Tag Archive for 'Jason Statham'

Culturology 046 - JCVD Roundtable #1: Kicksport

As Nick mentioned his JCVD letter of intent over the weekend, Culturology will be joining in on the officially-begun-but-lasting-as-long-as-possible Van Damme Fest 2K9+, by posting occasional roundtable discussions focusing on a couple or a few of Jean-Claude's movies at a time. Why do I call them roundtables, as opposed to dialogues or crosstalks? Because, though the discussion is begun here by Nick and I, it will be continued by you, the reader, and all the other JCVD enthusiasts from all over the web.

Why JCVD? I think Nick and I both reveal our motivation in this first discussion, because it certainly relates to the still-recent movie JCVD, where Van Damme plays a washed up version of himself. We'll certainly talk about this more when we get to the actual roundtable about JCVD, so I won't say much now, but part of this exploration, to me, is about learning how, exactly, and how well JCVD earned the ability to do self-parody of JCVD. Also, it's about broadening our horizons here at Culturology, since we've been notoriously pro-Schwarzenegger and pro-Statham as action heroes, but need to get to the slightly different genre of kung-fu action, where for a time at least, JCVD reigned supreme (at least in terms of Hollywood movies). Also, JCVD is often overlooked, as that guy that did the splits all the time, and the guy that wasn't Steven Seagal or Stallone or even Chuck Norris. But to remind you all that the kung-fu wave of the late-80s early 90s produced plenty of more terrible fare, I present you with this scene from 1993's Undefeatable:

Roundtable #1

Nick:

I'm not exactly sure where to start. Thing is, I think we both generally agree that Bloodsport is superior to Kickboxer. However, maybe we disagree about the WHYs and HOWs of its superiority... at least I hope we do (because that would provide extra dramatic tension).

My general feeling is this: Bloodsport is an amazing cultural document with a fascinating history, while Kickboxer is fun martial arts film with a solid training sequence and strong final battle.

If I could draw parallels to other films, I would compare the feeling I get from Kickboxer to that of The Karate Kid, Part II, while Bloodsport feels more like Enter the Dragon. In my mind, those parallels run fairly deep - Bloodsport is a gritty "street style" film in many ways, a descendant of the Bruce Lee school of martial arts film making. It involves disparate fighters coming together for an international tournament of questionable legality. Kickboxer is more about personal vendetta and self-improvement, similar to the entire Karate Kid franchise. In particular, Kickboxer has echoes of The Karate Kid, Part II in both its final battle and in its "a small town is being bullied by local thugs so they send an outsider to defend it" conflict.

In this sense - as bizarre as it may sound - I see Bloodsport as a trendsetter, while I view Kickboxer as a perfection of its genre. It's hard for me to pinpoint exactly why I feel that way, but that's my general impression.

Pete:

I do agree that Bloodsport is the more satisfying movie. Are you calling it an "amazing cultural document" because it's based on a true story--or true life--of Frank Dux, or because of the position it holds relative to awesome fighting tournament movies? I think both aspects are legitimately interesting, especially since many of Dux's claims, apparently, came under fire, in terms of what kind of achievements he ever really gained. It certainly does owe quite a bit to Enter the Dragon, given the best-fighters-from-around-the-world-all-fight-in-this-one-tournament style, except it lacks anything that really makes a hero out of Dux the way that Bruce Lee is a hero at a larger level for overthrowing the tyrant that runs the tournament/compound that Lee infiltrates. But I think that Bloodsport expects us to perceive Van Damme as a hero of equal stature to Lee. It seems to me that this is premised on the fact that Van Damme is white (Belgian, and one of the great things that both these movies share is the unnecessary explanations of why Van Damme has his accent).

Both Kickboxer (which actually goes so far as to have Van Damme's character hailed as "the White Warrior") and Bloodsport, being movies from the late '80s, have a post-Vietnam flavor to them, dealing as much (allegorical, I suppose) with PTSD as with the actual violence of the war. Hence you have the white characters heading to the distant Orient to reclaim some lost manhood or dominance. This is also why, to me, the sidekick character in Bloodsportt is more interesting than the brother character in Kickboxer, since the brother just gets his ass kicked, whereas the buddy in Bloodsport actually seemed to be beating Chong-Li before his macho attitude and swagger finally opened him up to defeat. And, since you bring it up, Nick, the Karate Kid movies also deal quite a bit with post-Vietnam issues, especially Part III, where two Vietnam veterans do all they can to ruin the life of an 18 year old kid (which is, in my book, pretty much completely awesome).

