just need better friends?
Your anecdotes certainly aren't universal.
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.
But yeah, the injury is scary, amazing how he kept doing his stunts after that
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.
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.
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.
https://www.provideocoalition.com/art-cut-margaret-sixel-edi...
If we're getting into Jackie Chan movies, though, one cannot leave out Drunken Master
Drunken Master is pretty good!
Drunken Master II (re-released in slightly edited form as "Legend of the Drunken Master" in the US) is the one that's typically regarded as a bona-fide classic masterpiece.
I wouldn't recommend watching it. It's really missing a lot of the charm of the original.
I had to look it up, but I'm definitely referring to the first one in this case. I don't even think I've seen the second one!
Guess it's going on the list
They're good for kids because they are funny and full of action without being grim or dark. They're easy to follow, even for young kids, because of the lack of shaky cam and fast cuts.
They're good for adults because of all the crazy choreography and stunts.
Police Story is definitely my favorite!
Who Am I, First Strike, Police Stories, Armour of God, Mr. Nice Guy are all great, too.
Another one of his that I really enjoyed was Who Am I, but I haven't seen it in probably a decade.
I also really enjoyed his recent one with Pierce Brosnan— The Foreigner. It has a far more dramatic tone than the others, but it's great.
Not the same kind of movie (and not Jackie Chan), but Kung Fu Hustle is definitely worth a watch if you haven't seen it. I also always thought that Bjarne Stroustrup kind of looks like The Beast in Kung Fu Hustle (it's the hair and glasses).
http://www.stroustrup.com/xBjarne2018.jpg.pagespeed.ic.hePTB...
https://cinema1544.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/the-beast.jpg
Partially because Chan is older in those movies and is a little less physically capable.
But IMO mostly because of Hollywood's unfortunate style of directing fights and martial arts battles.
Traditional Hong Kong martial arts movies use a lot of wide and long, unbroken shots. You can really see the performers performing these physical acts of skill and beauty -- you see their entire bodies, it's almost like watching performers on a stage. Which is of course Chan's background.
In contrast, Western directors typically use a lot of fast, tight, jerky, almost seizure-inducing cuts. A closeup of a fist hitting a face. A closeup of an elbow hitting a knee. A closeup of a face showing somebody's reaction to the pain. Etc. etc etc. There's much less continuity. 98% of the scenes are probably shot by stunt/body doubles. It doesn't take a lot of talent for an actor to pull off a scene like that, at least not compared to the traditional HK style where the actors have had a lifetime of martial arts training.
Of course, those are vast generalizations. You can name plenty of counterexamples from both schools!
Perhaps one of the most best(worst) examples of hollywoods "type" of fight scene - yes this is from netflix but more in reference to any semi-large scale film production in the west.
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.
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.)