井底之蛙

11/27/2007

Jackie Chan and Louis Cha

Filed under: — Alan Baumler @ 9:42 am

Everybody knows about ping pong diplomacy, but we seem to have just completed a period of Canto-pop diplomacy, as Jackie Chan has recorded an “official” song for the Olympics. Canto-pop is of course the dreadful Cantonese pop music that infects every corner of the Chinese world. More generally I suppose it can be used to refer to the general pop culture of Hong Kong1 Just as Beijing used ping pong to try and create a connection with the U.S. so to the central government has embraced the commercial culture of Hong Kong as part of their attempt to create a Greater China. John Hamm discusses some of this in Paper Swordsmen which is partially about the rise of New School martial arts fiction but mainly about Jin Yong 金庸 and his work. Jin, a.k.a. Louis Cha, in addition to being the world’s best-selling author of martial arts novels is also the founder and long-time editor of Ming Pao once one of the more independent-minded papers in Hong Kong and now the center of a multi-national media empire. Zha was thus exactly the type of person Beijing would want to cultivate as they tried to re-unify the motherland. Zha was received by Deng Xiaoping at the Great Hall of the People in 1981, the first important figure from Hong Kong to be so honored. Zha would have been worth talking to just as a newspaper editor, but being an author of martial arts novelist made him even better. Although Beijing never accepted Tapei’s claims to be the “real” preservers of Chinese culture, after the Cultural Revolution a figure like Zha who had been critical of the CR and could make claims to be a preserver of Chinese culture was solid gold. As Beijing was trying to re-unify Hong Kong (and Taiwan) calling for a unified state was a non-starter, and so the ties of history and culture were needed. What is Chinese culture? Some bits of what might be called Chinese culture were not perhaps things Beijing wanted to play up, such as the Confucian concept of government by a class of incorruptible officials chosen for their skill rather than their connections. Everyone likes gong fu heroes, however, and given that so many of Cha/Jin Yong’s stories had strong anti-imperialist/ nationalist elements he was a perfect fit.

Jackie Chan is in some respects ever better for this than Louis Cha. He is, I think, about the last of the martial arts movie starts to have had real old-fashioned opera training. He is also a bit less prickly. Cha’s Ming Pao has been accused of cuddling up to Beijing a bit more than some would like, but he was also quite critical of Beijing, especially after 6/4. Chan is not critical of anything, as far as I can tell, and this sort of ties in the comic persona he takes on in most of his films.2 Bruce Lee does not work as well for Beijing’s purposes as a living symbol of Hong Kong culture. Besides being dead and thus unable to turn up for events far to many of his roles (and Jet Li’s) involved playing people who defied corrupt power-holders. The Jianghu (rivers and lakes) tradition that was at the center of martial arts fiction always had a problematic relationship with authority (That’s why so many of the stories have elements of Ming loyalism/ anti-Manchuism. That way one can defy cruel oppression and be loyal to the true rulers.) Jackie Chan has none of that (compare his Wong Feihong in Drunken Master with Jet Li’s in Once Upon a Time in China) If you want a nice, non-threatening haohan Jackie Chan is your man.

  1. At least I will use it that way in this post []
  2. I suspect that many of our readers know gong fu flicks better than I do []

4 responses to “Jackie Chan and Louis Cha”

  1. Hung Yu says:

    Not sure that I agree with you about Jackie Chan not being critical of
    anything. Many people in Taiwan will remember his comments about the
    2004 Presidential election being ‘the biggest joke in the world’.
    There are real problems with Taiwan’s democracy, but people from
    Hong Kong are not in the strongest position to point them out.
    Especially when done in such an ignorant fashion.

  2. Alan Baumler says:

    I did not know about that, but while it may be a critical point I don’t think it is something likely to make Beijing unhappy. Quite the opposite, it fits him in with the official line from the PRC quite well.

  3. Leo says:

    “What is Chinese culture? Some bits of what might be called Chinese culture were not perhaps things Beijing wanted to play up, such as the Confucian concept of government by a class of incorruptible officials chosen for their skill rather than their connections.”

    I don’t know on which planet you are studying sinology. Every confucian dynasty has been trapped in the spider web of connections
    from the very beginning. I would say the reason the government of then did not want to play up the whole Confucian thing more because
    it did not like the whole concept of traditional Chinese state at all. Admittedly, the China of 1981 was very xenophobic and anti-
    western, but in practice it was very western oriented and eurocentric.

  4. Sukhee Lee says:

    I see Alan’s point and tend to agree with him. Though hardly believable to any sane mind,
    martial arts novel can be dangerous to a dictatorial regime which is almost always staffed by one-dimentional people who tend to see only black and white in everything in the world. In the early 1980s,
    Chun Doohwan regime in Korea actually banned one martial arts novel,
    “Murim pacheonhwang 武林破天荒”, written by a former seminary student because the novel tells
    a story of an upright local hero who rose up against a tyrannical leader of the jianghu
    and finally overthrew him. Wow. This was one disturbingly sad and equally funny, from our vantage point,
    aspect of Korean dictatorship.

Powered by WordPress