For me personally, as much as Bloodsport is more enjoyable, Kickboxer holds a special position because it was a mythical movie for me during my childhood. I was aware of its existence for a long time, but never allowed to watch it (until I was old enough that my parents didn't try to stop me from watching R-rated movies)--but even then, for whatever reasons, I never watched it until very recently. But I very specifically recall, especially because I liked the original Karate Kid trilogy so much, that there was this movie out there, called Kickboxer, which was just the most awesome and brutal movie there ever was. It's not really all that brutal (paralyzation and rape aside), and the Muay Thai choreography ain't that great (especially compared to the more recent extremely awesome Muay Thai movies from Tony Jaa (I don't think I've ever seen more (simulated) broken bones in a movie than there are in The Protector)), but it really is an awesome movie, both for its own time and for the ages.

Nick:

My hyperbole-esque "amazing cultural document" line was referring to Bloodsport's place among awesome fighting tournament stories at large. Without a doubt, it was a direct influence on Street Fighter and the entire rich birth of fighting video games (that's not to say that Enter the Dragon wasn't as much of an influence -- just a different type of influence because Bloodsport was a contemporary of video games and even has that awesome arcade game sequence in it).

Speaking of which... how meta is that whole thing? Van Damme plays a tournament fighter in Bloodsport, wherein he plays a fighting game as his first real competition in the film. Then the arcade smash Street Fighter II comes out a few years later and totally runs off the Bloodsport-inspired resurgence of martial arts tournament stories. Then Van Damme actually stars in the Street Fighter movie a few years after that. Then, to tie-in with the film, there's an arcade game released with Van Damme's face and body literally in the role of Guile. That really takes the whole thing full circle.

Anyway, to address another one of your points, I think the Vietnam themes in both Bloodsport and Kickboxer are there, but I see them differently. Simply by casting a European man in both those roles, it completely changes the meaning. While the scripts may have tried to address PTSD and other such Vietnam themes more directly, the actual films don't play on those themes in quite the same way with JCVD in the lead. Though his characters have American connections in both films, he himself is of European origin, and thus the concept of the "white characters heading to the distant Orient to reclaim some lost manhood or dominance" is transformed into something else. In fact, the "best friend" characters in both films - Ray Jackson and Winston Taylor - are really the characters attempting to reclaim some sort of macho manhood or dominance. And things don't really work out smoothly for them. Instead, Van Damme becomes the cultural wild card for the audience -- he's not from the country where the story takes place, but he's also not from America (or, at least, he doesn't represent the traditional "American man"). I see Van Damme's characters in these films being less about some sort of post-Vietnam white manhood and more about cultural exchange. Maybe I'm wrong about that because I'm looking back on stories from 20 years ago and commenting on them now. But I also don't think that particular Vietnam war theme is as direct as you make it out to be (Rambo and 80s Chuck Norris seem to do a better job at that notion of reclaiming cultural dominance for the American white male).

As for significance, Kickboxer is definitely more culturally quotable. The Hot Shots franchise even parodied the final Kickboxer battle in full. But I think that Bloodsport is the more revolutionary of the two, especially considering that the film was shelved for years until Van Damme got it re-edited and eventually released. The Dux thing is cool, but that's only a part of what makes the movie, to me, a cultural landmark in action and adventure cinema. I mean, when was the last time a low budget action movie was able to struggle its way to the top? Comedy, drama, even horror - but almost never an action.

Pete:

Speaking of meta, have you seen JCVD? I think it's actually a pretty solid movie, not great, but certainly entertaining for Van Damme's portrayal of himself as a washed up former star.

I agree with you about the Vietnam stuff; I think certainly it's Ray Jackson and Winston Taylor that are the "macho" straight-up Americans set to conquer. But I don't think the writer would have bothered with the accent explanations if it weren't to clarify that Van Damme's characters ARE American. Think of Arnold Schwarzenegger: he's always just an American tough, with an apple pie kind of name, and his accent is just ignored. So yes, Van Damme, is a different kind of American, but it's crucial that he be seen as American (from both the writer's and the viewers' perspectives). In Kickboxer you see it because Van Damme has respect for Muay Thai where Taylor doesn't, in the early sequence where Van Damme tries to talk Taylor out of fighting. And then Van Damme goes on to learn that style, so yes in a way it is about cultural exchange; but, given that once Van Damme becomes "Asian" by learning their fighting, he is hailed by the crowds as "the white warrior" which still has implications for East/West relations. And yes, there are better examples of the post-Vietnam thing to be found in Chuck Norris (and actually, I should admit, I've never seen any of the Rambo movies the whole way through), but if not explicitly about the war, there's still some kind of Orientalism afoot here, in terms of Van Damme's needing to learn the ways of the Mystic Orient in order to conquer it.

