
Jackie Chan’s Plan to Keep Kicking Forever - wallflower
https://www.gq.com/story/jackie-chans-gq-profile-2017
======
seanalltogether
One of my favorite "Every Frame a Painting" videos is on Jackie Chan. If you
haven't seen it be warned, it will ruin your view of almost all modern action
fight scenes.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1PCtIaM_GQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1PCtIaM_GQ)

~~~
icelancer
One of the best videos on cinema. You gain a huge appreciation for Jackie. IMO
his best work was with Benny the Jet, particularly this fight:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owz45n-QUNQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owz45n-QUNQ)

~~~
tomcam
WTF. They're both astounding. Not sure I ever saw anyone that close to
Jackie's skills.

~~~
Noos
Hwang Jang-Lee is probably better, and has had more of an impact. In Jackie's
older films, he plays many of the villains, and he is the one behind the
iconic Silver Fox villains like pai mei that Tarantino lifted for Kill Bill.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwang_Jang-
lee](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.

[https://youtu.be/ehqAgeewn_o](https://youtu.be/ehqAgeewn_o)

------
puranjay
I've always loved Jackie Chan's movies for their childlike innocence. The
logic in his movies is the logic of kids, which is also why kids absolutely
love his movies (as I did).

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.

~~~
maxerickson
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumble_in_the_Bronx](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumble_in_the_Bronx)

 _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._

~~~
dbingham
Yeah, puranjay needs to go rewatch some of Jackie's early movies again. A lot
of Jackie's later movies -- and maybe the ones puranjay is remembering --
explicitly _were_ kids movies. But many of his earlier ones definitely were
not. Jackie's characters often had a certain childlike innocence, but the
movies themselves did not.

~~~
matt_wulfeck
When you’re more successful you have more control over the direction and type
of films you’re in. Since almost all of his later movies are kids movies, I
think GP’s comments regarding Chan are valid.

~~~
dbingham
Don't get me wrong, I love Jackie and I think there's something to this. I
adored his movies when I was a kid, even his more violent ones, and still do
to this day. I just think it's not fair or true to paint all of his movies as
being childlike. Including some of the ones the poster directly referenced.

------
tvanantwerp
Jackie Chan is really idolized in the West, but not much is known here about
him as a person. My wife is from Hong Kong and has told me all about his
reputation as a womanizer. The typical Hollywood "Want to be the leading woman
in my movie? Sleep with me." sort of thing. He even has an estranged daughter
as the product of an affair.

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.

------
jogjayr
I agree with the article that even with Rush Hour and Shanghai Noon, Western
audiences really haven't seen the full Jackie Chan palette of tricks and
stunts. Some of the stuff he did in movies like Police Story, Armor of God and
Drunken Master is amazing. Supercop (Police Story 3, per Wikipedia) has some
of the most astonishing stunt work I've ever seen, and Michelle Yeoh matches
him stunt for stunt.

~~~
blawson
The fight scene towards the end of "Who am I" is still astounding.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61s3nnCn7xU&ab_channel=Marti...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61s3nnCn7xU&ab_channel=MartialArtsMovies)

~~~
aidenn0
That is my favorite fight scene in my limited knowledge of his oeuvre. All the
little things make it good (e.g. when Jackie uses the tie against one opponent
the other opponent immediately starts untying his own tie).

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.

~~~
dhimes
I always view his scenes as dance, actually- since I first saw him in Rumble
in the Bronx.

~~~
aidenn0
After writing that comment, I was thinking about how it compares to Martha
Graham's school of dance; many things that look very simple and pure on the
stage contain a staggering amount of attention to detail that the audience
will never notice, except by its absence in a poor performance.

------
pcr0
I love his movies but I hate him for becoming a CCP shill.

[https://www.buzzfeed.com/kevintang/jackie-chan-offends-
chine...](https://www.buzzfeed.com/kevintang/jackie-chan-offends-chinese-
netizen?utm_term=.myJx2qrnz#.blJqYMORz)

[http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/jackie-chan-
political-...](http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/jackie-chan-political-
role-china-417401)

[https://qz.com/720749/why-some-hong-kongers-think-
hometown-a...](https://qz.com/720749/why-some-hong-kongers-think-hometown-
action-hero-jackie-chan-is-a-coward/)

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/01/10...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/01/10/the-
anti-americanism-of-jackie-chan/)

~~~
crush-n-spread
Jackie is Chinese. He ought to be pro-China. In the WaPo article you linked,
he says the following:

    
    
      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.”
    

and

    
    
      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.”
    

