Stephen Chow and Postmodernism
Stephen Chow's movie "Kung-Fu Hustle" is now in the theaters of America, and the comments given by American critics are very interesting. Many hailed Chow as a master of kung-fu movies. His combination of the kung-fu and the comedy surpasses the movies of Jackie Chan. There was one comment which said that Chow's imitation of Bruce Lee is old and boring. On the whole, however, reviews are positive. The commercial for the movie (on channel 32 the other day) was even more interesting. It shows all the kung-fu fighting scenes, especially all those that parodies American movies like "The Matrix". With all the fight scenes, the first impression of the film one would get is that it is a very violent movie.
I think the Americans, from reading the reviews and watching the commercial, completely missed the point of the movie. "Kung-Fu Hustle" is not about kung-fu; I think it is about cultural nostalgia. In fact, I think the entire film is about cultural nostalgia and cultural identity. Like Chow's previous movie "Shaolin Soccer", the element of kung-fu is simply a way of expressing the real hybrid of the West and the East of HongKong culture. Kung-fu plays an important part of HongKong culture because China has been exoticized by citizens of HongKong when the Communists sealed off from the world at large. The element of fighting is arguably not primary in the film (although it is definitely necessary). So for the Americans to talk about how wonder the fighting and the graphics are is to completely miss the point of the film and turning it into a mere commerical produce, attracting audience with its violent excitations, typical of American culture.
This really gets me to think about the aim of postmodernism: as Gayita Spivak said, how dare we think we can actually understand other cultures! It is from this case I really see just how arrogant we can be when we entirely center our culture as THE value-system. Of course, once we open up this door way, there is nothing to prevent other groups from making the same judgement. When we apply this to literature, we can see why we need to dissolve or open up the Canon. Within the Western culture there is much tension from other minority groups: women writers, writers from the lower class, coloured writers, etc etc. Our ground now shakes, for how do we know just how many Stephen Chow's are out there writing brilliant works which get missinterpreted and miscommericalized?
"Kung-Fu Hustle" is a remarkable movie. A much more mature work than Shaolin Soccer, it is a beautiful reflection of HongKong culture, at least back in the 1960's. On the other hand, for the American viewer, just how exactly can he/she approach such a culturally personal work? I am very much baffled by this postmodern question.
I think the Americans, from reading the reviews and watching the commercial, completely missed the point of the movie. "Kung-Fu Hustle" is not about kung-fu; I think it is about cultural nostalgia. In fact, I think the entire film is about cultural nostalgia and cultural identity. Like Chow's previous movie "Shaolin Soccer", the element of kung-fu is simply a way of expressing the real hybrid of the West and the East of HongKong culture. Kung-fu plays an important part of HongKong culture because China has been exoticized by citizens of HongKong when the Communists sealed off from the world at large. The element of fighting is arguably not primary in the film (although it is definitely necessary). So for the Americans to talk about how wonder the fighting and the graphics are is to completely miss the point of the film and turning it into a mere commerical produce, attracting audience with its violent excitations, typical of American culture.
This really gets me to think about the aim of postmodernism: as Gayita Spivak said, how dare we think we can actually understand other cultures! It is from this case I really see just how arrogant we can be when we entirely center our culture as THE value-system. Of course, once we open up this door way, there is nothing to prevent other groups from making the same judgement. When we apply this to literature, we can see why we need to dissolve or open up the Canon. Within the Western culture there is much tension from other minority groups: women writers, writers from the lower class, coloured writers, etc etc. Our ground now shakes, for how do we know just how many Stephen Chow's are out there writing brilliant works which get missinterpreted and miscommericalized?
"Kung-Fu Hustle" is a remarkable movie. A much more mature work than Shaolin Soccer, it is a beautiful reflection of HongKong culture, at least back in the 1960's. On the other hand, for the American viewer, just how exactly can he/she approach such a culturally personal work? I am very much baffled by this postmodern question.
posted by Tristan at 4:39 p.m.
2 Comments:
Not everyone is looking for deep artistic meaning when they see a movie. And why should they? I have just as much right to see The Matrix for the wire fighting and visual effects than for the deep speculative fiction. The biggest problem with your post is that you seem to have no understanding that the majority of the people go to movies for ENTERTAINMENT, not to ponder about "cultural nostalgia". You want to see a movie about cultural identity, go ahead. But to criticize the audience who wants to enjoy the movie on a simple and visceral level, you have become deluded in your own fantasies.
hmm... looks like a good movie, but i wouldn't want to watch it at the theatres. BUT have you checked out 3 iron? That looks pretty interesting. :P Bravo to ur most recent post. I don't think i've ever seen you as... 0.o
Post a Comment
<< Home