That's a good point about Bloodsport's low budget. It's hard to imagine another kind of movie that could meet similar success, since they really only needed a handful of sets to make that movie. Especially when you compare it to higher budget versions of similar plots--essentially, the video game movies of Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat (it's been since college since I've seen either of these, but I feel like I would defend them both, and I know you love Street Fighter)--the more costly movies really don't do it any better.

Did Van Damme himself ever do any better than Bloodsport or Kickboxer?

Nick:

Yeah, I have seen JCVD. It's what got me started on my Jean-Claude Van Damme marathon. I think he's definitely self-aware and actually pretty sick of the Hollywood entertainment machine, and I find that refreshing. I don't think Arnold ever quite reached that point.

So far, I've watched all of Van Damme's catalog up through 1996 or 1997. None of those films have reached the heights of Bloodsport or Kickboxer. But that's as a whole film -- in general, his acting seems to improve with just about every movie I see (except for the huge dip when he made the Dennis Rodman team-up, Double Team, and the Rob Schneider team-up, Knock Off). I just recently watched The Quest, which is sort of like JCVD's big budget version of a historical Bloodsport. While the movie itself isn't as much fun as Bloodsport, it does have some finer moments (including excellent character work by Van Damme). The actual tournament fight in The Quest is probably perfects upon the concept behind Bloodsport, but it stills lacks some of the original's suspense and lo-fi charm. Interestingly, his best films following Bloodsport and Kickboxer seem to be complete departures from the tournament genre, those being Nowhere to Run and Maximum Risk.

AudioShocker Podcast #85 - The Death of Transporting Ballistic Fanboys

Nick is not feeling Fanboys, Neal is not feeling Transporter 3, Lil Flip raps about Kim Kardashian while Hurricane Chris raps about Halle Berry, Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever sucks, Nick is listening to a lot of video game music from vgmusic.com (Contra is the best), the guys reminisce about watching Booker T. play live, Death of Autotune prompts Nick to serenade Neal with Believe (you know, by Cher), the guys wanna know what happened to Alia Shawkat, and Nick talks about Captain America #600 (new) and Iron Man #182 (old).

 

Culturology 029 - Too Awesome to be Popular!

Only two weeks ago, I played the cry-like-a-baby-it's-the-last-week-of-my-semester card in order to put a band-aid on the hemorrhaging wound of the content-less culturology post for that week, so I must come clean now and state, for the record, that I am done with my semester (of Graduate school). In fact, I also recently lost my summer job, so writing this weekly column is the closest thing I even have to employment. Of course, Nick and Neal don't pay me to write this thing (well, they pay me in love and ice-pops, but that hardly pays the rent), so its not really like employment, so I don't really have to suddenly up the quality of my culturological investigations. But I think I set the bar pretty high for myself. At least I think I do, though objections are occasionally raised re: my generally pompous attitude, text-heavy, unnecessarily complicated ramblings on the various subjects tackled, and most recently, and absence of graphics or pictures, to assist the reader in understanding. This week, since I still don't have that much to say, I've at least tried to meet Neal's request for an added visual element, if for no other reason than to pad out an otherwise thin column.

(If this looks a bit off model, it's mostly because I just got a haircut, don't have a skinny, cartoon-style neck, nor any facial structures that are accurately represented there-above; there's a reason that Nick does the drawing and I do the writing in our collaborations.)

There! Now you can put a face, however shittily drawn, to the voice that has brought you these 25 or so deeply empirical studies into the machinations of the American Culture Industry. Though, as often discussed, as much as cultural neutrality seems possible, it never is. Like the movie I just saw over the weekend, Crank: High Voltage. I thought that this Crank was almost as awesome as the first Crank (which was completely awesome). The chart would look something like this:

Now, I realize that not everyone does or would think that Crank is awesome. Why? Because they are lame, and not ready for the future of action movies of this sort, which operate in the more-or-less linear fashion of "This is awesome. Now this. This is also awesome. Here's another awesome thing." etc. My appreciation of this movie was probably easy to predict, given my previous statements in favor of Jason Statham as pretty much the only true action start making movies right now. So it makes sense, that he's certainly a different type of action star, than say, Schwarzenegger (also completely awesome).