Can you fault him for that? Perhaps it is the American standard that is wrong.
Perhaps it is wrong to talk poorly of your own state on the global stage. Just
because Americans (who own the fruits of 70-odd years of global dominance) are
willing to disparage their country to no end, does not mean that it should be
a standard for everyone.

t. Canadian

~~~
dragonwriter
> Can you fault him for that?

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.

~~~
crush-n-spread
You claim that having solidarity with your nation, family, corporation, etc.
is an enabler of evil. But what you see as evil probably looks a lot like
dominance, control and strength to the rest of the world.

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.

~~~
dragonwriter
> You claim that having solidarity with your nation, family, corporation, etc.
> is an enabler of evil.

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.

------
eih
Jackie Chan is more like Buster Keaton to me, just with some fighting and
beating added to slapstick. I wish there were more actors and actresses like
them, doing hard work, always rising the bar. After that, the cheap comedies
or action films could be better value added productions (they won't be cheap
in means of budget, I know). More like interdisciplinary works of art,
combining acrobatics, coreography, pyrotechnics etc. with more modern
technical aspects of film making. IMHO, without that effort and authenticity,
most of those films would be just huge wastes of money and time.

~~~
Noos
Jackie isn't even that good. it's annoying because no one really seriously
watches enough kung fu films to realize he isn't.

For example, Beardy (Leung Kar Yan) oozes charisma just by breathing, and does
fights like these:

[https://youtu.be/ViowFzbOxfU](https://youtu.be/ViowFzbOxfU)

...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.

~~~
eih
Thanks for the recommendations, I will definitely check them. I was into kung-
fu films back in VHS days but most of the time you couldn't see names on the
cover, just one exaggerated film title translation. There were great
performances but it is really hard to find them after all these years.

------
hinkley

        How many action star all gone? Only few can stay. Stallone's different. He's a legend. Other action stars already gone.
    

I find it cute that Jackie doesn't think he's a legend.

------
happy-go-lucky
My daughter and I have a lot of fun whenever we watch this fight from Who Am
I.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9m6qAaqRu2M](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_.

------
mattnewport
When did GQ writers start writing like Buzzfeed millennials? It's pretty
distracting reading writing like this.

~~~
paulpauper
I thought the writing was good

------
paulpauper
How does he have so much money if most of his movies are not that good or are
unprofitable. I don't get it. A private jet costs $40+ million . Who is giving
him all this money....I don't understand the math of how some people in the
film industry make so much money yet others make much less. I guess he is paid
a huge flat rate per film and if he does dozens of them it adds up.

~~~
jaxondu
He has over 100 movies and 5 decades of works. His many movies in 80s, 90s are
major blockbusters in Hong Kong, Taiwan, South East Asia, the reason he can
have Hollywood movies. His movies in the last 10 years are not major sellers
but they're only one or two lemons. He is still pulling in the crowd in China.
And his movies are still shown during peak Chinese New Year CNY in China,
indicating investors confidence. Most stars in China wants their movies shown
during this CNY period. He owns film studio, and you can go watch a movie in
"Jackie Chan" branded theatres in China. Most film deals he struck are based
on % of movie revenue. He is more business man than an actor. Are you serious
in doubting his wealth?

------
bitL
Imagine when the inevitable economy kicks in, it would be cheaper to render
retired/dead actors and continue their franchises instead of having new actors
entering the showbusiness with risky reception. Today's GAN video here hints
at that possibility not very far away. So in a way Jackie Chan can indeed keep
kicking forever...

------
Bromskloss
Did anyone find what the plan, mentioned in the title, was?

~~~
jv22222
Yes, please, someone please TLDR the plan...

~~~
contingencies
No plan, he admits defeat. "I know I'm not young anymore. I cannot continue to
make Rush Hour 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. How can I continue [to] do this kind of funny
face".

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."

------
NiklasMort
the best about Jackie's movies is: there is no need for excessive violence and
blood. Hollywood just becomes more krass every year. But Jackie shows well
that Action and Comedy can go together and still be family friendly

------
627467
I grew up watching Jackie Chan movies (and other great HK actors that
unfortunately can't remember) and I'm amazed of the influence they imprinted
in Hollywood. There was a time that influence was more obvious (with Jackie
Chan movies in Hollywood) but post Matrix you can just see how that style is
sort staple (albeit watered down) in modern movies.

~~~
Nokinside
Jackie Chan has repeatedly told that his inspirations were the silent greats
of Classic Hollywood: Buster Keaton, Charlie Chaplin, Harold Loyd.

“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...](http://www.nytimes.com/1995/01/30/movies/faster-than-a-speeding-
bullet-but-also-humanly-fallible.html)

------
ringaroundthetx
Its great to see that other movie markets can be bigger than America's now
with those Jackie Chan movies earning 250 million in China alone.

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.