But I'm breaking one of my own rules, namely that I don't do reviews. So saying that the movie is awesome, but not awesome for everyone is not good enough. It's even hard to say that all action movies should be like these Crank movies, in fact, the opposite is probably the case. But there really is something to be said for movie-makers that adhere to this linked-awesome sequence model. What is impressive about Crank: High Voltage, then, is the fact that they managed to fit a lot more plot into this movie than the first one. That happens when you have a revenge movie, revenge always involves plot. I don't know that any of the techniques utilized (in terms of the scattered, wide-spread awesomeness) will ever leak back into more conventional action movies, though, not because of their frenetic pace, but because it requires a certain amount of meta-awareness on its viewers. It strikes me that (for lack of better terms) older and/or dumber viewers would be either a) put off or b) bored by the kind of we'll do anything if it seems cool kind of approach, since it might only be interesting to follow if you figure out that they're really only making the movie as a tongue-in-cheek affair, with the (already mentioned) mind towards awesomeness.

And it's box office showing, a paltry 11 million in two weeks, seems to back up my sense that, depsite its being way more entertaining than most other movies out there, Crank: High Voltage is too awesome for the average viewer. Bummer. Oh well, gotta cut this column short, in order to jump my motorcycle over a gorge.

SUMMER CULTUROLOGY SPECIAL!!!

Also, since its the summer, and the book-oriented section of AudioShocker seems to have fallen tragically by the wayside, I am going to implement a special Read-with-Pete Culturology Book Club to run for the next several months. Book Club commentaries will be seeded by myself in the post-space that used to be occupied by the Things That It Was or Wasn't Okay to Like. We will hope to avoid any general book-clubbing, like saying why or why not we liked given books or characters or plots, rather focusing instead on a more scientific appraisal of the various pieces of literature. Up first: The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao, by Junot Diaz. Totally appropriate for comics-readers as well. And it won a Pulitzer. Alright! Get Reading!

Culturology 010 - On Ironic Enjoyment

If I determined anything over my Thanksgiving holiday, it's that, if I'm going to keep up with writing these posts on a weekly basis, I'm going to have to do a better job of keeping up with and generating opinions about pop culture. My activities of the last week, culturally speaking, were rather limited, but were 1) Going to see a concert of contemporary classical music, performed by the New World Symphony, and 2) Going to an exhibition of contemporary art, the Carnegie International in Pittsburgh, both of which seem outside of the initially boundaries I established for myself, in terms of what I was going to write about here for Audioshocker. And with Art Basel coming up this weekend in Miami, things don't look to be getting any better.

Which I only mention because, although I am a cultural elitist, I am not a completely rigorous snob. The main symptom of not being a completely rigorous snob is what I would call snob-angst; namely, I am not completely comfortable with the fact that my tastes tend towards the obscenely intellectual. Who is to blame for this? Anyone but myself. So far as I can tell, most intellectualism finds its source in the same thing as the more popular affliction of attention-deficiency: boredom. Humans get bored. Most of life (well, middle-class Western life, at any rate) is really really dull. The solution to this boredom? Either to a) do a lot of trivial, technologically-driven stuff, and enjoy the comforts produced by the Western Culture Industry, or b) try to figure out why you're so bored all the time. As soon as one starts trying to determine why he or she is so bored all the time, one quickly finds oneself stumbling down the path to intellectualism.

That is, it's doing versus thinking. So the thinker, when angsty, notices the perceived non-thinkers, and the fact that they're doing things, and decides to do things him or herself. Generally speaking, these artifacts of thinkers doing things are the cultural touchstones that mean the most to me. This is where, as alluded to in past posts/comments, the issue of ironic enjoyment comes up, in that it's the intellectual appreciation (whether for laughs or disgust, or whatever else) of a cultural item that was generated without thought (I'm distinguishing, here, between "thought" and "planning"--planning being the system of ideas involved in generating pop-cultural commodities).

So, yeah, I ironically enjoy things too (the movie Congo, for instance, is a great example, I think, of a movie that can be ironically enjoyed), but in the end, I have an appreciation for craft through which I very consistently get more enjoyment out of finely constructed, thoughtful works than out of the sort of "slumming it" posture of self-awarely watching (or listening to) swill. Also, ironicizing crappy things in order to enjoy them is easy. Look at  the whole demographic of young American humans that are categorized as "hipsters": it's an entire subculture built entirely around ironized pleasures. Too me, even when hipsters are enjoying actually good things for actually good reasons, they're keeping their ironic stances in their back pockets, able to be reestablished at moments notice. This ability to fall back on irony so quickly is why the more rigorous appreciator of culture needs to be wary of it; the easiest position to take is not necessarily (in fact rarely is) the strongest or most useful.

At the same time, the ironic set realizes this too (the subculture collectively realizes), leading to what might be labeled as a "new sincerity" or "post-irony." Hence the success of such indie-pop musical acts such as Sufjan Stevens, John Vanderslice, Mountain Goats, Beirut, etc. So shouldn't I just be on board with this relatively recent renewed independent-cultural drive towards sincerity? Not really (as much as I do like some indie-pop), because it still has misappraised the usefulness of irony. The new sincerity still sees irony as a stance (or posture) rather than a device (whether literary, or critical), and is reactionary in motive, and therefore, post-ironic sincerity is--you guessed it--boring! Which was the problem that subcultures were trying to solve in the first place. And before you think that it's just me being bored, and not the hipsters, recall that the primary (intellectual) solution to boredom is thinking about one's boredom. Ironic appreciation is an inherently "smart" appreciation because it hinges on the fact that other people don't get what you're getting, but a thoughtless ("dumb") ameliorative such as making things that you specifically don't have to be ironic about abandons the intellect (however mismanaged, some intellect is still better than none) that generated the irony in the first place.

Then what, exactly, am I advocating? Based on what I've just written I seem to be contradicting myself a bit, since ironic enjoyment is seen as both being good and bad, and I'm also rejecting one already-existing "solution" to the problem of the ironic stance. But that's just it--irony, when utilized to enjoy things that suck, is a fine thing, but when it becomes a social posture its devalued, and any given escape route from that posture, other than abandoning it wholesale (becoming too smart for it) is destined for failure. The criteria that I use, personally, is gauging whether something is "Good for Good Reasons," whereby the good reasons can be ironic or not, sincere or not, and produced either intellectually or industrially. And further, those good reasons are a flexible thing, so I can recognize and decide whether other people's decisions towards goodness are good/reasonable or not.

Things that it is Okay to Like

7) Jason Statham. This falls in line with two obvious culturological trends: a) Generally speaking, in the world of movies (as opposed to film) I tend to enjoy action movies, and b) I tend to enjoy action movies because they straddle the line between ironic and actual enjoyment. With the recent release of Transporter 3, Statham seemed like the obvious choice for me to carry the banner for this week. The world fell in love with Statham after his rather brilliant, wry turns in both Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels, and Snatch (incidentally, I know some people don't like Snatch, but I think it's great), and then, seemingly overnight, Statham became an action star. I would have never guessed that such a thing would happen, but apparently, in addition to having a background in actual con-jobs and black market type stuff, which got him the job in Lock Stock, Statham also knew, like, Kung Fu, and could do (most of) his own stunts in action movies. So it makes perfect sense. So, to me, it's the perfect kind of success story. To me, action movies are a perfect example of how a pre-established set of viewing criteria allow the viewer to do very little work to appraise the movie itself, basically with an "Is this awesome or not?" query set. So, of course, there are plenty of lame action movies, but good action movies never need to be compared to anything outside of genre, and the critical viewer finally gets a chance to enjoy something on its own terms, while still maintaining the ironic distance of saying "I am watching an action movie, and this is an inherently ironicized (in that I'm "slumming it" in a genre picture); therefore I can enjoy this on its own terms."

Things that it is Not Okay to Like

7) The Vocoder. Shouldn't this argument be finished by now? What a terrible invention. But the fact that T-Pain is still on any amount of the pop-cultural radar-he just put out another album, right?-seems to think otherwise. I reckon that robo-sung hip-hop is an example of some people's guilty pleasure (I'm not worried about people that unthinkingly like it), though I don't know that the guilty pleasurers are driving the industry, but seriously, this whole douchebags-with-vocoders model of hip-hop is just plain tragic. I don't drive a car, so I don't listen to the radio, so I rarely have to hear any of the music for myself, but it still just seems, like, too bad that the vocoder is still thriving.

AudioShocker Podcast #56 - Beer Goggles Are Dangerous

Quantum of Solace would be better on valium, James Bond seriously needs some gadgets, the Bond girls are boring, All I Want is pathetic but it has typewriters, even T-Pain's top hat can't ruin the Ludacris video "One More Drink," the new Star Trek trailer makes Neal excited, and he wraps up his half with a review of a WSJ review of Slumdog Millionaire.

Then Nick takes over to discuss Uncanny X-Men #165-#175, the "From the Ashes" run by Chris Claremont and Paul Smith. Nick dissects their work, identifying the artistic nuances that make Smith's pencils so incredible while noting how Claremont introduced so many classic X-Men elements in such a short space of time.